Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Kababe on September 17, 2014, 06:25:42 PM
-
vooke, why is macro evolution wrong in your view?
Answer from two perspectives:
1) why is it incompatible with science?
2) why is it incompatible with the Bible?
Ahsante! :D
-
:d030:
Look, a demon!
-
:d030:
Look, a demon!
Huh??
-
The man's quarrel with evolution boils down to the fact that it does not explain how/where/why life began or got here in the first place.
He also tries to drive the discussion in the direction of DNA minutiae. It is akin to arguing that flatulence does not happen because the proposed mechanisms are not clear.
Telling him that origin of species is published ten years before DNA is discovered, or that DNA is not the best evidence for evolution, usually falls on deaf ears.
-
Evolution is downright rejected in medicine. They call evolution psychobabble BS. Sorry BS...
-
Evolution is downright rejected in medicine. They call evolution psychobabble BS. Sorry BS...
Really? Why?
-
Genetic research dominates medicine and evolution isn't genetically possible at the cellular level. They never mention evolution in medicine. The other is social stigma. Psychatrists hate psychologists and they generally don't subscribe to evolution and psycho theories. Medicate! Medicate!
-
The man's quarrel with evolution boils down to the fact that it does not explain how/where/why life began or got here in the first place.
He also tries to drive the discussion in the direction of DNA minutiae. It is akin to arguing that flatulence does not happen because the proposed mechanisms are not clear.
Telling him that origin of species is published ten years before DNA is discovered, or that DNA is not the best evidence for evolution, usually falls on deaf ears.
What's the evidence for macroevolution? Personally, I have never found biology to be remotely interesting. I love cosmology, but evolution bleh! My interest has always been whether it is incompatible with my religious beliefs, and since it isn't (disregarding the chance factor), I go with the scientific consensus, which seems to be for it, not against it. But if you could give me a neat (simple) summary, that'd be great.
Veri, what has evolution got to do with psychology? :D I love psychology, I regret the day I did not sign up for it. It has helped me a great deal. Some of it is whacko but there's a good deal of it that is helpful. There's a geneticist on another forum I follow and he is all for evolution. I wish I understood it better than I do.
-
I hate psychology.
It pollutes medical research. I'm doing a systematic review for cancer right now, at the part of assessing risks and biases, and the way psychologists conduct research is downright yuk. Exclude from the get go. All over the shonkers. Make shat up. No structure. Riddled with biases. They may as well write fiction. They really need to be more educated about conducting empirical research.
From my observation, psychologists are a hell of a lot more intelligent than psychiatrists though. I told that to a psychiatrist tutor who was deriding psychologists and omg he lashed out at me waiting for me to lash back. Me being thick skinned to his surprise, calmly quipped he was being inappropriate. He got in trouble. I think they sacked him. That geneticist who supports evolution is probably a scientist and not a health professional. Health professionals don't support evolution. Debating a medical person is like debating a brick wall. They can't justify those reasons other than the fact ACTACATA etc. peptide fatty tissue et al can't be explained by evolution. You don't want to question it. It'll become an ego fight.
-
The man's quarrel with evolution boils down to the fact that it does not explain how/where/why life began or got here in the first place.
He also tries to drive the discussion in the direction of DNA minutiae. It is akin to arguing that flatulence does not happen because the proposed mechanisms are not clear.
Telling him that origin of species is published ten years before DNA is discovered, or that DNA is not the best evidence for evolution, usually falls on deaf ears.
What's the evidence for macroevolution? Personally, I have never found biology to be remotely interesting. I love cosmology, but evolution bleh! My interest has always been whether it is incompatible with my religious beliefs, and since it isn't (disregarding the chance factor), I go with the scientific consensus, which seems to be for it, not against it. But if you could give me a neat (simple) summary, that'd be great.
Veri, what has evolution got to do with psychology? :D I love psychology, I regret the day I did not sign up for it. It has helped me a great deal. Some of it is whacko but there's a good deal of it that is helpful. There's a geneticist on another forum I follow and he is all for evolution. I wish I understood it better than I do.
The evidence for evolution is not in a nice neat bundle. It is similar to the evidence you find at a disturbed scene of a murder. Robert Ouko, Geroge Saitoti, Mercy Keino etc. No smoking gun or DNA gathered at the scene. Yet, there is little doubt they were murdered.
What constitutes the evidence is inferred from the convergence of diverse disciplines. For me it boils down to adaptation, shared features, fossil record, geologic history etc.
Adaptation. Fish and seaweed live in water. Lions on land. Polar bears in the North Pole. Camels and cactus in the hot deserts. etc etc
So what?
If you ask any geologist, climatologist, etc. The earth has always been changing. Oxygen levels, temperatures, sea-levels, climate, land masses etc.
The fossil record. Fossils that correspond to earlier geologic periods are different than those from different periods.
Different creatures were living in different geologic times and niches. They are present in some and absent in others.
Shared features. If you look at apes. It is obvious they look like us or other primates. Cows resemble other bovines. Pigs look like warthogs. Some of these species can even cross-breed.
Extinctions. The lineage that can thrive, continues. The poorly adapted, sickly etc perish - more like waning off. When you look at the fossil record for different geological periods, some of the dominant species today, do not appear before a certain time. There are no lion bones from the cretaceous.
The creatures existing today, have replaced or thrived from the absence of extinct hitherto(copyright, kunadawa) strong creatures.
-
Sunshine,
What the hell is macro/mini/micro-evilution?
-
Sunshinen
Evolution and Creation are incompatible because.
1. Evolution was invented by atheist (Darwin dumped christianity to promot the heresy.
2. Creation is supernatural. SupernaturAl cannot be tested with physical scientific theories.
Now do you believe that life evolved without the intervention of supernatural power?
The bible says that a fool says in his heart there is no God.
-
Sunshine,
What the hell is macro/mini/micro-evilution?
I hope y'all realize its kababe.
Macroevolution, evolution across species, micro, evolution within species. So macro says a species can evolve from another species.
-
Sunshinen
Evolution and Creation are incompatible because.
1. Evolution was invented by atheist (Darwin dumped christianity to promot the heresy.
2. Creation is supernatural. SupernaturAl cannot be tested with physical scientific theories.
Now do you believe that life evolved without the intervention of supernatural power?
The bible says that a fool says in his heart there is no God.
Bittertruth, no. I don't believe life evolved without the intervention of supernatural power. Does evolution really require I believe that?
-
I think I get what you are saying.
Question.
Do you believe Adam was the FIRST man God created?
-
I think I get what you are saying.
Question.
Do you believe Adam was the FIRST man God created?
I'm actually not saying anything, I'm interested in why you think its incompatible with the Bible and science. That is, what evidence is against it (science) and why it is irreconcilable with the Bible in your view.
As to your question, I believe Adam was the first man, but like I said, i'm genuinely interested in your view.
-
Am answering you and you are quarter way there....
Hmm.....Adam was the first man.
Any idea when the first man was created?
-
Am answering you and you are quarter way there....
Hmm.....Adam was the first man.
Any idea when the first man was created?
Nope! No idea.
-
Matthew and Luke have genealogies one starting with Jesus and ending with Adam while the other starts with Adam and stops with Jesus.
A few facts;
1. There are FINITE generations/ancestors between Jesus and Adam
2. We know when Jesus was born
With these two facts, is it possible to estimate when Adam was created?
Am answering you and you are quarter way there....
Hmm.....Adam was the first man.
Any idea when the first man was created?
Nope! No idea.
-
OK, so lets say Adam was here 6,000 years ago, according to the math you're about to perform.
What about macroevolution contradicts this?
What scientific evidence is against macroevolution, that is, are you using only the Bible (your interpretation) to refute it?
-
vooke, You went to sleep, I guess, will wait for your answer tomorrow.
The genealogies of Christ, how are you able to estimate time? Are you sure they include every single member in the family tree/no skipped generations? Is the 6,000 years based on the genealogy alone or some other evidence? In any case, even with the 6,000 years, I don't get why macroevolution is incompatible.
Ulale salama
-
vooke, You went to sleep, I guess, will wait for your answer tomorrow.
The genealogies of Christ, how are you able to estimate time? Are you sure they include every single member in the family tree/no skipped generations? Is the 6,000 years based on the genealogy alone or some other evidence? In any case, even with the 6,000 years, I don't get why macroevolution is incompatible.
Ulale salama
The man believes the whole universe is 6,000 years old. Maybe a day less. Maybe a day more. That the only major changes happened over a six day span in the beginning. That leaves just a few seconds for evolution to do its tricks.
-
No we won't 'say'. Give me an estimate of when Adam was created according to scriptures which I trust you hold in high esteem as the Revealed Word of the Eternal God
Luke 3:23-38King James Version (KJV)
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Alternatively, from this genealogy, can we pick dates/years over which some of the earliest individuals mentioned here lived? Do we know when King David reigned? What about when Jacob was in Egypt? Let's focus on Jacob. The next question is what number of years lapsed between Jacob/Isaac/Abraham AND Adam.
Please dig Catholic Encyclopaedia and supply us with approximate dates
OK, so lets say Adam was here 6,000 years ago, according to the math you're about to perform.
What about macroevolution contradicts this?
What scientific evidence is against macroevolution, that is, are you using only the Bible (your interpretation) to refute it?
-
Sorry,
I came back from a long and rocky drive deep in Murang'a, had a few brushes with death but am cool.
vooke, You went to sleep, I guess, will wait for your answer tomorrow.
The genealogies of Christ, how are you able to estimate time? Are you sure they include every single member in the family tree/no skipped generations? Is the 6,000 years based on the genealogy alone or some other evidence? In any case, even with the 6,000 years, I don't get why macroevolution is incompatible.
Ulale salama
-
No we won't 'say'. Give me an estimate of when Adam was created according to scriptures which I trust you hold in high esteem as the Revealed Word of the Eternal God
Luke 3:23-38King James Version (KJV)
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Alternatively, from this genealogy, can we pick dates/years over which some of the earliest individuals mentioned here lived? Do we know when King David reigned? What about when Jacob was in Egypt? Let's focus on Jacob. The next question is what number of years lapsed between Jacob/Isaac/Abraham AND Adam.
Please dig Catholic Encyclopaedia and supply us with approximate dates
OK, so lets say Adam was here 6,000 years ago, according to the math you're about to perform.
What about macroevolution contradicts this?
What scientific evidence is against macroevolution, that is, are you using only the Bible (your interpretation) to refute it?
-
The bible is mostly a work fiction that you cannot subject to serious thinking or inquiry.
-
It's history and the future recorded by the prophets. That in itself is powerful. I've had dreams about prophets. I spoke to them in my dreams. We'd chat about seasons.
-
Mostly folklore of the jewish people...at best the recent history of middle east and north africa...and greco-romans. It cannot be qualify for serious inquiry worse a scientific inquisition.
Heck the bible cannot even qualify for history lesson in a history class.
It's history and the future recorded by the prophets. That in itself is powerful. I've had dreams about prophets. I spoke to them in my dreams. We'd chat about seasons.
-
No we won't 'say'. Give me an estimate of when Adam was created according to scriptures which I trust you hold in high esteem as the Revealed Word of the Eternal God
Luke 3:23-38King James Version (KJV)
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Alternatively, from this genealogy, can we pick dates/years over which some of the earliest individuals mentioned here lived? Do we know when King David reigned? What about when Jacob was in Egypt? Let's focus on Jacob. The next question is what number of years lapsed between Jacob/Isaac/Abraham AND Adam.
Please dig Catholic Encyclopaedia and supply us with approximate dates
OK, so lets say Adam was here 6,000 years ago, according to the math you're about to perform.
What about macroevolution contradicts this?
What scientific evidence is against macroevolution, that is, are you using only the Bible (your interpretation) to refute it?
vooke, I don't need to dig the Catholic encyclopedia. And you are right, I hold the scriptures in the greatest esteem. Here's what I know about jewish genealogies, they would skip generations. Hence, "son of X" may as well be "great great great grandson of X", and "father of X", may as well be "great great grandfather of X", and arrange genealogies depending on the function or purpose of that particular genealogy.
Hence, Jesus is called "son of David" in St. Mathew and it is St. Mathew's Gospel that gives a genealogy emphasizing his descent from King David. The point is not to list every single ancestor but to provide a blood descent from King David. Similarly, in St. Luke's Gospel, it is emphasized that Jesus is "son of Adam", and hence truly man, and this genealogy emphasizes his blood descent from Adam.
Genealogies also varied in depth—that is, they varied in the number of generations included. Most of the time, they were not meant to be comprehensive. It was a common practice to skip generations, depending on the genealogy’s purpose (e.g., to establish inheritance rights, citizenship, or even the legal right of a king to rule).
In ascending genealogies, the Hebrew word ben can mean either “son,” or a more distant descendant (in Genesis 29:5, it denotes Laban, who was actually Nahor's grandson).
Likewise, in descending genealogies, the Hebrew word av can mean either “father” or a more distant ancestor. For example, when Matthew says that Joram was the “father” of Uzziah (see Matthew 1:9)—also known as Azariah— he’s actually skipping three generations (compare to 1 Chronicles 3:10-12).
We also know (by comparing other OT accounts) that the four generations from Perez to Amminadab spanned roughly 450 years—so there are obviously gaps at that point in the genealogy (because we would ordinarily expect four generations to encompass less than 200 years). The only people who have a problem with any of this are modern readers who are unfamiliar with the nature, character, and purpose of genealogies in ancient Israel.
http://jewishroots.net/library/faq/faq_the_genealogy_of_jesus.html
-
Which is why I aksd for the EARLIEST date we can fix on Adam.
Regardless of how Jews approached Genealogies, Adam can't have been created more than 8,000 years BC, and most certainly stretching all logic not 50,000 BC. So, can we take a liberal 50,000BC to be Adam's creation date?
vooke, I don't need to dig the Catholic encyclopedia. And you are right, I hold the scriptures in the greatest esteem. Here's what I know about jewish genealogies, they would skip generations. Hence, "son of X" may as well be "great great great grandson of X", and "father of X", may as well be "great great grandfather of X", and arrange genealogies depending on the function or purpose of that particular genealogy.
Hence, Jesus is called "son of David" in St. Mathew and it is St. Mathew's Gospel that gives a genealogy emphasizing his descent from King David. The point is not to list every single ancestor but to provide a blood descent from King David. Similarly, in St. Luke's Gospel, it is emphasized that Jesus is "son of Adam", and hence truly man, and this genealogy emphasizes his blood descent from Adam.
Genealogies also varied in depth—that is, they varied in the number of generations included. Most of the time, they were not meant to be comprehensive. It was a common practice to skip generations, depending on the genealogy’s purpose (e.g., to establish inheritance rights, citizenship, or even the legal right of a king to rule).
In ascending genealogies, the Hebrew word ben can mean either “son,” or a more distant descendant (in Genesis 29:5, it denotes Laban, who was actually Nahor's grandson).
Likewise, in descending genealogies, the Hebrew word av can mean either “father” or a more distant ancestor. For example, when Matthew says that Joram was the “father” of Uzziah (see Matthew 1:9)—also known as Azariah— he’s actually skipping three generations (compare to 1 Chronicles 3:10-12).
We also know (by comparing other OT accounts) that the four generations from Perez to Amminadab spanned roughly 450 years—so there are obviously gaps at that point in the genealogy (because we would ordinarily expect four generations to encompass less than 200 years). The only people who have a problem with any of this are modern readers who are unfamiliar with the nature, character, and purpose of genealogies in ancient Israel.
http://jewishroots.net/library/faq/faq_the_genealogy_of_jesus.html
-
vooke, knowing the approach, nature and purpose of jewish genealogies means any attempt at "calculating" the chronological time-scale based on Biblical genealogies is completely meaningless. The whole claim of a 6,000 year old earth claiming to be based on the Bible is not true. How can anyone begin to claim or "guestimate" without knowing the actual number of Christ's ancestors?
Secondly, as to your experiment, lets say it was 30,000 years. (I had conceded 6,000 years for the sake of moving the discussion forward but you insisted on proving a particular age based on Christ's genealogies :D)
Why is macroevolution incompatible with the Bibilia? (I guess you are not interested in the science bit)
-
Those who attempt to discredit genealogies do so on dubious reasons which I will not dwelve into. Fact of the matter is the geneologies in the scriptures taken together place Creation week no earlier than 4000 BC
Micro/Macro-evilution are loose terms I have learnt to avoid. SO the question is whether evilution is compatible with Christianity
If Adam was created 50,000 years ago,when did he evolve? Or had he been evolving gradually for millions of years before?
vooke, knowing the approach, nature and purpose of jewish genealogies means any attempt at "calculating" the chronological time-scale based on Biblical genealogies is completely meaningless. The whole claim of a 6,000 year old earth claiming to be based on the Bible is not true. How can anyone begin to claim or "guestimate" without knowing the actual number of Christ's ancestors?
