1. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34219
    08 Aug '15 09:08
    To those whi take Genesis literally, here is a question for you:

    When Adam named all the animals, did he also name the kangaroo, the sabre tooth tiger and the African Wild Dog?
  2. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86400
    08 Aug '15 10:54
    Originally posted by CalJust
    To those whi take Genesis literally, here is a question for you:

    When Adam named all the animals, did he also name the kangaroo, the sabre tooth tiger and the African Wild Dog?
    I think the names may have been changed, just a teeny bit.
  3. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34219
    08 Aug '15 11:033 edits
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I think the names may have been changed, just a teeny bit.
    Well, I was also thinking about the naming of the more recent new discoveries of mammals: where is Adam when you need him?

    Maybe he just named the dog, cat, goat, cattle and camels.

    I doubt whether he named the African Paradise Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis in my garden, a truly magnificent bird. I believe the SA Ornithological Society named that.

    Sorry, Adam.
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148463
    08 Aug '15 11:18
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Well, I was also thinking about the naming of the more recent new discoveries of mammals: where is Adam when you need him?

    Maybe he just named the dog, cat, goat, cattle and camels.

    I doubt whether he named the African Paradise Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis in my garden, a truly magnificent bird. I believe the SA Ornithological Society named that.

    Sorry, Adam.
    Better not go there, you'll agree with me on evolution. 🙂
  5. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34219
    08 Aug '15 11:19
    Just in case somebody thinks I am making fun of the Bible, here's my point with this thread.

    I have pointed out innumerable times that the Genesis creation story (as is Noah's Ark) is a beautiful poem, a myth full of meaning and signifcance, but it is NOT a literal historical event.

    However, there are those that vigorously proclaim it to be literraly true and must be read in that way.

    To those I say: Genesis 2, 19 and 20 is written in exactly the same style of writing. Do you also take it to literally true, and if so, what about the animals that were only discovered in more recent times, or the animals that were historically (even in Hebrew and Aramaic) named by others, such as scientific societies?
  6. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34219
    08 Aug '15 11:56
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Better not go there, you'll agree with me on evolution. 🙂
    Feel free to take it anywhere you want, KJ.
  7. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34219
    08 Aug '15 19:14
    Just checking - is there anybody here that takes Gen. 2 literally?

    If not, isn't there a problem of logic involved, if not of honesty, if Gen 1 is literal and MUST be accepted as God's Word, and chapter 2 not?
  8. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    08 Aug '15 19:371 edit
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Just in case somebody thinks I am making fun of the Bible, here's my point with this thread.

    I have pointed out innumerable times that the Genesis creation story (as is Noah's Ark) is a beautiful poem, a myth full of meaning and signifcance, but it is NOT a literal historical event.

    However, there are those that vigorously proclaim it to be literraly t ...[text shortened]... at were historically (even in Hebrew and Aramaic) named by others, such as scientific societies?
    Do you also take it to literally true, and if so, what about the animals that were only discovered in more recent times, or the animals that were historically (even in Hebrew and Aramaic) named by others, such as scientific societies?

    You don't seem to have thought this through very well, so here's a thought experiment. Presumably Native Americans had names for animals that were unknown to European settlers. Just because those settlers "discovered" and "named" the animals, doesn't mean that the Native Americans hadn't named them. So too for Adam.

    I understand what you're going for, but this one....
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148463
    08 Aug '15 19:44
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Feel free to take it anywhere you want, KJ.
    🙂
  10. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34219
    10 Aug '15 06:50
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    You don't seem to have thought this through very well, so here's a thought experiment. Presumably Native Americans had names for animals that were unknown to European settlers. Just because those settlers "discovered" and "named" the animals, doesn't mean that the Native Americans hadn't named them. So too for Adam..
    Thanks, ToO. That's exactly what I mean.

    My question then relates to what, exactly, animals did Adam name? Presumably all the animals that were present in the Garden of Eden. What were these? The animals of the Old World?

    But it clearly says that God took ALL the animals to Adam, and he named them. But this could NOT have been ALL the animals, so this passage should not be taken too literally.

    And, of course, there is then a link to the animals that were taken into the Ark, not so?
  11. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86400
    10 Aug '15 07:002 edits
    Originally posted by CalJust
    However, there are those that vigorously proclaim it to be literraly true and must be read in that way.
    Many, and in fact I'd say most, of the Christians here are unable to differenciate between the truth of the Bible and the literalness of it. Much of the abuse I receive from these Christians stems from this problem.

    For examples: the tree of life is not a literal tree planted in soil with roots feeding on substance in the soil. Hell is not a literal place where billions of people will be char-broiled while being kept alive supernaturally by the loving Jesus, the beast with seven heads and ten horns is not a literal monster akin to a stop-motion creature from the Valley of Gwangi or Jason and the Argonauts.
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148463
    10 Aug '15 07:05
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Thanks, ToO. That's exactly what I mean.

    My question then relates to what, exactly, animals did Adam name? Presumably all the animals that were present in the Garden of Eden. What were these? The animals of the Old World?

    But it clearly says that God took ALL the animals to Adam, and he named them. But this could NOT have been ALL the animals, so this ...[text shortened]... ly.

    And, of course, there is then a link to the animals that were taken into the Ark, not so?
    Why couldn't it have been all the animals? Did God miss a couple that He did not present to
    Adam? Was Adam to busy watching TV? What would have stopped this from happening?
  13. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34219
    10 Aug '15 07:411 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Why couldn't it have been all the animals? Did God miss a couple that He did not present to
    Adam? Was Adam to busy watching TV? What would have stopped this from happening?
    Well, for one thing, the elephants and giraffes were in Africa 6000 years ago, and the kangeroos in Oz. I doubt whether there were either of them in Eden for Adam to name.

    Or do you think that they were there?

    And that is only the mammals. Do you think Adam named the beetles, the aphids, the snakes and scorpions indigenous to South Africa, or does the word "animals" in Genesis 2 only refer to mammals?
  14. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86400
    10 Aug '15 07:50
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Well, for one thing, the elephants and giraffes were in Africa 6000 years ago, and the kangeroos in Oz. I doubt whether there were either of them in Eden for Adam to name.

    Or do you think that they were there?

    And that is only the mammals. Do you think Adam named the beetles, the aphids, the snakes and scorpions indigenous to South Africa, or does the word "animals" in Genesis 2 only refer to mammals?
    "Beasts of the field and birds of the air"
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Aug '15 08:01
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Well, for one thing, the elephants and giraffes were in Africa 6000 years ago, and the kangeroos in Oz.
    The problem here is that you are using as argument, claims that a YEC doesn't believe anyway. Why aren't you asking how Adam named a shell fish that went extinct 10 billion years ago? Because you know they believe the earth is only circa 6000 years old. So why do you think they accept the findings that elephants and giraffes were in Africa 6000 years ago if they already reject most of science anyway?
Back to Top