Secondly, as to your experiment, lets say it was 30,000 years. (I had conceded 6,000 years for the sake of moving the discussion forward but you insisted on proving a particular age based on Christ's genealogies :D)
Why is macroevolution incompatible with the Bibilia? (I guess you are not interested in the science bit)
-
Those who attempt to discredit genealogies do so on dubious reasons which I will not dwelve into. Fact of the matter is the geneologies in the scriptures taken together place Creation week no earlier than 4000 BC
Micro/Macro-evilution are loose terms I have learnt to avoid. SO the question is whether evilution is compatible with Christianity
If Adam was created 50,000 years ago,when did he evolve?
vooke, knowing the approach, nature and purpose of jewish genealogies means any attempt at "calculating" the chronological time-scale based on Biblical genealogies is completely meaningless. The whole claim of a 6,000 year old earth claiming to be based on the Bible is not true. How can anyone begin to claim or "guestimate" without knowing the actual number of Christ's ancestors?
Secondly, as to your experiment, lets say it was 30,000 years. (I had conceded 6,000 years for the sake of moving the discussion forward but you insisted on proving a particular age based on Christ's genealogies :D)
Why is macroevolution incompatible with the Bibilia? (I guess you are not interested in the science bit)
What dubious reasons? You mean the fact that they take genealogies as they were taken by Jews, they use the language of the jews as they were used by jews and not as a 21st century English-speaking KJV reading literalist would have it? I am also of the mind to link you to an article that shows gaps in the Mosaic genealogies, hence the only way to reconcile it is to assume the Bible has mistakes/errors or to accept that none of those genealogies in the Bible are in any way comprehensive. I don't see how someone can then insist that he has calculated an age from that, it just seems silly. http://www.reasons.org/articles/from-noah-to-abraham-to-moses-proof-of-genealogical-gaps-in-genesis-part-2
About Adam, when did he evolve? I don't recall any scientific claim that man has evolved in the past 50,000 years. I would put his evolution between the time he was soil and when God breathed a soul into him. I have no idea how long that time was, though.
-
If Adam evolved from the 'the time he was soil and when God breathed a soul into him' clearly the literal Adam was not the first man on earth. You have a problem with that?
What dubious reasons? You mean the fact that they take genealogies as they were taken by Jews, they use the language of the jews as they were used by jews and not as a 21st century English-speaking KJV reading literalist would have it? I am also of the mind to link you to an article that shows gaps in the Mosaic genealogies, hence the only way to reconcile it is to assume the Bible has mistakes/errors or to accept that none of those genealogies in the Bible are in any way comprehensive. I don't see how someone can then insist that he has calculated an age from that, it just seems silly. http://www.reasons.org/articles/from-noah-to-abraham-to-moses-proof-of-genealogical-gaps-in-genesis-part-2
About Adam, when did he evolve? I don't recall any scientific claim that man has evolved in the past 50,000 years. I would put his evolution between the time he was soil and when God breathed a soul into him. I have no idea how long that time was, though.
-
If Adam evolved from the 'the time he was soil and when God breathed a soul into him' clearly the literal Adam was not the first man on earth. You have a problem with that?
What dubious reasons? You mean the fact that they take genealogies as they were taken by Jews, they use the language of the jews as they were used by jews and not as a 21st century English-speaking KJV reading literalist would have it? I am also of the mind to link you to an article that shows gaps in the Mosaic genealogies, hence the only way to reconcile it is to assume the Bible has mistakes/errors or to accept that none of those genealogies in the Bible are in any way comprehensive. I don't see how someone can then insist that he has calculated an age from that, it just seems silly. http://www.reasons.org/articles/from-noah-to-abraham-to-moses-proof-of-genealogical-gaps-in-genesis-part-2
About Adam, when did he evolve? I don't recall any scientific claim that man has evolved in the past 50,000 years. I would put his evolution between the time he was soil and when God breathed a soul into him. I have no idea how long that time was, though.
vooke, what is your definition for "man"?
-
Whatever the Bible calls MAN. You have an alternative definition?
vooke, what is your definition for "man"?
-
The bible is in line with scientific inquisition.
You forgot that Newton's third law states that "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." Evolutionists/atheists have yet to figure out how the big bang is possible when there was no action to provide the reaction. If, however, God provided the action, the big bang and creation of the universe suddenly becomes a possibility. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." -John:1:3 (NIV)
Mostly folklore of the jewish people...at best the recent history of middle east and north africa...and greco-romans. It cannot be qualify for serious inquiry worse a scientific inquisition.
Heck the bible cannot even qualify for history lesson in a history class.
It's history and the future recorded by the prophets. That in itself is powerful. I've had dreams about prophets. I spoke to them in my dreams. We'd chat about seasons.
-
Whatever the Bible calls MAN. You have an alternative definition?
vooke, what is your definition for "man"?
I asked because we have a discrepancy on what "the first man" was. To me, whatever homos may have existed, they were not the same thing as Adam, who I consider "first man".
-
The bible is in line with scientific inquisition.
You forgot that Newton's third law states that "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." Evolutionists/atheists have yet to figure out how the big bang is possible when there was no action to provide the reaction. If, however, God provided the action, the big bang and creation of the universe suddenly becomes a possibility. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." -John:1:3 (NIV)
Mostly folklore of the jewish people...at best the recent history of middle east and north africa...and greco-romans. It cannot be qualify for serious inquiry worse a scientific inquisition.
Heck the bible cannot even qualify for history lesson in a history class.
It's history and the future recorded by the prophets. That in itself is powerful. I've had dreams about prophets. I spoke to them in my dreams. We'd chat about seasons.
Amen, Amen and Amen!!! That is my approach as well. God is everywhere and in everything and nothing was made except through him, by him, for him, so there's no need for me to have a silly fight with science. God is behind it all! :D Just as there's no fight with gravity or the speed of light, so there is no fight with scientific theories. A materialist may look and say, its all material, but for me, even gravity and light are dependent on God in order to be from moment to moment. Problem is to insist the Bible is a physics text-book instead of a book of spiritual truths, then you are all up in knots.
-
We don't have multiple definitions of MAN in the scriptures.
Adam was a MAN, Enock was a man, Abraham was a man, Jesus was a man,vooke is a man
Now Evilution tells you that MAN has been around for at least 200,000 years. if Adam was the FIRST MAN, Adam must have been around for not later than 200,000 years ago. Is this sound logical conclusion?
So you have two problems;
1. Fitting Biblical history (not more than 10,000 years by ANY stretch of imagination) of man into 200,000 years of Evilution
2. Explaining how Adam the FIRST MAN brought about your 'original sin' seeing there must have been thousands/millions of his kind BEFORE him necessary for begetting him and evolving him into God's image which was then breathed into becoming a living spirit
I asked because we have a discrepancy on what "the first man" was. To me, whatever homos may have existed, they were not the same thing as Adam, who I consider "first man".
-
The bible is in line with scientific inquisition.
You forgot that Newton's third law states that "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." Evolutionists/atheists have yet to figure out how the big bang is possible when there was no action to provide the reaction. If, however, God provided the action, the big bang and creation of the universe suddenly becomes a possibility. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." -John:1:3 (NIV)
Mostly folklore of the jewish people...at best the recent history of middle east and north africa...and greco-romans. It cannot be qualify for serious inquiry worse a scientific inquisition.
Heck the bible cannot even qualify for history lesson in a history class.
It's history and the future recorded by the prophets. That in itself is powerful. I've had dreams about prophets. I spoke to them in my dreams. We'd chat about seasons.
Amen, Amen and Amen!!! That is my approach as well. God is everywhere and in everything and nothing was made except through him, by him, for him, so there's no need for me to have a silly fight with science. God is behind it all! :D Just as there's no fight with gravity or the speed of light, so there is no fight with scientific theories. A materialist may look and say, its all material, but for me, even gravity and light are dependent on God in order to be from moment to moment. Problem is to insist the Bible is a physics text-book instead of a book of spiritual truths, then you are all up in knots.
KD, you're really stretching this. So if Adam was the first man - having evolved from a whatever, from whom did eve evolve?
-
We don't have multiple definitions of MAN in the scriptures.
Adam was a MAN, Enock was a man, Abraham was a man, Jesus was a man,vooke is a man
Now Evilution tells you that MAN has been around for at least 200,000 years. if Adam was the FIRST MAN, Adam must have been around for not later than 200,000 years ago. Is this sound logical conclusion?
So you have two problems;
1. Fitting Biblical history (not more than 10,000 years by ANY stretch of imagination) of man into 200,000 years of Evilution
2. Explaining how Adam the FIRST MAN brought about your 'original sin' seeing there must have been thousands/millions of his kind BEFORE him necessary for begetting him and evolving him into God's image which was then breathed into becoming a living spirit
I asked because we have a discrepancy on what "the first man" was. To me, whatever homos may have existed, they were not the same thing as Adam, who I consider "first man".
That is a ridiculous "reasoning" process. I don't have to follow what science defines as a "man" to speak of Adam, they use anatomy, don't care about the soul, I do. Unless you are saying that the Biblical authors base their definition on modern science or that modern science bases its definition on theological concepts, then what you are saying and the point you are trying to extrapolate from it makes zero sense.
-
The bible is in line with scientific inquisition.
You forgot that Newton's third law states that "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." Evolutionists/atheists have yet to figure out how the big bang is possible when there was no action to provide the reaction. If, however, God provided the action, the big bang and creation of the universe suddenly becomes a possibility. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." -John:1:3 (NIV)
Amen, Amen and Amen!!! That is my approach as well. God is everywhere and in everything and nothing was made except through him, by him, for him, so there's no need for me to have a silly fight with science. God is behind it all! :D Just as there's no fight with gravity or the speed of light, so there is no fight with scientific theories. A materialist may look and say, its all material, but for me, even gravity and light are dependent on God in order to be from moment to moment. Problem is to insist the Bible is a physics text-book instead of a book of spiritual truths, then you are all up in knots.
KD, you're really stretching this. So if Adam was the first man - having evolved from a whatever, from whom did eve evolve?
Hey KD (Kadude!), :D
Eve came from Adam, we all did! We are "ben" Adam, binadam, Adamites, children of Adam, including Eve in a sense.
My query: the Bible says God formed Adam's body, not from nothingness, but from pre-existent matter...dead matter in fact (the earth). Evolution says our bodies were formed from pre-existent living matter proximately, but ultimately from some form of dead matter of this world that somehow "came alive" and then all forms of species derived from it.
My point? I don't see why someone who has no problem believing that a living body can come from dead matter, that is, to believe that dead matter can change (evolve!) into living matter and even a human body at that-- Why this same person is all up in arms when it is suggested that one living matter can come from another living matter. Seems to me that the latter is far less miraculous than the first yet creationists appear to believe the latter is impossible but the first very possible. Huh?
-
This is the lamest excuse for remaining confused I have ever heard; 'scientific' vs 'scriptural' definition of man. They use anatomy because you DON'T HAVE CREATURES WHO RESEMBLE KADAME WITHOUT A SOUL and ALL CREATURES THAT RESEMBLE KADAME ARE MEN :o
Can we safely state that God created man and blew into his nostrils his spirit and he became alive and he called him Adam, a man as literal as yourself?
That is a ridiculous "reasoning" process. I don't have to follow what science defines as a "man" to speak of Adam, they use anatomy, don't care about the soul, I do. Unless you are saying that the Biblical authors base their definition on modern science or that modern science bases its definition on theological concepts, then what you are saying and the point you are trying to extrapolate from it makes zero sense.
-
This is the lamest excuse for remaining confused I have ever heard; 'scientific' vs 'scriptural' definition of man. let me illustrate;
Can we safely state that God created man and blew into his nostrils his spirit and he became alive and he called him Adam?
That is a ridiculous "reasoning" process. I don't have to follow what science defines as a "man" to speak of Adam, they use anatomy, don't care about the soul, I do. Unless you are saying that the Biblical authors base their definition on modern science or that modern science bases its definition on theological concepts, then what you are saying and the point you are trying to extrapolate from it makes zero sense.
It is ridiculous to conflate the biblical and scientific definitions for anything. What I call man is Adam and his descendants. He was a different being from whatever existed before. What science calls "man" are just some form of animals even though scientifically they are called man/"homo". That's my point. Believing Adam was a different being from these scientific "men" and therefore the first of his kind, does not necessitate pretending science and the Bible use a common taxonomy which is what you are doing.
-
How was Adam different from these 'other scientific ""men" that existed before him?
It is ridiculous to conflate the biblical and scientific definitions for anything. What I call man is Adam and his descendants. He was a different being from whatever existed before. What science calls "man" are just some form of animals even though scientifically they are called man/"homo". That's my point. Believing Adam was a different being from these scientific "men" and therefore the first of his kind, does not necessitate pretending science and the Bible use a common taxonomy which is what you are doing.
-
Anatomically? I don't know, Probably very little difference. All that would matter to me, God was able to form his body from theirs.
-
So Adam is a 'biblical man' but his parents were not?
Anatomically? I don't know, Probably very little difference. All that would matter to me, God was able to form his body from theirs.
-
So Adam's parents were not men?
Anatomically? I don't know, Probably very little difference. All that would matter to me, God was able to form his body from theirs.
I don't know if Adam had "parents", but suppose he did, would that be such a shocker? Adam's parents was not dead soil either. Which is less dignifying? Adam came from animals (blasphemy!), Adam came from soil (dignifying). Last I looked, animals were a higher form of being than rocks or earth, even plants are a higher form than dead rock.
-
He is the FIRST MAN. wouldn't it be dishonest calling him FIRST seeing there was others BEFORE him?
1 Corinthians 15:45 King James Version (KJV)
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
I don't know if Adam had "parents", but suppose he did, would that be such a shocker? Adam's parents was not dead soil either. Which is less dignifying?
-
He is the FIRST MAN. wouldn't it be dishonest calling him FIRST seeing there was others BEFORE him?
I don't know if Adam had "parents", but suppose he did, would that be such a shocker? Adam's parents was not dead soil either. Which is less dignifying?
Again, with the taxonomy. It would be dishonest only if the Biblical authors considered those other beings men.
-
So Adam is a 'biblical man' but his parents were not?
Anatomically? I don't know, Probably very little difference. All that would matter to me, God was able to form his body from theirs.
No. Adam is clearly a being of his own kind in the Bible, all others are subject to him.
-
There were no men BEFORE Adam.
1 Corinthians 15:45King James Version (KJV)
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
So we have a man suddenly showing up. He can't be a product of evilution because that means;
1. He must have been born by something
2. Whatever gave birth to Adam must have been of the same kind as Adam
Is this clear?
No. Adam is clearly a being of his own kind in the Bible, all others are subject to him.
-
1 Corinthians 15:45King James Version (KJV)
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
No. Adam is clearly a being of his own kind in the Bible, all others are subject to him.
Amen!
-
kadame,
Could Adam have possibly EVOLVED?
-
kadame,
Could Adam have possibly EVOLVED?
I think we are now going around in circles, isn't this was what we've been discussing? I do not think Adam evolved (unless in the micro sense, where we have the differences we have among our species). I believe its very possible that God could have formed his body from evolved homo sapiens which ultimately came from dead matter as all others.
-
So two pre-Adamic Homo Sapiens sub-humanoids hump like there is no tomorrow, Adam is conceived and then God takes over, breathes into this infant his spirit and MAKES it different from the parents, makes it in 'His own image'?
And we can also say that Adam's parents had other sub-humanoids but since God never breathed his spirit into them they was not made in the image of God
I think we are now going around in circles, isn't this was what we've been discussing? I do not think Adam evolved (unless in the micro sense, where we have the differences we have among our species). I believe its very possible that God could have prepared his body from evolved homo sapiens.
-
So two pre-Adamic Homo Sapiens hump like there is no tomorrow, Adam is conceived and then God takes over, breathes into this infant his spirit and MAKES it different from the parents?
I think we are now going around in circles, isn't this was what we've been discussing? I do not think Adam evolved (unless in the micro sense, where we have the differences we have among our species). I believe its very possible that God could have prepared his body from evolved homo sapiens.
I have no idea "HOW", maybe God did it the old fashioned way as you suggest, took the offspring of a homo sapien and made it different. Maybe he just took the DNA and formed Adam. Who knows? My point is simple: Nothing in the Bible shows that God could not have formed Adam this way, so there's zero reason to go all nuts about evolution. What we know? Adam's body came from pre-existent matter and God formed it. The How is his own.
-
kadame,
We maynot with certainty explain HOW He did it BUT we know HOW he never did it;
1. He took the earth and DNA don't exist in earth
2. Adam was not conceived, otherwise Matthew and Genesis could have pointed to his parents and Paul is clearly mad to call Adam first. kinds bring forth kinds
3. Following 3, Adam could not have evolved as you concede since evilution demands propagation of traits from parent to offspring
I have no idea "HOW", maybe God did it the old fashioned way as you suggest, took the offspring of a homo sapien and made it different. Maybe he just took the DNA and formed a different man. Who knows? My point is simple: Nothing in the Bible shows that God could not have formed Adam this way, so there's zero reason to go all nuts about evolution. What we know? Adam's body came from pre-existent matter and God formed it. The How is his own.
-
kadame,
We maynot with certainty explain HOW He did it BUT we know HOW he never did it;
1. He took the earth and DNA don't exist in earth
2. Adam was not conceived, otherwise Matthew and Genesis could have pointed to his parents and Paul is clearly mad to call Adam first. kinds bring forth kinds
3. Following 3, Adam could not have evolved as you concede since evilution demands propagation of traits from parent to offspring
I have no idea "HOW", maybe God did it the old fashioned way as you suggest, took the offspring of a homo sapien and made it different. Maybe he just took the DNA and formed a different man. Who knows? My point is simple: Nothing in the Bible shows that God could not have formed Adam this way, so there's zero reason to go all nuts about evolution. What we know? Adam's body came from pre-existent matter and God formed it. The How is his own.
1) DNA don't exist in earth. Sure! No dispute there. In fact, if you believe God made a soil statue in the shape of Adam and then made it become alive, it is the same problem you describe as evolution. First you have dead matter, then this matter is living matter. The only difference is that believers in God explain this change via supernatural intervention that has transformed the dead molecules into living molecules...DNA. The only other difference I see, the assumption that this change in form could not be gradual.
2) Adam was not conceived. I don't know. That's what you say, and being called first man is not incompatible as we have already argued. All depends on if you consider those other beings to have been men and they clearly were not. In fact MAN in the Bible=Adam and Adam's descendants.
3) follows from 2
-
The fact is it is VERY CLEAR HOW God made man. We are not left to guesswork, we have a very clear narration of HOW God did it
Evilution believes in random processes and chance and matter (pretend for now raw matter is eternal) is what brought about MAN
Genesis tells me God made matter and then from this matter made life. All elements that make up man are found in the earth so God took the relevant materials from the soil, not necessarily making a clay statue as you think or as you are sarcastically implying.
If Adam was conceived, he was not the first man. That is clear. Jesus thought he was the first man, Paul did, Luke did. The reason is because he was and there was no man before him. Your fickle theory of God borrowing the womb of pre-existing non-human animals to create man is laughable. The ONLY reason an otherwise intelligent and sober mind would entertain such thought is when they try to make evilution sci-fi of molecules-mollusks-kadame change compatible with Biblical creation account. Evilution DEMANDS for propagation and reproduction. Both of these are against what Jesus believed and taught. What's the point of pretending to follow Christ if you don't believe his words?
Note Adam was so different that no animal was suitable match/mate for him including the very creatures that sired him
1) DNA don't exist in earth. Sure! No dispute there. In fact, if you believe God made a soil statue in the shape of Adam and then made it become alive, it is the same problem you describe as evolution. First you have dead matter, then this matter is living matter. The only difference is that believers in God explain this change via supernatural intervention that has transformed the dead molecules into living molecules...DNA.
2) Adam was not conceived. I don't know. That's what you say, and being called first man is not incompatible as we have already argued. All depends on if you consider those other beings to have been men.
3) follows from 2
-
The lady means that his parents were not men. But rather soulless vessels that deliver the first man.
Literal genesis is simply not true. Theistic evolution I find fascinating. And also irrational.
He is the FIRST MAN. wouldn't it be dishonest calling him FIRST seeing there was others BEFORE him?
1 Corinthians 15:45 King James Version (KJV)
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
I don't know if Adam had "parents", but suppose he did, would that be such a shocker? Adam's parents was not dead soil either. Which is less dignifying?
-
vooke, show the verses in the Bible where it is explained HOW God made anything at all. All the Bible says is that God said "let there be" and things were. As to Adam, it says God formed him from the soil. Which "HOW" do you get from this? Does it mean God made a statue in the shape of a man and turned into DNA? You suggest this is a ridiculous reading, but from a literal reading of the Bible, why on earth so? Does it mean God created a living molecule from the earth and accelerated its replication process and made it into a man? Saying that the Bible anywhere explains "HOW" is honestly absurd.
All the Bible says: Adam's soul comes straignt from God himself; Adam's body on the other hand is somehow made from non-human matter (dead matter in fact). Any insistence of "How" this happens is in someone's imagination, not anywhere in the text of the scriptures.
-
Don't for a second try to detract from the main fact which is ADAM was not conceived. That is not even a remote possibility without altering critical biblical doctrines.
The passages that talk of man's creation. They are quite clear. God made man's body out of the earth/soil and then breathed into the body his spirit and man became a living soul (wapi Nuff?). Think through with me. man's body has no Uranium yet God created Uranium. This means God picked whatever elements was necessary for man as He designed him while leaving the rest. It may be inconceivable to you HOW God made microscopic stuff but He is all-wise and obviously believing that all those intricate details was fashioned by an Intelligent God is infinetesimally more sensible than believing they arose by themselves
I read Genesis literally BECAUSE Jesus,Luke,Matthew, Moses, Paul and Jude all did. If am stupid, then they are equally stupid
PS: I suggest you quit using the word 'dead-matter', it may be construed in some circles to imply that the matter was alive once but is now very dead
vooke, show the verses in the Bible where it is explained HOW God made anything at all. All the Bible says is that God said "let there be" and things were. As to Adam, it says God formed him from the soil. Which "HOW" do you get from this? Does it mean God made a statue in the shape of a man and turned into DNA? You suggest this is a ridiculous reading, but from a literal reading of the Bible, why on earth so? Does it mean God created a living molecule from the earth and accelerated its replication process and made it into a man? Saying that the Bible anywhere explains "HOW" is honestly absurd.
All the Bible says: Adam's soul comes straignt from God himself; Adam's body on the other hand is somehow made from non-human matter (dead matter in fact). Any insistence of "How" this happens is in someone's imagination, not anywhere in the text of the scriptures.
-
Explain to me a SINGLE biblical doctrine that is altered with the conception? Just one.
The passages that talk of man's creation. They are quite clear. God made man's body out of the earth/soil and then breathed into the body his spirit and man became a living soul (wapi Nuff?). Think through with me. man's body has no Uranium yet God created Uranium. This means God picked whatever elements was necessary for man as He designed him while leaving the rest. It may be inconceivable to you HOW God made microscopic stuff but He is all-wise and obviously believing that all those intricate details was fashioned by an Intelligent God is infinetesimally more sensible than believing they arose by themselves
Its not "inconceivable" to me that God makes microscopic stuff. My point is that the BIBLE does NOT say that he did....YOU are! That's the difference. The Bible says "what" and "why" but not "how". The what? Adam, soil, soul. That's it. Adam is formed by God from his breath and the earth. Everything else you are reading into the passage, because that's all the Bible says about Adam's creation. We don't know how, except that it was through God's power.
I read Genesis literally BECAUSE Jesus,Luke,Matthew, Moses, Paul and Jude all did. If am stupid, then they are equally stupid
You have no proof that they did except your "first man" argument which depends on a creationist interpretation but not the actual text of the Bible.
-
Question
How did God create man?
Answer
Genesis 2:7 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
7 Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
Question
How is that, EXACTLY HOW did He do it?
Answer
Are you dumb?
Genesis 2:7Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
7 Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
Explain to me a SINGLE biblical doctrine that is altered with the conception? Just one.
The passages that talk of man's creation. They are quite clear. God made man's body out of the earth/soil and then breathed into the body his spirit and man became a living soul (wapi Nuff?). Think through with me. man's body has no Uranium yet God created Uranium. This means God picked whatever elements was necessary for man as He designed him while leaving the rest. It may be inconceivable to you HOW God made microscopic stuff but He is all-wise and obviously believing that all those intricate details was fashioned by an Intelligent God is infinetesimally more sensible than believing they arose by themselves
Its not "inconceivable" to me that God makes microscopic stuff. My point is that the BIBLE does NOT say that he did....YOU are! That's the difference. The Bible says "what" and "why" but not "how". The what? Adam, soil, soul. That's it. Adam is formed by God from his breath and the earth. Everything else you are reading into the passage, because that's all the Bible says about Adam's creation. We don't know how, except that it was through God's power.
I read Genesis literally BECAUSE Jesus,Luke,Matthew, Moses, Paul and Jude all did. If am stupid, then they are equally stupid
You have no proof that they did except your "first man" argument which depends on a creationist interpretation but not the actual text of the Bible.
-
Let us look at how Biblical characters believed Genesis Creation account to have been LITERAL.
Moses
Exodus 20:8-11 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy: 9 You are to labor six days and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. You must not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates. 11 For (because)the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy.
So the israelites are to hustle for 6 days and rest on the 7th day. Note God does not have to explain Himself but on this occasion He did; hustle 6 days BECAUSE I worked/Created in 6 days and rested on the 7th day You may want to imagine God saying 'work for 6 days and rest the seventh BECAUSE I worked for 6 billion years and rested on the 7th billion years'
Lord Jesus Christ;
Mark 10:6-7 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
6But from the beginning of creation God[a] made them male and female.
7 For this reason a man will leave
his father and mother
[and be joined to his wife]
Here is Jesus quoting Gen 1:27 &5:2
Luke 11:50-51 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
50 so that this generation may be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world[a]— 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.
“Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible.
So Abel, Adam's second born was a literal dude? of course he was not immaculately conceived...jijazie but you/Catholicism believe his grandfather was an animal :o
Jude
Jude 1:14 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
14 And Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied about them:
Look! The Lord comes[a]
with thousands of His holy ones
So Jude subscribes to a literal Genesis and believes that Enock (Genesis 5:24) was 7 generations away from Adam. Wouldn't make much sense if Adam was a metaphor, would it?
-
Question
How did God create man?
Answer
Genesis 2:7 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
7 Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
Question
How is that, EXACTLY HOW did He do it?
Answer
Are you dumb?
Genesis 2:7Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
7 Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
Explain to me a SINGLE biblical doctrine that is altered with the conception? Just one.
The passages that talk of man's creation. They are quite clear. God made man's body out of the earth/soil and then breathed into the body his spirit and man became a living soul (wapi Nuff?). Think through with me. man's body has no Uranium yet God created Uranium. This means God picked whatever elements was necessary for man as He designed him while leaving the rest. It may be inconceivable to you HOW God made microscopic stuff but He is all-wise and obviously believing that all those intricate details was fashioned by an Intelligent God is infinetesimally more sensible than believing they arose by themselves
Its not "inconceivable" to me that God makes microscopic stuff. My point is that the BIBLE does NOT say that he did....YOU are! That's the difference. The Bible says "what" and "why" but not "how". The what? Adam, soil, soul. That's it. Adam is formed by God from his breath and the earth. Everything else you are reading into the passage, because that's all the Bible says about Adam's creation. We don't know how, except that it was through God's power.
I read Genesis literally BECAUSE Jesus,Luke,Matthew, Moses, Paul and Jude all did. If am stupid, then they are equally stupid
You have no proof that they did except your "first man" argument which depends on a creationist interpretation but not the actual text of the Bible.
Dumb is you. If you think resorting to such cheap shots will win you the debate then you must have me confused with nuff sed who you bully as you like with all sorts of derisions.
The bible said "FORMED MAN OUT OF THE DUST OF THE EARTH". Tell me what "formed" here means. Does it mean he conjured soil to turn into a man or that he took a molecule and made it into a man, or that he simply called a man out from the depths of the earth. Asking "are you dumb" is just tabia mbovu. Are you GOD yourself? Tell me, how many men have you seen "formed" from the dust? Perhaps you can tell us what is so "obvious" about it.
-
Let us look at how Biblical characters believed Genesis Creation account to have been LITERAL.
Moses
Exodus 20:8-11 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy: 9 You are to labor six days and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. You must not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates. 11 For (because)the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy.
So the israelites are to hustle for 6 days and rest on the 7th day. Note God does not have to explain Himself but on this occasion He did; hustle 6 days BECAUSE I worked/Created in 6 days and rested on the 7th day You may want to imagine God saying 'work for 6 days and rest the seventh BECAUSE I worked for 6 billion years and rested on the 7th billion years'
Lord Jesus Christ;
Mark 10:6-7 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
6But from the beginning of creation God[a] made them male and female.
7 For this reason a man will leave
his father and mother
[and be joined to his wife]
Here is Jesus quoting Gen 1:27 &5:2
Luke 11:50-51 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
50 so that this generation may be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world[a]— 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.
“Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible.
So Abel, Adam's second born was a literal dude? of course he was not immaculately conceived...jijazie but you/Catholicism believe his grandfather was an animal :o
Jude
Jude 1:14 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
14 And Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied about them:
Look! The Lord comes[a]
with thousands of His holy ones
So Jude subscribes to a literal Genesis and believes that Enock (Genesis 5:24) was 7 generations away from Adam. Wouldn't make much sense if Adam was a metaphor, would it?
Sigh?
You are now resorting to obvious (and cheap) tactics.
First find the post where it was claimed Adam is a metaphor (I mean on this thread, not in your imagination)!
Secondly, using the Sabbath means zilch. The sabath retains its meaning even if you believe the six days were not the scientific 24-hour periods.
I don't know what you think introducing Abel here is supposed to do? Perhaps your imagination told you he was metaphorical too?
Insisting on the animal ancestry means zilch. You after all believe Abel's ancestry is really dead soil, so what about animal ancestors? They are certainly closer to humans than the dust of the earth.
Are these the "Biblical doctrines" you were telling me would be altered by evolution?
Believing the creation story is symbolic does not mean everything else is a metaphor.
For example, I don't believe that there was a biological plant in Eden that could make a person a genius by taking a bite from it. Neither do I believe that there was a leafy biological plant in Eden that some how sourced "life". I also don't believe that the animal we call a snake caused Adam to sin. That doesn't mean I don't believe that Adam was tempted by the Devil and sinned and fell along with the rest of the human race.
-
You aks HOW, you get your answer HOW
Question
How did Jesus feed 2 fish and five breads to 5000 people?
Answer
He cut it into small 5000 pieces and gave each a piece......am kidding...He multiplied the bread and fish till they had leftovers
Question
How?
Answer
How what? If you can't multiply bread and feed 5000 people, don't mean it is impossible. If you can't conceive multiplying two fish and five breads and feeding 5000 from the same don't mean it is impossible. SO it is ridiculously dumb to stall an argument with HOW
What is clear is HOW God never created Adam. Once again,
1. Adam was not concieved and born by pre-existing non human animals
2. God did not collect DNA from the dust because DNA don't exist in the dust/earth
Whether you bear enough intellect to comprehend creation or not, you certainly can confidently RULE OUT HOW it never happened. Your limitation as far as intellect is concerned is no excuse for marrying the absurd and illogical
Dumb is you. If you think resorting to such cheap shots will win you the debate then you must have me confused with nuff sed who you bully as you like with all sorts of derisions.
The bible said "FORMED MAN OUT OF THE DUST OF THE EARTH". Tell me what "formed" here means. Does it mean he conjured soil to turn into a man or that he took a molecule and made it into a man, or that he simply called a man out from the depths of the earth. Asking "are you dumb" is just tabia mbovu. Are you GOD yourself? Tell me, how many men have you seen "formed" from the dust? Perhaps you can tell us what is so "obvious" about it.
-
Let's look at the Jewish thinking here shall we?
A Jewish day starts and ends at dusk and not '24 hour scientific day' . You should aks what a DAY in scriptures means before throwing in your KCPE definition of a DAY. And I thought you said something along those lines elsewhere
I have yet to touch on doctrines
If Abel was literal so was his father
Settle this in your mind that Adam was as literal as yourself
Second, settle in your mind that Jesus,Paul or basically New Testament teaches a literal Genesis account. Did I quote Paul?
And finally, it is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile a symbolic biblical creation with a literal Adam. That's why highly intelligent people like Termie discard one for the other
Sigh?
You are now resorting to obvious (and cheap) tactics.
First find the post where it was claimed Adam is a metaphor (I mean on this thread, not in your imagination)!
Secondly, using the Sabbath means zilch. The sabath retains its meaning even if you believe the six days were not the scientific 24-hour periods.
I don't know what you think introducing Abel here is supposed to do? Perhaps your imagination told you he was metaphorical too?
Insisting on the animal ancestry means zilch. You after all believe Abel's ancestry is really dead soil, so what about animal ancestors? They are certainly closer to humans than the dust of the earth.
Are these the "Biblical doctrines" you were telling me would be altered by evolution?
Believing the creation story is symbolic does not mean everything else is a metaphor.
-
Kababe, he breathed into man's nostrils. That's the how. There are two ways to read the bible. Exegesis and spiritual. There's another term for it which I forget since I dropped out of ministry school. To analyse the biblical text hermeneutically is considered an artform like brain surgery.
-
Let's look at the Jewish thinking here shall we?
A Jewish day starts and ends at dusk and not '24 hour scientific day' . You should aks what a DAY in scriptures means before throwing in your KCPE definition of a DAY. And I thought you said something along those lines elsewhere
I have yet to touch on doctrines
If Abel was literal so was his father
Settle this in your mind that Adam was as literal as yourself
Second, settle in your mind that Jesus,Paul or basically New Testament teaches a literal Genesis account. Did I quote Paul?
And finally, it is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile a symbolic biblical creation with a literal Adam. That's why highly intelligent people like Termie discard one for the other
Sigh?
You are now resorting to obvious (and cheap) tactics.
First find the post where it was claimed Adam is a metaphor (I mean on this thread, not in your imagination)!
Secondly, using the Sabbath means zilch. The sabath retains its meaning even if you believe the six days were not the scientific 24-hour periods.
I don't know what you think introducing Abel here is supposed to do? Perhaps your imagination told you he was metaphorical too?
Insisting on the animal ancestry means zilch. You after all believe Abel's ancestry is really dead soil, so what about animal ancestors? They are certainly closer to humans than the dust of the earth.
Are these the "Biblical doctrines" you were telling me would be altered by evolution?
Believing the creation story is symbolic does not mean everything else is a metaphor.
I don't care what you think is "intelligent", you are in a debate desperate to prove your point. Intelligent is whatever supports your view. Moving on
GET THIS IN YOUR MIND: NO ONE CLAIMS ADAM IS METAPHORICAL! Thanks.
After that, we can talk.
-
I was taught how to read and analyse hermeneutically while studying my philosophy degree, chiefly when studying Heidegger and time (I recall 6 students enrolled in the course). The bible is much more sophisticated than first appearance. You show a brain to a kid and he goes yuk rubbish. You show it to a brain surgeon and it's a different story, he can read it and make a difference.
-
You aks HOW, you get your answer HOW
Question
How did Jesus feed 2 fish and five breads to 5000 people?
Answer
He cut it into small 5000 pieces and gave each a piece......am kidding...He multiplied the bread and fish till they had leftovers
Question
How?
Answer
How what? If you can't multiply bread and feed 5000 people, don't mean it is impossible. If you can't conceive multiplying two fish and five breads and feeding 5000 from the same don't mean it is impossible. SO it is ridiculously dumb to stall an argument with HOW
What is clear is HOW God never created Adam. Once again,
1. Adam was not concieved and born by pre-existing non human animals
2. God did not collect DNA from the dust because DNA don't exist in the dust/earth
Whether you bear enough intellect to comprehend creation or not, you certainly can confidently RULE OUT HOW it never happened. Your limitation as far as intellect is concerned is no excuse for marrying the absurd and illogical
Dumb is you. If you think resorting to such cheap shots will win you the debate then you must have me confused with nuff sed who you bully as you like with all sorts of derisions.
The bible said "FORMED MAN OUT OF THE DUST OF THE EARTH". Tell me what "formed" here means. Does it mean he conjured soil to turn into a man or that he took a molecule and made it into a man, or that he simply called a man out from the depths of the earth. Asking "are you dumb" is just tabia mbovu. Are you GOD yourself? Tell me, how many men have you seen "formed" from the dust? Perhaps you can tell us what is so "obvious" about it.
Explain to me WHICH PART of that Gospel explains the HOW of Jesus multiplying 2 fish and 5 loaves into thousands???? All it says is that he prayed and they was multiplied. Tell me the nitty gritty of how two fish divides into thousands. I think you have aserious problem about understanding miracles and mystery if you keep insisting the bible explains HOW these things happened. The Bible only tells us they happened by God's power and we believe it.
The creation story tells us man was formed from the dust. Period. You are forcing a "HOW" that is not there. It similarly tells us the world was made from nothing, it does not tell us how. We accept on faith that is happened by God's power without knowing exactly how it all happened excepte that things that did not exist came to exist.
You can scream illogic till next year, you don't GET to write the Bible and the Bible says nothing about HOW God made anything except that he did through his will and power. If the Bible is silent on the "HOW" you don't get to tell me what is overruled/excluded. What is excluded apriori is what contradicts the text, not what contradicts your beliefs.
-
There are three ways for a literal Adam to check into this world:
1. Born of a woman
2. Created out of nothing
3. There was no literal Adam so he never checked into the world
I have painstakingly proved that he couldn't have been born of a woman otr of anything for that particular case. Do you still consider that a possibility,that he was born of non-human animals?
I don't care what you think is "intelligent", you are in a debate desperate to prove your point. Intelligent is whatever supports your view. Moving on
GET THIS IN YOUR MIND: NO ONE CLAIMS ADAM IS METAPHORICAL! Thanks.
After that, we can talk.
-
I can tell you for free and publicly so you are without excuse that you can with little difficulty cut up 5 loaves into 5,000 pieces. The two fish too. You can also assign some people the task of distributing the pieces. What you can't do is to make them full with the pieces seeing they would be very small
So I can RULE out HOW Jesus never did it WITHOUT knowing HOW He did it....
Explain to me WHICH PART of that Gospel explains the HOW of Jesus multiplying 2 fish and 5 loaves into thousands???? All it says is that he prayed and they was multiplied. Tell me the nitty gritty of how two fish divides into thousands. I think you have aserious problem about understanding miracles and mystery if you keep insisting the bible explains HOW these things happened. The Bible only tells us they happened by God's power and we believe it.
The creation story tells us man was formed from the dust. Period. You are forcing a "HOW" that is not there. It similarly tells us the world was made from nothing, it does not tell us how. We accept on faith that is happened by God's power without knowing exactly how it all happened excepte that things that did not exist came to exist.
You can scream illogic till next year, you don't GET to write the Bible and the Bible says nothing about HOW God made anything except that he did through his will and power. If the Bible is silent on the "HOW" you don't get to tell me what is overruled/excluded. What is excluded apriori is what contradicts the text, not what contradicts your beliefs.
-
Let's look at the Jewish thinking here shall we?
A Jewish day starts and ends at dusk and not '24 hour scientific day' . You should aks what a DAY in scriptures means before throwing in your KCPE definition of a DAY. And I thought you said something along those lines elsewhere
I have yet to touch on doctrines
If Abel was literal so was his father
Settle this in your mind that Adam was as literal as yourself
Second, settle in your mind that Jesus,Paul or basically New Testament teaches a literal Genesis account. Did I quote Paul?
And finally, it is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile a symbolic biblical creation with a literal Adam. That's why highly intelligent people like Termie discard one for the other
Sigh?
You are now resorting to obvious (and cheap) tactics.
First find the post where it was claimed Adam is a metaphor (I mean on this thread, not in your imagination)!
Secondly, using the Sabbath means zilch. The sabath retains its meaning even if you believe the six days were not the scientific 24-hour periods.
I don't know what you think introducing Abel here is supposed to do? Perhaps your imagination told you he was metaphorical too?
Insisting on the animal ancestry means zilch. You after all believe Abel's ancestry is really dead soil, so what about animal ancestors? They are certainly closer to humans than the dust of the earth.
Are these the "Biblical doctrines" you were telling me would be altered by evolution?
Believing the creation story is symbolic does not mean everything else is a metaphor.
This is a false dichotomy. To believe that the creation story is symbolic does not mean all of Genesis is a metaphor. For example, I don't believe that there was a biological plant in Eden that could make a person a genius simply by taking a bite of it. Neither do I believe that there was a leafy biological plant in Eden that some how sourced "life". I also don't believe that the animal we call a snake caused Adam to sin. That doesn't mean I don't believe that the Devil tempted Adam to sin and that Adam sinned and fell along with the rest of the human race.
-
There are three ways for a literal Adam to check into this world:
1. Born of a woman
2. Created out of nothing
3. There was no literal Adam so he never checked into the world
I have painstakingly proved that he couldn't have been born of a woman otr of anything for that particular case. Do you still consider that a possibility,that he was born of non-human animals?
I don't care what you think is "intelligent", you are in a debate desperate to prove your point. Intelligent is whatever supports your view. Moving on
GET THIS IN YOUR MIND: NO ONE CLAIMS ADAM IS METAPHORICAL! Thanks.
After that, we can talk.
I'm sorry, have you ever CREATED before ??? Vooke, the liberties you take to prove your point are simply amazing. You simply don't know ALL the ways Adam could've "checked" into this world, since you are no creator. How on earth did you decide that God is limited in any way in the manner in which he could've brought Adam or any creature into the world? Ala??
Moreover, Adam was clearly NOT created out of Nothing, unless by "nothing" we are considering the ultimate creation of the world from nothing. Adam's body was made from the dust. If you didn't know, dust aint "nothing".
-
Termie or RV Pundit believes the bible is Jewish folklore.
The point is they believe. Both are not Christians and I can't quarel them. I respect them for being candid. How I wish everyone was!
You purport to be one yet you don't believe in what is recorded in Genesis something Paul believed in
2 Corinthians 11:3 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
3 But I fear that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your minds may be seduced from a complete and pure[a] devotion to Christ.
1 Timothy 2:14 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
My imagination and hopefully yours ought to be WITHIN scriptures otherwise you are no different from Jehovah Wanyonyi. Or do you believe those portions of scriptures which are convenient for you?
This is a false dichotomy. To believe that the creation story is symbolic does not mean all of Genesis is a metaphor. For example, I don't believe that there was a biological plant in Eden that could make a person a genius simply by taking a bite of it. Neither do I believe that there was a leafy biological plant in Eden that some how sourced "life". I also don't believe that the animal we call a snake caused Adam to sin. That doesn't mean I don't believe that the Devil tempted Adam to sin and that Adam sinned and fell along with the rest of the human race.
-
Exactly, so you don't know HOW Jesus did what he did, that's the essence of a miracle. Next time don't use a miracle to claim that the Bible explains How God does things. The Bible tells us God does things and we believe it out of faith. Period.
And PS: The cutting up (DIVIDING) of fish into little pieces is NOT the same thing as MULTIPLYING 2 FISH AND 5 LOAVES into thousands, which is what I asked you to show in the Bible as to its "HOW".
The only way you know how something did NOT happen, is by excluding what is contradictory to what is given, not what is contradictory to your own presuppositions ABOUT what is given.I can tell you for free and publicly so you are without excuse that you can with little difficulty cut up 5 loaves into 5,000 pieces. The two fish too. You can also assign some people the task of distributing the pieces. What you can't do is to make them full with the pieces seeing they would be very small
So I can RULE out HOW Jesus never did it WITHOUT knowing HOW He did it....
Explain to me WHICH PART of that Gospel explains the HOW of Jesus multiplying 2 fish and 5 loaves into thousands???? All it says is that he prayed and they was multiplied. Tell me the nitty gritty of how two fish divides into thousands. I think you have aserious problem about understanding miracles and mystery if you keep insisting the bible explains HOW these things happened. The Bible only tells us they happened by God's power and we believe it.
The creation story tells us man was formed from the dust. Period. You are forcing a "HOW" that is not there. It similarly tells us the world was made from nothing, it does not tell us how. We accept on faith that is happened by God's power without knowing exactly how it all happened excepte that things that did not exist came to exist.
You can scream illogic till next year, you don't GET to write the Bible and the Bible says nothing about HOW God made anything except that he did through his will and power. If the Bible is silent on the "HOW" you don't get to tell me what is overruled/excluded. What is excluded apriori is what contradicts the text, not what contradicts your beliefs.
-
kadame,
God is not limited, but He is brutally consistent with Himself and His word
If God created Adam through conception and birth like you, Adam had a father and mother
Adam can't possibly have had a father and mother BECAUSE GOD SAYS ADAM WAS THE FIRST MAN!
So if I say there were no men before Adam, am not limiting God by depicting him as incapable of having pre-Adamic humans; am borrowing from What He said. If God can lie, then may be when He said Adam was the first man, he was lying and there was others before Adam. In other words, we can't trust His very Word!
It reminds me of the heavy rock paradox. I first heard it in High school from my Literature teacher and I was dumbfounded; how can God who is capable of everything be incapable of creating a rock He can't lift?
I'm sorry, have you ever CREATED before ??? Vooke, the liberties you take to prove your point are simply amazing. You simply don't know ALL the ways Adam could've "checked" into this world, since you are no creator. How on earth did you decide that God is limited in any way in the manner in which he could've brought Adam or any creature into the world? Ala??
Moreover, Adam was clearly NOT created out of Nothing, unless by "nothing" we are considering the ultimate creation of the world from nothing. Adam's body was made from the dust. If you didn't know, dust aint "nothing".
-
Termie or RV Pundit believes the bible is Jewish folklore.
The point is they believe. Both are not Christians and I can't quarel them. I respect them for being candid. How I wish everyone was!
You purport to be one yet you don't believe in what is recorded in Genesis something Paul believed in
2 Corinthians 11:3 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
3 But I fear that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your minds may be seduced from a complete and pure[a] devotion to Christ.
1 Timothy 2:14 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
My imagination and hopefully yours ought to be WITHIN scriptures otherwise you are no different from Jehovah Wanyonyi. Or do you believe those portions of scriptures which are convenient for you?
This is a false dichotomy. To believe that the creation story is symbolic does not mean all of Genesis is a metaphor. For example, I don't believe that there was a biological plant in Eden that could make a person a genius simply by taking a bite of it. Neither do I believe that there was a leafy biological plant in Eden that some how sourced "life". I also don't believe that the animal we call a snake caused Adam to sin. That doesn't mean I don't believe that the Devil tempted Adam to sin and that Adam sinned and fell along with the rest of the human race.
You are really desperate to get Termie and Pundit to join and help you in your fight. That's just pathetic. Stick to the debate.
You just don't get it. I know the Bible says there was a serpent. What I am telling you is I also know it was not a literal serpent but a symbol for Satan. In revelation, that symbol is a dragon. That doesn't mean I believe in a fire-breathing flying dinosaur! Stop trying to preach AT me as if your way is the only way. I BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE 100%, and I know that not all the Bible is literal. Good chunks of it are symbolic and there is in fact no Christian on this planet who believes in a 100% literal reading of the Bible. So save the dramatics, you just pissed I don't read your "literal" parts literally but only symbolically, the same way I read revelations.
-
Termie actually is keenly following so there is no need to rope him in.
He also thinks man born out of non-humans is schizophrenia
We are not debating literal vs symbolism here. What am saying is CALLING WHAT IS CLEARLY PRESENTED AS LITERAL SYMBOLIC is wrong. For instance, in Cana, Jesus turned water into wine. What if somebody tells you that no water was turned into wine, that that was a metaphor/symbolic? Why couldn't it have been a literal serpent? But that is digressing.
You are really desperate to get Termie and Pundit to join and help you in your fight. That's just pathetic. Y\Stick to the debate.
You just don't get it. I know the Bible says there was a serpent. What I am telling you is I also know it was not a literal serpent but a symbol for Satan. In revelation, that symbol is a dragon. That doesn't mean I believe in a fire-breathing flying dinosaur! Stop trying to preach AT me as if your way is the only way. BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE, and I know that not all the Bible is literal. Good chunks of it are symbolic and there is in fact no Christian on this planet who believes in a 100% literal reading of the Bible. So save the dramatics, you just pissed I don't read your "literal" parts literally but only symbolically, the same way I read revelations.
-
You keep insisting "first man". Hello?? Those creatures before him would not be men, so again this is a false dichotomy. adam is called first man because he WAS and no Christian doubts that. What we are doubting is if there were no other creatures like him in a biological sense from whom he could've been formed. My point is that the BIBLE does NOT rule it out, the Bible says very little except that Adam was made from the dust and God's spirit. That being so, Christians are free to believe science as long as there is no contradiction and what I am saying is that there is NONE.
kadame,
God is not limited, but He is brutally consistent with Himself and His word
If God created Adam through conception and birth like you, Adam had a father and mother
Adam can't possibly have had a father and mother BECAUSE GOD SAYS ADAM WAS THE FIRST MAN!
So if I say there were no men before Adam, am not limiting God by depicting him as incapable of having pre-Adamic humans; am borrowing from What He said. If God can lie, then may be when He said Adam was the first man, he was lying and there was others before Adam. In other words, we can't trust His very Word!
It reminds me of the heavy rock paradox. I first heard it in High school from my Literature teacher and I was dumbfounded; how can God who is capable of everything be incapable of creating a rock He can't lift?
I'm sorry, have you ever CREATED before ??? Vooke, the liberties you take to prove your point are simply amazing. You simply don't know ALL the ways Adam could've "checked" into this world, since you are no creator. How on earth did you decide that God is limited in any way in the manner in which he could've brought Adam or any creature into the world? Ala??
Moreover, Adam was clearly NOT created out of Nothing, unless by "nothing" we are considering the ultimate creation of the world from nothing. Adam's body was made from the dust. If you didn't know, dust aint "nothing".
-
What the Bible accurately records is Adam being the FIRST MAN
This eliminates possibilities of pre-Adamic men as well as Adam's parents, unless you discard your brains and entertain a man being born of animals
The only way you know how something did NOT happen, is by excluding what is contradictory to what is given, not what is contradictory to your own presuppositions ABOUT what is given.
-
Not to be drawn into the debate :D but I think the serpent in genesis is literal not symbolic. As we now know, satan can use anything or appear as anything even disguised as a person.
-
If there were no men before Adam but we had other creatures, none of them could have sired Adam.
In all of creation, kind produces after its kind so anything producing a man must have been a man!
You are insisting that since God can do anything, He could have had man created in his image born of an animal not formed in His image. I hope you are joking
Belief that Adam was born contradicts Scripture teaching that Adam was the FIRST MAN
You keep insisting "first man". Hello?? Those creatures before him would not be men, so again this is a false dichotomy. adam is called first man because he WAS and no Christian doubts that. What we are doubting is if there were no other creatures like him in a biological sense from whom he could've been formed. My point is that the BIBLE does NOT rule it out, the Bible says very little except that Adam was made from the dust and God's spirit. That being so, Christians are free to believe science as long as there is no contradiction and what I am saying is that there is NONE.
-
Termie actually is keenly following so there is no need to rope him in.
He also thinks man born out of non-humans is schizophrenia
We are not debating literal vs symbolism here. What am saying is CALLING WHAT IS CLEARLY PRESENTED AS LITERAL SYMBOLIC is wrong. For instance, in Cana, Jesus turned water into wine. What if somebody tells you that no water was turned into wine, that that was a metaphor/symbolic? Why couldn't it have been a literal serpent? But that is digressing.
You are really desperate to get Termie and Pundit to join and help you in your fight. That's just pathetic. Y\Stick to the debate.
You just don't get it. I know the Bible says there was a serpent. What I am telling you is I also know it was not a literal serpent but a symbol for Satan. In revelation, that symbol is a dragon. That doesn't mean I believe in a fire-breathing flying dinosaur! Stop trying to preach AT me as if your way is the only way. BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE, and I know that not all the Bible is literal. Good chunks of it are symbolic and there is in fact no Christian on this planet who believes in a 100% literal reading of the Bible. So save the dramatics, you just pissed I don't read your "literal" parts literally but only symbolically, the same way I read revelations.
How do you know "what is clearly presented as literal" from what is not? The creation story, for example, follows the same style of creation myths from the middle East of the same time, it was part of the Hebrew oral tradition before it was written down. Plus I've also read it follows a stylistic devise from the same era in which genesis was written, so you have a problem presented: formless and empty earth, then three days of solving the first problem (giving form by diving and creating day/night etc etc, different realms) then three days of solving the 2nd problem (emptiness) by filling each of the three realms/forms with created beings in chronological order.
My point? Deciding whether a passage is literal depends on a lot about its History/linguistic styleetc. Moreover, if there is a clear fact of contradiction (only apparent) between a known fact of reality and the Bible, it is not open to a Christian either to decide the bible is erroneous or to deny plain realities of life. What happens is you employ the interpretation that reconciles both. this flows from the basic assumption that the Bible is true and authored by the same entity that authors reality, hence truth never contradicts truth. So when people claim that the Bible is scientifically in error to say "the sun stood still" at that battle with Joshua, they are wrong, because the passage is described as "it appears" from the perspective of the author, not as it actually is in reality, hence the bible is not in error to say the sun stood still, because the bible isn't talking about science.
-
I can tell it is LITERAL if parts of divinely inspired scriptures present it as LITERAL
Genesis account is not a 'superior' myth to the Babylonian tales; it is the real deal
I can also tell it is literal if historically it has been held to be literal unless I assume am more intelligent that all the believers who was before me
The moment I run into any contradiction (real or apparent) of scriptures with reality, am boarding the next atheism flight
How do you know "what is clearly presented as literal" from what is not? The creation story, for example, follows the same style of creation myths from the middle East of the same time, it was part of the Hebrew oral tradition before it was written down. Plus I've also read it follows a stylic devise from the same era in which genesis was written, so you have a problem presented: formless and empty earth, then three days of solving the first problem (giving form by diving and creating day/night etc etc, different realms) then three days of solving the 2nd problem (emptiness) by filling each of the three realms/forms with created beings in chronological order.
My point? Deciding whether a passage is literal depends on a lot about its History/linguistic style etc. Moreover, if there is a clear fact of contradiction (only apparent) between a known fact of reality and the Bible, it is not open to a Christian either to decide the bible is erroneous or to deny plain realities of life. What happens is you employ the interpretation that reconciles both. this flows from the basic assumption that the Bible is true and authored by the same entity that authors reality, hence truth never contradicts truth. So when people claim that the Bible is scientifically in error to say "the sun stood still" at that battle with Joshua, they are wrong, because the passage is described as "it appears" from the perspective of the author, not as it actually is in reality.
-
If there were no men before Adam but we had other creatures, none of them could have sired Adam.
In all of creation, kind produces after its kind so anything producing a man must have been a man!
You are insisting that since God can do anything, He could have had man created in his image born of an animal not formed in His image. I hope you are joking
Belief that Adam was born contradicts Scripture teaching that Adam was the FIRST MAN
You keep insisting "first man". Hello?? Those creatures before him would not be men, so again this is a false dichotomy. adam is called first man because he WAS and no Christian doubts that. What we are doubting is if there were no other creatures like him in a biological sense from whom he could've been formed. My point is that the BIBLE does NOT rule it out, the Bible says very little except that Adam was made from the dust and God's spirit. That being so, Christians are free to believe science as long as there is no contradiction and what I am saying is that there is NONE.
Man being made in God's image has nothing to do with his body but his spirituality, his capacity to know and love God and enter into a relationship with him, so give that one a rest. Telling me "no creature could've sired/produced" Adam is another one of your claim to know exactly how God does things he has nowhere indicated methods for, so that's just your belief. My concern is simple; there's nothing that necessitates a literal reading of all of genesis, especially the story of creation and fall. That being so, no Christian is compelled to believe in a 6,000 year old universe and in fact, most Jews and Christians don't. only creationists are twisting themselves into knots over nothing.
-
So what you are saying is there was no 'spirituality nor capacity to know and love God or enter into a relationship with God' BEFORE Adam?
You also claim that these attributes/qualities was injected into Adam and they are what distinguished Adam from animals?
You are silently claiming that a creature possessing everything Adam had but these could have sired Adam but it would not have been human seeing it is these attributes that make a human?
Why we eliminate Adamic conception has nothing to do with vooke but scriptures. Genesis 1:20-25 is clear that animals reproduce after their kind. In Genesis 6, Noah took animals in pairs male and female precisely for this reason. So when I say non-humans can't produce a human, am quoting God's own Word
You understand that outside kadame's nipate.org NOBODY has ever entertained man being born by animals?
It is not that they don't share your unique brand of Catholicism inspired intelligence, it is because they see dumbness for what it is
Some of the most derided folks are atheistic creationists who are really fence sitters. Everybody but themselves can see the illogic of their theories
Man being made in God's image has nothing to do with his body but his spirituality, his capacity to know and love God and enter into a relationship with him, so give that one a rest. Telling me "no creature could've sired/produced" Adam is another one of your claim to know exactly how God does things he has nowhere indicated methods for, so that's just your belief. My concern is simple; there's nothing that necessitates a literal reading of all of genesis, especially the story of creation and fall. That being so, no Christian is compelled to believe in a 6,000 year old universe and in fact, most Jews and Christians don't. only creationists are twisting themselves into knots over nothing.
-
These are tough, if not impossible, debates to settle.
I grasp that Kababe says man only becomes man with a soul. That is clever. Because there is no way to tell when a soul entered the man. If someone conclusively establishes that physiologically modern hominids were farted out by T-Rex in a fit of fury. It is still cartered for by this view point.
Basically it says. No matter what you eventually find out, God did it.
vooke's view point is riskier and exposes him to all manner of sensible challenges. Yet, it seems more faithful to an omnipotent who does not bow to nature. One who can violate well known laws with impunity.
-
So what you are saying is there was no 'spirituality nor capacity to know and love God or enter into a relationship with God' BEFORE Adam?
The animals certainly didn't have that capacity, do you think they did? :o Also, you think man's body is God's image? How/in what sense?
You also claim that these attributes/qualities was injected into Adam and they are what distinguished Adam from animals?
Of course. What do you think sets you apart from a bonobo, your good looks? 8)
You are silently claiming that a creature possessing everything Adam had but these could have sired Adam but it would not have been human seeing it is these attributes that make a human?
There's no "silently claiming" nothing, I'm stating it PLAINLY. Adam's body and souls were clearly not created the same way, the body is what this debate is about.
Why we eliminate Adamic conception has nothing to do with vooke but scriptures. Genesis 1:20-25 is clear that animals reproduce after their kind. In Genesis 6, Noah took animals in pairs male and female precisely for this reason. So when I say non-humans can't produce a human, am quoting God's own Word
So a homo sapien could not produce a homo sapien body? Shocker!
You understand that outside kadame's nipate.org NOBODY has ever entertained man being born by animals?
Please. 8) Just speak for yourself. Majority of Christians AND Jews have zero problems with evolution, so quit pontificating for them.
It is not that they don't share your unique brand of Catholicism inspired intelligence, it is because they see dumbness for what it is
Some of the most derided folks are atheistic creationists who are really fence sitters. Everybody but themselves can see the illogic of their theories
I told you before, your cheap dersive tactics wont work on me, I think you're confusing me with nuff sed. Try another one.
Man being made in God's image has nothing to do with his body but his spirituality, his capacity to know and love God and enter into a relationship with him, so give that one a rest. Telling me "no creature could've sired/produced" Adam is another one of your claim to know exactly how God does things he has nowhere indicated methods for, so that's just your belief. My concern is simple; there's nothing that necessitates a literal reading of all of genesis, especially the story of creation and fall. That being so, no Christian is compelled to believe in a 6,000 year old universe and in fact, most Jews and Christians don't. only creationists are twisting themselves into knots over nothing.
[/quote]
-
And Kababe's view is that nature and revelation are not in contradiction, not that God cant "violate" laws of nature. When he does, we call it a miracle.
-
And Kababe's view is that nature and revelation are not in contradiction, not that God cant "violate" laws of nature. When he does, we call it a miracle.
Thanks for the clarification.
Semantically though. A miracle. Is it the same as a contradiction of nature?
-
Another problem with this is the body that was made from the dust was lifeless until God breathed into it. How were the pre-Adamic creatures propagating lifeless? Or shall we presume that God killed the pre-Adamic creature and then breathed spirit into it?
So what you are saying is there was no 'spirituality nor capacity to know and love God or enter into a relationship with God' BEFORE Adam?
The animals certainly didn't have that capacity, do you think they did? :o Also, you think man's body is God's image? How/in what sense?
You also claim that these attributes/qualities was injected into Adam and they are what distinguished Adam from animals?
Of course. What do you think sets you apart from a bonobo, your good looks? 8)
You are silently claiming that a creature possessing everything Adam had but these could have sired Adam but it would not have been human seeing it is these attributes that make a human?
There's no "silently claiming" nothing, I'm stating it PLAINLY. Adam's body and souls were clearly not created the same way, the body is what this debate is about.
Why we eliminate Adamic conception has nothing to do with vooke but scriptures. Genesis 1:20-25 is clear that animals reproduce after their kind. In Genesis 6, Noah took animals in pairs male and female precisely for this reason. So when I say non-humans can't produce a human, am quoting God's own Word
So a homo sapien could not produce a homo sapien body? Shocker!
You understand that outside kadame's nipate.org NOBODY has ever entertained man being born by animals?
Please. 8) Just speak for yourself. Majority of Christians AND Jews have zero problems with evolution, so quit pontificating for them.
It is not that they don't share your unique brand of Catholicism inspired intelligence, it is because they see dumbness for what it is
Some of the most derided folks are atheistic creationists who are really fence sitters. Everybody but themselves can see the illogic of their theories
I told you before, your cheap dersive tactics wont work on me, I think you're confusing me with nuff sed. Try another one.
Man being made in God's image has nothing to do with his body but his spirituality, his capacity to know and love God and enter into a relationship with him, so give that one a rest. Telling me "no creature could've sired/produced" Adam is another one of your claim to know exactly how God does things he has nowhere indicated methods for, so that's just your belief. My concern is simple; there's nothing that necessitates a literal reading of all of genesis, especially the story of creation and fall. That being so, no Christian is compelled to believe in a 6,000 year old universe and in fact, most Jews and Christians don't. only creationists are twisting themselves into knots over nothing.
[/quote]
-
And Kababe's view is that nature and revelation are not in contradiction, not that God cant "violate" laws of nature. When he does, we call it a miracle.
Thanks for the clarification.
Semantically though. A miracle. Is it the same as a contradiction of nature?
A miracle means only suspension of natural laws.
-
Another problem with this is the body that was made from the dust was lifeless until God breathed into it. How were the pre-Adamic creatures propagating lifeless? Or shall we presume that God killed the pre-Adamic creature and then breathed spirit into it?
So what you are saying is there was no 'spirituality nor capacity to know and love God or enter into a relationship with God' BEFORE Adam?
The animals certainly didn't have that capacity, do you think they did? :o Also, you think man's body is God's image? How/in what sense?
You also claim that these attributes/qualities was injected into Adam and they are what distinguished Adam from animals?
Of course. What do you think sets you apart from a bonobo, your good looks? 8)
You are silently claiming that a creature possessing everything Adam had but these could have sired Adam but it would not have been human seeing it is these attributes that make a human?
There's no "silently claiming" nothing, I'm stating it PLAINLY. Adam's body and souls were clearly not created the same way, the body is what this debate is about.
Why we eliminate Adamic conception has nothing to do with vooke but scriptures. Genesis 1:20-25 is clear that animals reproduce after their kind. In Genesis 6, Noah took animals in pairs male and female precisely for this reason. So when I say non-humans can't produce a human, am quoting God's own Word
So a homo sapien could not produce a homo sapien body? Shocker!
You understand that outside kadame's nipate.org NOBODY has ever entertained man being born by animals?
Please. 8) Just speak for yourself. Majority of Christians AND Jews have zero problems with evolution, so quit pontificating for them.
It is not that they don't share your unique brand of Catholicism inspired intelligence, it is because they see dumbness for what it is
Some of the most derided folks are atheistic creationists who are really fence sitters. Everybody but themselves can see the illogic of their theories
I told you before, your cheap dersive tactics wont work on me, I think you're confusing me with nuff sed. Try another one.
Man being made in God's image has nothing to do with his body but his spirituality, his capacity to know and love God and enter into a relationship with him, so give that one a rest. Telling me "no creature could've sired/produced" Adam is another one of your claim to know exactly how God does things he has nowhere indicated methods for, so that's just your belief. My concern is simple; there's nothing that necessitates a literal reading of all of genesis, especially the story of creation and fall. That being so, no Christian is compelled to believe in a 6,000 year old universe and in fact, most Jews and Christians don't. only creationists are twisting themselves into knots over nothing.
[/quote]Like I said, no one knows HOW, he could've simply taken their DNA and no more. He could've also used their live offspring. Whatever "life" it had would not be a spiritual one, and not a soul. He may also merely have used a lifeless body. Bottom line, all the Bible requires me to believe is that Adam's body was formed from matter by God and his soul directly by him. The rest, I am free to speculate along with science.
-
And Kababe's view is that nature and revelation are not in contradiction, not that God cant "violate" laws of nature. When he does, we call it a miracle.
Thanks for the clarification.
Semantically though. A miracle. Is it the same as a contradiction of nature?
A miracle means only suspension of natural laws.
So God does not violate or contradict the laws of nature. He suspends them with miracles. vooke would seem to suggest that a few of these suspensions have happened around the genesis story.
Is there any criteria to distinguish the miraculous from the merely metaphorical in the Bible?
-
And Kababe's view is that nature and revelation are not in contradiction, not that God cant "violate" laws of nature. When he does, we call it a miracle.
Thanks for the clarification.
Semantically though. A miracle. Is it the same as a contradiction of nature?
A miracle means only suspension of natural laws.
So God does not violate or contradict the laws of nature. He suspends them with miracles. vooke would seem to suggest that a few of these suspensions have happened around the genesis story.
Is there any criteria to distinguish the miraculous from the merely metaphorical in the Bible?
vooke is free to suggest that and no one is stopping him or telling him he is wrong. what he is not free to do is insist everyone else does. I also would prefer you let me speak for myself and not paraphrase for me, thanks.
-
You are ignoring these facts;
1.DNA is out of question because it is not found in dust
2.live offsprings of ANYTHING are out of question because they are not found in dust
3. Dead offsprings of ANYTHING too are not found in dust
In any case, if 2 or 3 was the case, shouldn't at death man revert to his pre-Adamic ancestor seeing only soul makes him a man?
Like I said, whatever you take 'formed from dust' to mean, it MUST NOT be inconsistent with the Scriptures or common sense
What you are avoiding at all costs including adopting illogical stance is the one possibility that God simply formed man and there was no man before that nor anything like him. You are busy stringing a relationship between man and some pre-Adamic creature so as to make evilution palatable
Like I said, no one knows HOW, he could've simply taken their DNA and no more. He could've also used their live offspring. Whatever "life" it had would not be a spiritual one, and not a soul. He may also merely have used a lifeless body. Bottom line, all the Bible requires me to believe is that Adam's body was formed from matter by God and his soul directly by him. The rest, I am free to speculate along with science.
-
A miracle means only suspension of natural laws.
So God does not violate or contradict the laws of nature. He suspends them with miracles. vooke would seem to suggest that a few of these suspensions have happened around the genesis story.
Is there any criteria to distinguish the miraculous from the merely metaphorical in the Bible?
vooke is free to suggest that and no one is stopping him or telling him he is wrong. what he is not free to do is insist everyone else does. I also would prefer you let me speak for myself and not paraphrase for me, thanks.
The paraphrasing is just for my own benefit and understanding. Just saying out loud while ready to accept any correction. It's like saying, this is how I understand you...and the ball lands in your court to correct me. That's all there is to it.
I used to think that if a Bible story is utterly absurd from an informed perspective, it is treated as metaphorical. How do you decide what is metaphorical or literal or miraculous in the Bible?
-
You are ignoring these facts;
1.DNA is out of question because it is not found in dust
2.live offsprings of ANYTHING are out of question because they are not found in dust
3. Dead offsprings of ANYTHING too are not found in dust
In any case, if 2 or 3 was the case, shouldn't at death man revert to his pre-Adamic ancestor seeing only soul makes him a man?
Like I said, whatever you take formed from dust to mean, it MUST NOT be inconsistent with the Scriptures or common sense
What you are avoiding at all costs including adopting illogical stance is the one possibility that God simply formed man and there was no man before that nor anything like him. You are busy stringing a relationship between man and some pre-Adamic creature so as to make evilution palatable
Like I said, no one knows HOW, he could've simply taken their DNA and no more. He could've also used their live offspring. Whatever "life" it had would not be a spiritual one, and not a soul. He may also merely have used a lifeless body. Bottom line, all the Bible requires me to believe is that Adam's body was formed from matter by God and his soul directly by him. The rest, I am free to speculate along with science.
This is getting tiresome. You are simply regurgitating the same stuff hoping you will get a different response this time. \ Dna is not found in the dust, so what? My view is that God made man from creatures who ultimately came from a molecule which ultimately came from lifeless molecules. So either way, God must have introduced life whether in evolution or from the soil because as you say, soil got no DNA yet Adam does. Another round of you throwing "objections" that are not objections to nothing is a waste of expensive wifi.
-
God made man from dust NOT creatures
Does dust mean anything else other than dust in scriptures?
Genesis 2:7 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
7 Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
Genesis 3:19 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
19 You will eat bread[a] by the sweat of your brow
until you return to the ground,
since you were taken from it.
For you are dust,
and you will return to dust.”
Genesis 3:23 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
23 So the Lord God sent him away from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
7 and the dust returns to the earth as it once was,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
This is getting tiresome. You are simply regurgitating the same stuff hoping you will get a different response this time. \ Dna is not found in the dust, so what? My view is that God made man from creatures who ultimately came from a molecule which ultimately came from lifeless molecules. So either way, God must have introduced life whether in evolution or from the soil because as you say, soil got no DNA yet Adam does. Another round of you throwing "objections" that are not objections to nothing is a waste of expensive wifi.
-
In the Bible, you have layers of meaning. Words almost always have more than one meaning. The first assumption in exegeisis is the most ordinary meaning of words as they are used in their own language in the context they appear. However, when you have apparent contradictions between texts, you must chose the meaning that reconciles both. This is based on the assumption there can be no true contradiction, only apparent. When you have apparent contradictions between facts as recorded and facts as they are known, you chose the meaning that does not contradict the known facts. Hence, people say the sun stood still is inaccurate as the sun never moved. In the old times, the faithful did not know that the sun didn't move, hence they took this passage as describing an actual reality. But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.
Other ways are known by the kind of text, the Gospels, Acts and a good portion of the New and Old Testament are Historical accounts from their linguistic style and the testimony of the church from the time in which they were written. revelation is largely allegorical, many of the poetic books as well.
-
Dust does not preclude stages between the dust and the body, sorry. Try another one.
-
You have lost me here
Dust does not preclude stages between the dust and the body, sorry. Try another one.
-
What contradiction would lead you to settle on dust as creatures?
Does it have ANY precedent anywhere inside and outside scriptures?
Explain the intellectual leap from DUST/ground to CREATURES
In the Bible, you have layers of meaning. Words almost always have more than one meaning. The first assumption in exegeisis is the most ordinary meaning of words as they are used in their own language in the context they appear. However, when you have apparent contradictions between texts, you must chose the meaning that reconciles both. This is based on the assumption there can be no true contradiction, only apparent. When you have apparent contradictions between facts as recorded and facts as they are known, you chose the meaning that does not contradict the known facts. Hence, people say the sun stood still is inaccurate as the sun never moved. In the old times, the faithful did not know that the sun didn't move, hence they took this passage as describing an actual reality. But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.
Other ways are known by the kind of text, the Gospels, Acts and a good portion of the New and Old Testament are Historical accounts from their linguistic style and the testimony of the church from the time in which they were written. revelation is largely allegorical, many of the poetic books as well.
-
In the Bible, you have layers of meaning. Words almost always have more than one meaning. The first assumption in exegeisis is the most ordinary meaning of words as they are used in their own language in the context they appear. However, when you have apparent contradictions between texts, you must chose the meaning that reconciles both. This is based on the assumption there can be no true contradiction, only apparent. When you have apparent contradictions between facts as recorded and facts as they are known, you chose the meaning that does not contradict the known facts. Hence, people say the sun stood still is inaccurate as the sun never moved. In the old times, the faithful did not know that the sun didn't move, hence they took this passage as describing an actual reality. But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.
Other ways are known by the kind of text, the Gospels, Acts and a good portion of the New and Old Testament are Historical accounts from their linguistic style and the testimony of the church from the time in which they were written. revelation is largely allegorical, many of the poetic books as well.
The heliocentric debate we know of today is dominated by chest thumping scientists. When in actual fact Copernicus himself didn't publicise it in respect to the masses who couldn't handle the truth. Academics aka priests were martyred BEFORE Galileo for foolishly advocating heliocentrism. The papacy was in a geopolitical tussle with monarchies. That biblical contention was overblown by monarchies and the church didn't have the luxury to fold. Politics comes before knowledge in the bigger scheme of things.
-
What contradiction would lead you to settle on dust as creatures?
Does it have ANY precedent anywhere inside and outside scriptures?
Explain the intellectual leap from DUST/ground to CREATURES
In the Bible, you have layers of meaning. Words almost always have more than one meaning. The first assumption in exegeisis is the most ordinary meaning of words as they are used in their own language in the context they appear. However, when you have apparent contradictions between texts, you must chose the meaning that reconciles both. This is based on the assumption there can be no true contradiction, only apparent. When you have apparent contradictions between facts as recorded and facts as they are known, you chose the meaning that does not contradict the known facts. Hence, people say the sun stood still is inaccurate as the sun never moved. In the old times, the faithful did not know that the sun didn't move, hence they took this passage as describing an actual reality. But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.
Other ways are known by the kind of text, the Gospels, Acts and a good portion of the New and Old Testament are Historical accounts from their linguistic style and the testimony of the church from the time in which they were written. revelation is largely allegorical, many of the poetic books as well.
The intellectual leap is in your head. When you have something new to share do so.
-
What makes DUST CREATURES?
Do you really believe this? Seeing you have NO reason for believing what you do, can we say you are unreasonable?
The intellectual leap is in your head. When you have something new to share do so.
-
What makes DUST CREATURES?
Do you really believe this? Seeing you have NO reason for believing what you do, can we say you are unreasonable?
The intellectual leap is in your head. When you have something new to share do so.
You really think bullying will work, you're a tool! How do you usually reconcile the two creation accounts of Genesis with your literalist view of the creation passages? I'm just curious. You are the last person who can pontificate to me on reason, you are yet unable to show the Bible must be interpreted as you please, so you resort to your usual tactics. DUST creatures is so fantastic. you believe Adam was one, no?
-
If am bullying you using the same words you spew out then I gladly accept the tag. Don't act/post before you think
How do dust become creatures? Was Adam sent to till creatures since he came from them?
I don't know what two creation accounts you are talking of
You really think bullying will work, you're a tool! How do you usually reconcile the two creation accounts of Genesis with your literalist view of the creation passages? I'm just curious. You are the last person who can pontificate to me on reason, you are yet unable to show the Bible must be interpreted as you please, so you resort to your usual tactics. DUST creatures is so fantastic. you believe Adam was one, no?
-
If am bullying you using the same words you spew out then I gladly accept the tag. Don't act/post before you think
How do dust become creatures? Was Adam sent to till creatures since he came from them?
I don't know what two creation accounts you are talking of
You really think bullying will work, you're a tool! How do you usually reconcile the two creation accounts of Genesis with your literalist view of the creation passages? I'm just curious. You are the last person who can pontificate to me on reason, you are yet unable to show the Bible must be interpreted as you please, so you resort to your usual tactics. DUST creatures is so fantastic. you believe Adam was one, no?
Find the dust creatures first then we can discuss them. As it stands your fantasies don't make much fodder for discussions. Not ones I care to participate in anyway.
Your bullying tactics, you've tried them all over, basically trying to throw insinuations of a lack of intelligence or faith on my part, as if such a judgment from you has weight. You don't read Genesis, I see.
-
kadame believes Adam was created from pre-existing homo sapiens, animals which were not quite human.
Here comes the flood in Genesis 6 and Noah is aksd to save animals by making an ark
Noah herds a pair of the homo sapiens alongside other animals
You may protest that homo sapiens were humans and Noah,wife and kids being inside meant humans was safe
kadame will have none of that, the pre-Adamic humans lacked 'spirituality, ability to love GOd and to relate to him' otherwisde they was as human as herself.
is it too farfetched to wonder if some of this pre-Adamic homo sapiens, humans in all ways EXCEPT spiritually may have survived to date?
How would I tell them apart from men? :o
-
kadame believes Adam was created from pre-existing homo sapiens, animals which were not quite human.
Here comes the flood in Genesis 6 and Noah is aksd to save animals by making an ark
Noah herds a pair of the homo sapiens alongside other animals
You may protest that homo sapiens were humans and Noah,wife and kids being inside meant humans was safe
kadame will have none of that, the pre-Adamic humans lacked 'spirituality, ability to love GOd and to relate to him' otherwisde they was as human as herself.
is it too farfetched to wonder if some of this pre-Adamic homo sapiens, humans in all ways EXCEPT spiritually may have survived to date?
How would I tell them apart from men? :o
How do you know they were still there at the flood?
-
But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.
Kababe,
The Sun is moving and infact orbits around the center of the Milky Way. the sun takes 225 years to take a revolution around our galaxy, which is called a cosmic year. Thus, it is seen that the sun definitely moves from its place. So whether the Bible is taken literally or in whichever sense, fact remains the "sun stood still".
-
Intelligence by your own definition is defending your position. That's all am looking for. Either that or you abandon it.
Find the dust creatures first then we can discuss them. As it stands your fantasies don't make much fodder for discussions. Not ones I care to participate in anyway.
Your bullying tactics, you've tried them all over, basically trying to throw insinuations of a lack of intelligence or faith on my part, as if such a judgment from you has weight. You don't read Genesis, I see.
-
But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.
Kababe,
The Sun is moving and infact orbits around the center of the Milky Way. the sun takes 225 years to take a revolution around our galaxy, which is called a cosmic year. Thus, it is seen that the sun definitely moves from its place. So whether the Bible is taken literally or in whichever sense, fact remains the "sun stood still".
bittertruth, how would the sun stopping in its route around the milky way have been in any way helpful for the Israelites?? Swali tu.
-
Intelligence by your own definition is defending your position. That's all am looking for. Either that or you abandon it.
Find the dust creatures first then we can discuss them. As it stands your fantasies don't make much fodder for discussions. Not ones I care to participate in anyway.
Your bullying tactics, you've tried them all over, basically trying to throw insinuations of a lack of intelligence or faith on my part, as if such a judgment from you has weight. You don't read Genesis, I see.
When you first earn the pedestal you are claiming then talk to me about intelligence. I've defended my position. You have resorted to your usual low life ways because after you have thrown all you have nothing sticks. All you have is the tool of the Pharisee, derision. Nothing more.
-
Sun stopping is no different from sunrise or sunset; words mean exactly that, figures of speech
Sunrise to date is still an English word and nobody gives a hoot about the 'error' in that word
Terrible and lame example to justify taking Genesis as metaphorical
But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.
Kababe,
The Sun is moving and infact orbits around the center of the Milky Way. the sun takes 225 years to take a revolution around our galaxy, which is called a cosmic year. Thus, it is seen that the sun definitely moves from its place. So whether the Bible is taken literally or in whichever sense, fact remains the "sun stood still".
bittertruth, how would the sun stopping in its route around the milky way have been in any way helpful for the Israelites?? Swali tu.
-
kadame,
how do you make the intellectual leap from studying Genesis 2 to read DUST as a reference to CREATURES?
When you first earn the pedestal you are claiming then talk to me about intelligence. I've defended my position. You have resorted to your usual low life ways because after you have thrown all you have nothing sticks. All you have is the tool of the Pharisee, derision. Nothing more.
-
kadame,
how do you make the intellectual leap from studying Genesis 2 to read DUST as a reference to CREATURES?
When you first earn the pedestal you are claiming then talk to me about intelligence. I've defended my position. You have resorted to your usual low life ways because after you have thrown all you have nothing sticks. All you have is the tool of the Pharisee, derision. Nothing more.
vooke, how do you read a whole 7 pages and manage to misunderstand basic English? O wait, I forgot. You just have to lack integrity and then its easy peasy. :D
-
God takes lifeless dust...it is still lifeless
He makes a man in His own image....man is still lifeless
He breaths into man his breath of life and man becomes a living soul
The lifeless dust was actually CREATURES
Man is sent to till CREATURES seeing he came from CREATURES
Man dies and returns to CREATURES because he was formed out of CREATURES
Why couldn't God have formed man out of dust? What's so difficult in literally forming Adam out of the earth?
kadame,
how do you make the intellectual leap from studying Genesis 2 to read DUST as a reference to CREATURES?
When you first earn the pedestal you are claiming then talk to me about intelligence. I've defended my position. You have resorted to your usual low life ways because after you have thrown all you have nothing sticks. All you have is the tool of the Pharisee, derision. Nothing more.
vooke, how do you read a whole 7 pages and manage to misunderstand basic English? O wait, I forgot. You just have to lack integrity hen its easy peasy. :D
-
God takes lifeless dust...it is still lifeless
He makes a man in His own image....man is still lifeless
He breaths into man his breath of life and man becomes a living soul
The lifeless dust was actually CREATURES
Man is sent to till CREATURES seeing he came from CREATURES
Man dies and returns to CREATURES because he was formed out of CREATURES
kadame,
how do you make the intellectual leap from studying Genesis 2 to read DUST as a reference to CREATURES?
When you first earn the pedestal you are claiming then talk to me about intelligence. I've defended my position. You have resorted to your usual low life ways because after you have thrown all you have nothing sticks. All you have is the tool of the Pharisee, derision. Nothing more.
vooke, how do you read a whole 7 pages and manage to misunderstand basic English? O wait, I forgot. You just have to lack integrity hen its easy peasy. :D
I change my mind, it's not necessarily lack of integrity, it could just be a slow day.
-
Why couldn't God have formed man out of dust? What's so difficult in literally forming Adam out of the earth?
If a creature can take this
(http://esask.uregina.ca/management/app/assets/img/enc2/selectedbig/51F187F4-1560-95DA-43DFADB7FF2FC811.jpg)
and turn it into this;
(http://car.hora.ir/News/0345-Bugati-Veyron-Gold/2.jpg)
Why is it preposterous to believe that the creator took this
(http://i.bnet.com/blogs/soilhandful.png)
and made this?
(http://www.voice-online.co.uk/sites/default/files/imagecache/455/Adewale.jpg)
I change my mind, it's not necessarily lack of integrity, it could just be a slow day.
-
When you find the debate about what God can and cant do, be sure to alert me so I can give it the contempt it deserves. In the mean time, the debate on what God did and didn't do, it rages on. Is it that you simply cant debate without creating your own debate and ignoring the actual one...or its just that slow day.
-
Kababe, your view is misleading and unbibilical.
1. God created man in His own image both physical body and supernatural.
2. This thing you call DNA, God's the ultimate author. What do u understand by "breath of life"? Isn't dna a living cell?
My view is that God made man from creatures who ultimately came from a molecule which ultimately came from lifeless molecules. So either way, God must have introduced life whether in evolution or from the soil because as you say, soil got no DNA yet Adam does.
-
Sun stopping is no different from sunrise or sunset; words mean exactly that, figures of speech
Sunrise to date is still an English word and nobody gives a hoot about the 'error' in that word
Terrible and lame example to justify taking Genesis as metaphorical
But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.
Kababe,
The Sun is moving and infact orbits around the center of the Milky Way. the sun takes 225 years to take a revolution around our galaxy, which is called a cosmic year. Thus, it is seen that the sun definitely moves from its place. So whether the Bible is taken literally or in whichever sense, fact remains the "sun stood still".
bittertruth, how would the sun stopping in its route around the milky way have been in any way helpful for the Israelites?? Swali tu.
The example came about because people did in fact take it literally and use it today to point at "errors". Of course its not an error. That's the point! Kudoz for preaching to the choir. And sunrise/sunset/sun stood still...they are only obvious figures of speech because we KNOW today that scientifically, the sun don't rise/set/stand still. Go back 1,000 years and ask Christians and people in the past if these are "figures of speech'' or plain facts.
Still pretending there's just one Genesis account, or did you go and flip through your Bible? I'm curious how your literalism reconciles them.
-
Kababe, your view is misleading and unbibilical.
1. God created man in His own image both physical body and supernatural.
2. This thing you call DNA, God's the ultimate author. What do u understand by "breath of life"? Isn't dna a living cell?
My view is that God made man from creatures who ultimately came from a molecule which ultimately came from lifeless omolecules. So either way, God must have introduced life whether in evolution or from the soil because as you say, soil got no DNA yet Adam does.
Bittertruth, explain to me how your body is in God's image.
No. 2: of course God is the ultimate author of DNA. what gave you the impression I think it has a different author?
My view is not unbiblical, its just not yours. If it is unbiblical, you will show me where it contradicts the Bible. not where it contradicts your interpretation.
-
The reason why Evilution is incompatible with creation is because;
1. Man(Adam) had a DEFINITE start and it was NOT another animal contrary to evilution model; he came from the dust, a fact that has repeatedly been drummed into you
2. No amount of exegesis,eisegesis,hermeneutics,PhD in Theology,popes,8 foreskins of Jesus,bloody vial of John Paul's blood, weeping Mary idols,any future popes, necromancy,dead saints,Turin shroud or ANYTHING can change DUST into CREATURES. Adam was NEVER created from animals
Evilution could be compatible with scriptures if;
1. Adam was created from other animals and,
2. Adam was born like the next mammal
3. The Genesis 1 & 2 creation account is a fable,allegory, metaphor
4. Man is EXEMPTED from the vagaries of evilution
Again, God is unlimited, He could have evolved Adam from other animals. He could have killed an animal and made man out of it, He could have siphoned some DNA from any animal and made Adam out of it. What is RECORDED is that He used DUST and none of that. God Himself can NEVER change His Word or what He did.
Jesus turned water into wine and not blood. It is forever established and settled that water turned into wine. He could have turned water into ANYTHING but He didn't. kadame you are arguing that since Jesus could turn water into ANYTHING, it is limiting Him to insist (as is recorded) that He turned it into wine and nothing else.
Arguments from silence will not help you. There is no silence,vacuum nor ambiguity as to HOW God created man which you are licensed to fill with your fantasies. You have dust/ground, breath of life and God's Wisdom. None of those fit with ANY evilutionary model which demands time,chance and propagation of traits.
vooke never wrote Genesis and neither did you. If you have any modicum of reverence for the scriptures, accept what Genesis is saying; Adam was formed from dust/ground, the same he was sent to till, and the same he and we return to upon death. If that is too ridiculous for your head, then board the next atheistic train and join Termie and Pundito
When you find the debate about what God can and cant do, be sure to alert me so I can give it the contempt it deserves. In the mean time, the debate on what God did and didn't do, it rages on. Is it that you simply cant debate without creating your own debate and ignoring the actual one...or its just that slow day.
-
The reason why Evilution is incompatible with creation is because;
1. Man(Adam) had a DEFINITE start and it was NOT another animal contrary to evilution model; he came from the dust, a fact that has repeatedly been drummed into you
2. No amount of exegesis,eisegesis,hermeneutics,PhD in Theology,popes,8 foreskins of Jesus,bloody vial of John Paul's blood, weeping Mary idols,any future popes, necromancy,dead saints,Turin shroud or ANYTHING can change DUST into CREATURES. Adam was NEVER created from animals
Please. You can sing something a thousand times. Repetition never turned anything to fact. Of course Adam had a DEFINITE start, writing that in bold/italics/capital adds exactly ZERO to your points. The debate is never whether Adam existed forever or was created. And O...You believe dust was turned into a creature, ALREADY! The fact that you are so gleefully making fun of your own beliefs is a joy to watch, actually.
Evilution could be compatible with scriptures if;
1. Adam was created from other animals and,
2. Adam was born like the next mammal
3. The Genesis 1 & 2 creation account is a fable,allegory, metaphor
4. Man is EXEMPTED from the vagaries of evilution
Again, God is unlimited, He could have evolved Adam from other animals. He could have killed an animal and made man out of it, He could have siphoned some DNA from any animal and made Adam out of it. What is RECORDED is that He used DUST and none of that. God Himself can NEVER change His Word or what He did.
God formed man from the dust. That's all the bible says. God had to turn inanimate dust into some type of animal, whether you believe that was instant or took a million years, so the idea there was rcorded it started with dust adds nothing to your point since you are presuming it, not proving it.
Jesus turned water into wine and not blood. It is forever established and settled that water turned into wine. He could have turned water into ANYTHING but He didn't. kadame you are arguing that since Jesus could turn water into ANYTHING, it is limiting Him to insist (as is recorded) that He turned it into wine and nothing else.
What is recorded is first there was soil and at the end there was Adam. You cant force your singular tunnel vision interpretation on that. What happened between the soil and Adam only God knows, and I am free to believe it was exactly as science says.
Arguments from silence will not help you. There is no silence,vacuum nor ambiguity as to HOW God created man which you are licensed to fill with your fantasies. You have dust/ground, breath of life and God's Wisdom. None of those fit with ANY evilutionary model which demands time,chance and propagation of traits.
You have still to explain the HOW and here you are insisting there was no ambiguity. Was soil just transformed into a body or were elements from it transformed or was Adam just called from the depths of it whole?
vooke never wrote Genesis and neither did you. If you have any modicum of reverence for the scriptures, accept what Genesis is saying; Adam was formed from dust/ground, the same he was sent to till, and the same he and we return to upon death. If that is too ridiculous for your head, then board the next atheistic train and join Termie and Pundito
If you have any modicum of decency keep your legendary arrogance to yourself. your interpretation is not what "Genesis is saying", genius, and I already accept what it is saying, and know what it is NOT saying too. And when you find the lock to God's house that gives you the authority on who you let it, feel free to snd me pm on your executive fatwa excluding me. In the mean-time, keep your creationist nonsense to yourself.
When you find the debate about what God can and cant do, be sure to alert me so I can give it the contempt it deserves. In the mean time, the debate on what God did and didn't do, it rages on. Is it that you simply cant debate without creating your own debate and ignoring the actual one...or its just that slow day.
[/quote]
So do you believe both creation accounts in Genesis were literal, or just the first or just the second?
-
Whether God took a second or a billion years in creating Adam, He never formed Adam from animals but from dust. So throwing in billions of years into creation of man is not helping your vain attempt at transforming DUST into CREATURES
Creation account spans Genesis 1 & 2. Which accounts are you taking about?
The reason why Evilution is incompatible with creation is because;
1. Man(Adam) had a DEFINITE start and it was NOT another animal contrary to evilution model; he came from the dust, a fact that has repeatedly been drummed into you
2. No amount of exegesis,eisegesis,hermeneutics,PhD in Theology,popes,8 foreskins of Jesus,bloody vial of John Paul's blood, weeping Mary idols,any future popes, necromancy,dead saints,Turin shroud or ANYTHING can change DUST into CREATURES. Adam was NEVER created from animals
Please. You can sing something a thousand times. Repetition never turned anything to fact. Of course Adam had a DEFINITE start, writing that in bold/italics/capital adds exactly ZERO to your points. The debate is never whether Adam existed forever or was created. And O...You believe dust was turned into a creature, ALREADY! The fact that you are so gleefully making fun of your own beliefs is a joy to watch, actually.
Evilution could be compatible with scriptures if;
1. Adam was created from other animals and,
2. Adam was born like the next mammal
3. The Genesis 1 & 2 creation account is a fable,allegory, metaphor
4. Man is EXEMPTED from the vagaries of evilution
Again, God is unlimited, He could have evolved Adam from other animals. He could have killed an animal and made man out of it, He could have siphoned some DNA from any animal and made Adam out of it. What is RECORDED is that He used DUST and none of that. God Himself can NEVER change His Word or what He did.
God formed man from the dust. That's all the bible says. God had to turn inanimate dust into some type of animal, whether you believe that was instant or took a million years, so the idea there was rcorded it started with dust adds nothing to your point since you are presuming it, not proving it.
Jesus turned water into wine and not blood. It is forever established and settled that water turned into wine. He could have turned water into ANYTHING but He didn't. kadame you are arguing that since Jesus could turn water into ANYTHING, it is limiting Him to insist (as is recorded) that He turned it into wine and nothing else.
What is recorded is first there was soil and at the end there was Adam. You cant force your singular tunnel vision interpretation on that. What happened between the soil and Adam only God knows, and I am free to believe it was exactly as science says.
Arguments from silence will not help you. There is no silence,vacuum nor ambiguity as to HOW God created man which you are licensed to fill with your fantasies. You have dust/ground, breath of life and God's Wisdom. None of those fit with ANY evilutionary model which demands time,chance and propagation of traits.
You have still to explain the HOW and here you are insisting there was no ambiguity. Was soil just transformed into a body or were elements from it transformed or was Adam just called from the depths of it whole?
vooke never wrote Genesis and neither did you. If you have any modicum of reverence for the scriptures, accept what Genesis is saying; Adam was formed from dust/ground, the same he was sent to till, and the same he and we return to upon death. If that is too ridiculous for your head, then board the next atheistic train and join Termie and Pundito
If you have any modicum of decency keep your legendary arrogance to yourself. your interpretation is not what "Genesis is saying", genius, and I already accept what it is saying, and know what it is NOT saying too. And when you find the lock to God's house that gives you the authority on who you let it, feel free to snd me pm on your executive fatwa excluding me. In the mean-time, keep your creationist nonsense to yourself.
When you find the debate about what God can and cant do, be sure to alert me so I can give it the contempt it deserves. In the mean time, the debate on what God did and didn't do, it rages on. Is it that you simply cant debate without creating your own debate and ignoring the actual one...or its just that slow day.
So do you believe both creation accounts in Genesis were literal, or just the first or just the second?
[/quote]
-
:sign0004:
-
Whether God took a second or a billion years in creating Adam, He never formed Adam from animals but from dust. So throwing in billions of years into creation of man is not helping your vain attempt at transforming DUST into CREATURES
Creation account spans Genesis 1 & 2. Which accounts are you taking about?
God formed man from dust is not in disagreement, again repetition never made a fact. That dust could've gone through a billion transformations before it became Adam. So much for you false dust/creature dichotomy.
The "single" creation account, how do you reconcile it with your literalist reading?
:sign0004:
Now, now, lets settle down. :D
-
Am sure when we bury you , your priest apart from praying that you rest in piece will quote Job, dust to dust and ashes to ashes
The same 'billion transformations' your body will go through after death is what God did from dust to make Adam
How many creatures do you turn into before decaying?
There is NO ROOM for millions of creatures between dust and Adam apart from your head. And you need to quit second-guessing God. He said dust not dust-mollusks-invertabrates-vertabrates-amphibians-Adam
Once again, how do I reconcile what with what?
God formed man from dust is not in disagreement, again repetition never made a fact. That dust could've gone through a billion transformations before it became Adam. So much for you false dust/creature dichotomy.
The "single" creation account, how do you reconcile it with your literalist reading?
:sign0004:
Now, now, lets settle down. :D
-
kadame, don't trust vooke, but at the very least revere God and His WORD. Look at Paul;
1 Corinthians 15:47-48 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
47 The first man was from the earth
and made of dust;
the second man is[a] from heaven.
48 Like the man made of dust,
so are those who are made of dust;
like the heavenly man,
so are those who are heavenly.
-
Solomon, the Preacher, Ecclesiastes talking not vooke. vooke is a hater, an arrogant sob.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
7 and the dust returns to the earth as it once was,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Is the body returning to other animal forms and finally dust?
-
vooke is KIDOR,an Okoyu supremacist, the Psalmist is inspired
Psalm 103:14 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
14 For He knows what we are made of,
remembering that we are dust.
He remembers that we are formed out of billions of billions of transformation between soil/dust and our bodies :o
-
:cheer:
I cheer for both sides.
-
Am sure when we bury you , your priest apart from praying that you rest in piece will quote Job, dust to dust and ashes to ashes
The same 'billion transformations' your body will go through after death is what God did from dust to make Adam
How many creatures do you turn into before decaying?
There is NO ROOM for millions of creatures between dust and Adam apart from your head. And you need to quit second-guessing God. He said dust not dust-mollusks-invertabrates-vertabrates-amphibians-Adam
Once again, how do I reconcile what with what?
God formed man from dust is not in disagreement, again repetition never made a fact. That dust could've gone through a billion transformations before it became Adam. So much for you false dust/creature dichotomy.
The "single" creation account, how do you reconcile it with your literalist reading?
:sign0004:
Now, now, lets settle down. :D
That is a silly analogy/point---don't even know what it is, but it makes no sense. We would have to go through "all those reverse transformations" at death if they happened to Adam individually, but they didn't and not a single theory says it did, except your own instant evolution theory. By the way, if we were to follow your logic, then it means you believe that God used maggots, bacteria and all those things the human body becomes to form Adam? I thought you said no animal whatsoever was involved at no stage...make up your mind.
Everything that dies disintegrates. "Dust to dust" only signifies our finite existence, its not a scientific statement, and there's no reason why death should resemble creation. We all start from the fusion of sperm and ova and we all disintegrate. vooke, going through a thousand scriptures with the dust reference changes nothing. They are all saying we came from dust. And since no one is denying that, you simply wasting your time.
While you are at it, will you make even a half-hearted attempt at showing me how you reconcile the "single" creation event of Genesis if you believe Genesis is 100% literal?
-
vooke is silly, but DUST is not LIVING NOR DEAD CREATURES NOR CREATURES DNA. DUST IS DUST.
If God wanted to tell us that Adam came from animals, He messed BIG
We are done here. You can have the final word so you come on top
That is a silly analogy/point---don't even know what it is, but it makes no sense. We would have to go through "all those reverse transformations" at death if they happened to each of us individually, but they didn't and not a single theory says it did, except your own instant evolution theory. By the way, if we were to follow your logic, then it means you believe that God used maggots, bacteria and all those things the human body becomes to form Adam? I thought you said no animal whatsoever was involved at no stage...make up your mind.
Everything that dies disintegrates. "Dust to dust" only signifies our finite existence, its not a scientific statement, and there's no reason why death should resemble creation. We all start from the fusion of sperm and ova and we all disintegrate. vooke, going through a thousand scriptures with the dust reference changes nothing. They are all saying we came from dust. And since no one is denying that, you simply wasting your time.
While you are at it, will you make even a half-hearted attempt at showing me how you reconcile the "single" creation event of Genesis if you believe Genesis is 100% literal?
-
vooke is silly, but DUST is not LIVING NOR DEAD CREATURES NOR CREATURES DNA. DUST IS DUST
We are done here. You can have the final word so you come on top
That is a silly analogy/point---don't even know what it is, but it makes no sense. We would have to go through "all those reverse transformations" at death if they happened to each of us individually, but they didn't and not a single theory says it did, except your own instant evolution theory. By the way, if we were to follow your logic, then it means you believe that God used maggots, bacteria and all those things the human body becomes to form Adam? I thought you said no animal whatsoever was involved at no stage...make up your mind.
Everything that dies disintegrates. "Dust to dust" only signifies our finite existence, its not a scientific statement, and there's no reason why death should resemble creation. We all start from the fusion of sperm and ova and we all disintegrate. vooke, going through a thousand scriptures with the dust reference changes nothing. They are all saying we came from dust. And since no one is denying that, you simply wasting your time.
While you are at it, will you make even a half-hearted attempt at showing me how you reconcile the "single" creation event of Genesis if you believe Genesis is 100% literal?
That's very generous of you. If you did it out of humility, it might even be admirable. But seeing as you are doing it out of;
-inability to reconcile the apparent contradictions of Genesis with a literalist reading,
-running out of more ridiculous analogies to present as "points" without thinking them through and seeing if they are CONSISTENT with your own claims,
-inability to be honest about these two things
the motive is laid bare. I didn't know it was all about "coming on top", here I was thinking truth was your motivation. And of course, I did not call you silly. Just the analogy you tried to strain as a point. Enjoy your day, pastor. Ponder on the millions of maggots and bacteria that make up your body.
-
Running commentary.
vooke's suggestion that the soil in genesis was sterile is a little rich. I say this because If you pick up any soil on earth today, there's tons of living things in there. Bacteria, germs, even earthworms. Even though these things are not mentioned in genesis, one would think it is more reasonable to assume that at least some of them are in the soil.
The reason we have this bizarre claim of sterile soil. vooke's determination to exclude any mechanism not explicitly mentioned in genesis. This is the only way he can exclude other reasonable possibilities of how the creation goes down.
My own view, when I still believed God, was that he jump started the whole process at the big bang and let it play out without further interference. I thought that this sat rather well with my concept of free will and similar ideas.
-
This is what happens when you take a stone age theory of the jewish people and try to fit into 21st century contemporary knowledge and science while hoping the stone age theory will remain relevant and convincing.
One thing is given..our universe is incredibly complex and we may never understand it all..but year in year out...scientist are putting hard work and top grade brains to understand it..they are succeeding in making incredible small steps forward....while religious zealots are stuck in really laughable stone age theories that some gawd created someone named adam from 'earth'...and their evidence is biblical scripts written apparently by some inspired authors.
What a waste of time and space. Trying to reduce an incredibly complex universe of possibly billions of planets and universes that has existed for billions of years...and maybe gazillions...into jewish god created man from earth in his image :lol: in some 6,000 yrs ago...is truly incredible bone-headiness.
Pick a book and learn gardening or something...not a stone-age religion of the jewish people.
This thread just illustrate how far religious indoctrination or witchcraft or superstition really impedes thinking and progress.
Of course everyone is free to believe in religious nonsense but superstition it's sister and witchraft is' brother is banned (mostly by religious zealots coz those truly were their real competitors in business of explaining the universe using magic...Church in Kenya waged serious war against competitor religion like witchraft,evil spirits and superstition...seem they didn't succeed in place like India whose stone age religion was rather strong...and now 1B indians believe their god is swimming in ocean of milk)...maybe we should consider banning religion until someone is 18yrs to be able to discern BS from Non-BS.
I think these kind religious nonsense will continue unabated because kids are recruited and indoctrinated (with fear of fire,death,brimstone,blampshey) as soon as they're born. Such kind of indoctrination will take real brains and courage to get out of it like most atheist. The rest will need probably psychiatrist to exorcise the religious indoctrination of their parents and upbringing.
-
Science can't explain everything, whereas faith is absolute. It's divine. Religion is not on the same playing field as humans. You're talking about celestial entities with superhuman traits who interact with a select few humans. I don't think one could unpackage religion in human terms. Perhaps religion as a political entity is no different to relabelling politics as 'religion'. But religion as in true religion, I don't think we've even scratched the surface.
-
Sound like witchcraft, magic and superstition to me. And yes we know the history of jewish religion. It a recent history. Let not confuse human natural inquisitive nature with religion. Religion is a crude form of what science do. Everybody is grappling trying to figure out this incredible universe and their role in in it. Religion provide the easy answers...science is more rigorous process.Religion is imagination and fiction couple with lots of conmen and conwomen astray.
Science can't explain everything, whereas faith is absolute. It's divine. Religion is not on the same playing field as humans. You're talking about celestial entities with superhuman traits who interact with a select few humans. I don't think one could unpackage religion in human terms. Perhaps religion as a political entity is no different to relabelling politics as 'religion'. But religion as in true religion, I don't think we've even scratched the surface.
-
Termie,
As I said, I have nothing to add but I have a right of reply.
Genesis vividly captures formation/creation of an organism from another, that is Eve from Adam. It appears the event was fast otherwise imagining Adam sleeping for 50,000 years insulting. I deduce that when God creates an organism from another, He says so. So when He says dust/soil, reading other creatures is stretching the verses into absurdity
Gen 2:21(ESV)
21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
In short, soil/dust naturally eliminates possibility of pre-Adamic races and evilution. Termie was once upon a time in Kenia, now you are in Chi. I may not know how you got there but the distance between Nairobi and that place plus all that's between them excludes swimming. You never swam all the way.
Running commentary.
vooke's suggestion that the soil in genesis was sterile is a little rich. I say this because If you pick up any soil on earth today, there's tons of living things in there. Bacteria, germs, even earthworms. Even though these things are not mentioned in genesis, one would think it is more reasonable to assume that at least some of them are in the soil.
The reason we have this bizarre claim of sterile soil. vooke's determination to exclude any mechanism not explicitly mentioned in genesis. This is the only way he can exclude other reasonable possibilities of how the creation goes down.
My own view, when I still believed God, was that he jump started the whole process at the big bang and let it play out without further interference. I thought that this sat rather well with my concept of free will and similar ideas.
-
Whatever definition you have of science and technology, it has not been powered by atheists alone or to any significant extent. You may have zero regard for Christianity but Christianity is not the opposite of science and tech
This is what happens when you take a stone age theory of the jewish people and try to fit into 21st century contemporary knowledge and science while hoping the stone age theory will remain relevant and convincing.
One thing is given..our universe is incredibly complex and we may never understand it all..but year in year out...scientist are putting hard work and top grade brains to understand it..they are succeeding in making incredible small steps forward....while religious zealots are stuck in really laughable stone age theories that some gawd created someone named adam from 'earth'...and their evidence is biblical scripts written apparently by some inspired authors.
What a waste of time and space. Trying to reduce an incredibly complex universe of possibly billions of planets and universes that has existed for billions of years...and maybe gazillions...into jewish god created man from earth in his image :lol: in some 6,000 yrs ago...is truly incredible bone-headiness.
Pick a book and learn gardening or something...not a stone-age religion of the jewish people.
This thread just illustrate how far religious indoctrination or witchcraft or superstition really impedes thinking and progress.
Of course everyone is free to believe in religious nonsense but superstition it's sister and witchraft is' brother is banned (mostly by religious zealots coz those truly were their real competitors in business of explaining the universe using magic...Church in Kenya waged serious war against competitor religion like witchraft,evil spirits and superstition...seem they didn't succeed in place like India whose stone age religion was rather strong...and now 1B indians believe their god is swimming in ocean of milk)...maybe we should consider banning religion until someone is 18yrs to be able to discern BS from Non-BS.
I think these kind religious nonsense will continue unabated because kids are recruited and indoctrinated (with fear of fire,death,brimstone,blampshey) as soon as they're born. Such kind of indoctrination will take real brains and courage to get out of it like most atheist. The rest will need probably psychiatrist to exorcise the religious indoctrination of their parents and upbringing.
-
Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism and all that are relatives of witchcraft, superstition and all archaic belief systems. Science is something else. Yes they are people who dabble in many or all of them. CJ Mutunga believes in probably all of them. Boko Haram strictly on Sharia. Some waganga forbid their kids to go to schools.
Bottomline...i can only engage in scientific debate...or historical debate (regarding religion or christianity)...it certainly beneath my intelligence to discuss the stupid stone age theories of your bible.
But you're free to start yet another 100 page thread of biblical nonsense....but for me humanity or Nipate.org will not have advanced an INCH.
Whatever definition you have of science and technology, it has not been powered by atheists alone or to any significant extent. You may have zero regard for Christianity but Christianity is not the opposite of science and tech
-
This is what happens when you take a stone age theory of the jewish people and try to fit into 21st century contemporary knowledge and science while hoping the stone age theory will remain relevant and convincing.
One thing is given..our universe is incredibly complex and we may never understand it all..but year in year out...scientist are putting hard work and top grade brains to understand it..they are succeeding in making incredible small steps forward....while religious zealots are stuck in really laughable stone age theories that some gawd created someone named adam from 'earth'...and their evidence is biblical scripts written apparently by some inspired authors.
What a waste of time and space. Trying to reduce an incredibly complex universe of possibly billions of planets and universes that has existed for billions of years...and maybe gazillions...into jewish god created man from earth in his image :lol: in some 6,000 yrs ago...is truly incredible bone-headiness.
Pick a book and learn gardening or something...not a stone-age religion of the jewish people.
This thread just illustrate how far religious indoctrination or witchcraft or superstition really impedes thinking and progress.
Of course everyone is free to believe in religious nonsense but superstition it's sister and witchraft is' brother is banned (mostly by religious zealots coz those truly were their real competitors in business of explaining the universe using magic...Church in Kenya waged serious war against competitor religion like witchraft,evil spirits and superstition...seem they didn't succeed in place like India whose stone age religion was rather strong...and now 1B indians believe their god is swimming in ocean of milk)...maybe we should consider banning religion until someone is 18yrs to be able to discern BS from Non-BS.
I think these kind religious nonsense will continue unabated because kids are recruited and indoctrinated (with fear of fire,death,brimstone,blampshey) as soon as they're born. Such kind of indoctrination will take real brains and courage to get out of it like most atheist. The rest will need probably psychiatrist to exorcise the religious indoctrination of their parents and upbringing.
That's true if also harsh. It took a while for me realize that God was not logical. In fact illogical.
Hominids are a religious species. The only one to my knowledge. They are gifted with great capacity for logic. Yet. Irrationality is a byproduct of this wiring.
If you use a software analogy. Most animals are programmed using early binding. Humans are late binders. With potential that would be put to no use once their primal needs are taken care of.
Natures abhors a vacuum.
Once the capacity for survival is catered for, the excess brain power is consumed with creative pursuits. Some lead to new insights. Others just consume excess cycles; Religion is just one of those.
Overall, I think Christianity has been positive. I think mostly due to their tolerance of diverse view points.
-
Termie,
As I said, I have nothing to add but I have a right of reply.
Genesis vividly captures formation/creation of an organism from another, that is Eve from Adam. It appears the event was fast otherwise imagining Adam sleeping for 50,000 years insulting. I deduce that when God creates an organism from another, He says so. So when He says dust/soil, reading other creatures is stretching the verses into absurdity
Gen 2:21(ESV)
21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
In short, soil/dust naturally eliminates possibility of pre-Adamic races and evilution. Termie was once upon a time in Kenia, now you are in Chi. I may not know how you got there but the distance between Nairobi and that place plus all that's between them excludes swimming. You never swam all the way.
Running commentary.
vooke's suggestion that the soil in genesis was sterile is a little rich. I say this because If you pick up any soil on earth today, there's tons of living things in there. Bacteria, germs, even earthworms. Even though these things are not mentioned in genesis, one would think it is more reasonable to assume that at least some of them are in the soil.
The reason we have this bizarre claim of sterile soil. vooke's determination to exclude any mechanism not explicitly mentioned in genesis. This is the only way he can exclude other reasonable possibilities of how the creation goes down.
My own view, when I still believed God, was that he jump started the whole process at the big bang and let it play out without further interference. I thought that this sat rather well with my concept of free will and similar ideas.
I think that is a self servingly narrow interpretation. Soil on earth, even in the most sterile places has living organisms in it.
-
Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism and all that are relatives of witchcraft, superstition and all archaic belief systems. Science is something else. Yes they are people who dabble in many or all of them. CJ Mutunga believes in probably all of them. Boko Haram strictly on Sharia. Some waganga forbid their kids to go to schools.
Bottomline...i can only engage in scientific debate...or historical debate (regarding religion or christianity)...it certainly beneath my intelligence to discuss the stupid stone age theories of your bible.
But you're free to start yet another 100 page thread of biblical nonsense....but for me humanity or Nipate.org will not have advanced an INCH.
Whatever definition you have of science and technology, it has not been powered by atheists alone or to any significant extent. You may have zero regard for Christianity but Christianity is not the opposite of science and tech
Pundit, you know if you find religious topics stupid, you don't have to participate in them. You don't even have to read. It really is a free world. :D
-
There is really nothing to debate about religion-its a belief system. You either believe in Xyz or you don't. This guy tried to sell me a brand of Christianity at the mall where apparently Jesus had a holy mother in heaven that is yet to be revealed. His concept of the holy trinity includes Mother, Father and the son. I was like, "if that is what you believe in then fine" . What ticks me off with these religious folks is how adamant they are that what believe in is the truth and that everybody else has it wrong.
-
Not to be drawn into the debate :D but I think the serpent in genesis is literal not symbolic. As we now know, satan can use anything or appear as anything even disguised as a person.
Mya, that's true. He can do that.
Yet it is narrated that God punished the serpent (the animal) by making him crawl on his belly. It is understandable that Adam and Eve could've been fooled by Satan's disguise, yet the same cannot be said for God. But if you read that literally, then it seems like God does not differentiate the animal from the tempter. I am therefore disinclined to treat that literally, but instead figuratively.
Remember, Genesis doesn't really tell us that it was Satan anywhere. This is something that has universally been understood regardless, that the serpent is the devil, who is called the deceiver and the tempter all over the scriptures. That tells me this was a symbol that everyone understood to be a reference to Satan as a tempter of humanity and not a literal occurrence involving a real snake. I see it the same way I see the dragon in revelation. These are generally symbols for Satan. St Peter also compares him to a roaring lion roaming the earth seeking whom he may devour. So satan is compared in many ways to animals deemed dangerous by the human psyche.
The punishment to crawl on the belly seems to represent some kind of punishment or curbing of his powers by God; some way that his leeway in man's world is diminished as a result of his causing man to fall.
Even the proto-evangelium--the curse God uttered to the serpent--has been historically interpreted to be a promise of salvation to Adam immediately after the fall of man. So God says "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Genesis 3:15). That clearly announces the coming of Christ who will crush the serpent's head. After all, he may have lost his legs but yet he still roams free and can even "bruise the heel" of man still.
The tree of life is unmistakably a symbol for Christ, the bread of life, and Christ speaks of himself in the identical terms in which the tree is described, "eat and live forever".
The tree of knowledge of good and evil represents some kind of independence from God, which is why Adam is told not to eat from it. Eating from it means deciding good and evil for oneself instead of placing filial trust in God as one's Lord. It's basically the essence of rebellion, or desiring/becoming one's own God.
So for me, and I understand for many early church fathers, the story of the fall as narrated is not a literal story but a symbolic narration of the fall of Adam and Eve from grace.
-
There is really nothing to debate about religion-its a belief system. You either believe in Xyz or you don't. This guy tried to sell me a brand of Christianity at the mall where apparently Jesus had a holy mother in heaven that is yet to be revealed. His concept of the holy trinity includes Mother, Father and the son. I was like, "if that is what you believe in then fine" . What ticks me off with these religious folks is how adamant they are that what believe in is the truth and that everybody else has it wrong.
I know that church, its new. Its in Korea, I think. A couple stopped me at school and tried to preach to me about "God the mother". They even showed me her picture. She's the head of their church, a pretty Korean woman dressed in traditional far eastern dress. I think this is them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God
-
What is selfserving is belief that dirt formed itself and then it formed life UNAIDED over billions of years. The belief that somewhere in Genesis your belief must and has been captured. The belief that failure by Genesis to capture your belief makes it a substandard and unintelligent record of history
If dirt can mean animals,then the scriptural integrity breaks and ANYTHING can mean ANYTHING or NOTHING.
I think that is a self servingly narrow interpretation. Soil on earth, even in the most sterile places has living organisms in it.
-
You can't wish Christianity away. You usually come off like a negro who is insecure in their atheism. Like you wish everyone was so you can be many. There are intelligent and dumb Christians who are more productive than you will ever imagine both here and elsewhere
Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism and all that are relatives of witchcraft, superstition and all archaic belief systems. Science is something else. Yes they are people who dabble in many or all of them. CJ Mutunga believes in probably all of them. Boko Haram strictly on Sharia. Some waganga forbid their kids to go to schools.
Bottomline...i can only engage in scientific debate...or historical debate (regarding religion or christianity)...it certainly beneath my intelligence to discuss the stupid stone age theories of your bible.
But you're free to start yet another 100 page thread of biblical nonsense....but for me humanity or Nipate.org will not have advanced an INCH.
Whatever definition you have of science and technology, it has not been powered by atheists alone or to any significant extent. You may have zero regard for Christianity but Christianity is not the opposite of science and tech
-
The same way you cannot wish away withcraft and uganga..is the same way we have to tolerate christianity..which i find to be such a waste of time and energy.
In-secured when i have been an atheist nearly all my life. If you met me in primary school..i was an atheist. In high school too. In university the same. I was instinctively atheistic since i was young kid. The only theory i grappled with when i was 10yrs is that earth was round...this i was told by Kiplimo who was in std 8....i agonized how that was possible until we were thought in std 7 about earth...but i knew bible stories were bunch of nonsense very early in my life..and ate all my sadaka (offering)...until i became rude about 10yrs old and completely refused to go to sunday school..1shs sadaka was less an incentive compared to hunting rabbits and other fun things i could do on sunday,
My beef is simple....i am gutted that otherwise intelligent people can spend 10 threads discussing NONSENSE. I know it not my energy or my time..but i would feel the same way if i found somebody running aimless up and down a hill.
The bible is the most concentrated BULLSHIET EVER PUBLISHED.
You can't wish Christianity away. You usually come off like a negro who is insecure in their atheism. Like you wish everyone was so you can be many. There are intelligent and dumb Christians who are more productive than you will ever imagine both here and elsewhere
-
The Devil is shaken and about to flee. Just a few more threads and is vanquished.
God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are.
Your damnable heresies just got you in a swifter path to self destruction.
Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism and all that are relatives of witchcraft, superstition and all archaic belief systems. Science is something else. Yes they are people who dabble in many or all of them. CJ Mutunga believes in probably all of them. Boko Haram strictly on Sharia. Some waganga forbid their kids to go to schools.
Bottomline...i can only engage in scientific debate...or historical debate (regarding religion or christianity)...it certainly beneath my intelligence to discuss the stupid stone age theories of your bible.
But you're free to start yet another 100 page thread of biblical nonsense....but for me humanity or Nipate.org will not have advanced an INCH.
Whatever definition you have of science and technology, it has not been powered by atheists alone or to any significant extent. You may have zero regard for Christianity but Christianity is not the opposite of science and tech
Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism and all that are relatives of witchcraft, superstition and all archaic belief systems. Science is something else. Yes they are people who dabble in many or all of them. CJ Mutunga believes in probably all of them. Boko Haram strictly on Sharia. Some waganga forbid their kids to go to schools.
Bottomline...i can only engage in scientific debate...or historical debate (regarding religion or christianity)...it certainly beneath my intelligence to discuss the stupid stone age theories of your bible.
But you're free to start yet another 100 page thread of biblical nonsense....but for me humanity or Nipate.org will not have advanced an INCH.
The Devil is shaken and about to flee. Just a few more threads and is vanquished.
God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are.
Whatever definition you have of science and technology, it has not been powered by atheists alone or to any significant extent. You may have zero regard for Christianity but Christianity is not the opposite of science and tech
-
That is nonsense. How otherwise intelligent people can have time and energy to devour really childish stone age stories about adam, god, devil,angel,archangel,serpent...is amazing. Those are theories that are only relevant from historical perspective of understanding how the humans are evolved...from stone age.
If the stone age man was to wake up...his religion will be our current science. Their god will be carrying iphone..not a rossetta stone.
India god who is swimming in ocean of milk from sacred cow...would be feeding on chapatis and birianis.
The Devil is shaken and about to flee. Just a few more threads and is vanquished.
God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are.
Your damnable heresies just got you in a swifter path to self destruction.
-
I have not participated in it. I am just amazed that some of you can try to equate evolution and scientific concepts with stone-age theories. Keep debating god,adam and serpents...just know it a mighty waste of your time and energy...
Pundit, you know if you find religious topics stupid, you don't have to participate in them. You don't even have to read. It really is a free world. :D
-
Do you mind keeping your feelings to yourself? You are not adding anything to this debate
Termie is a very sober negro. Learn from him. I see ladies chit chat, I don't understand it, I don't jut in brandishing teststerone. I see negroes discussing rudge,Formula 1 or basketball. I let them be, am an Arsenal fan. I don't panic because am clueless unlike you
Atheism is as old as humanity so you are not the first and definitely not the last
The same way you cannot wish away withcraft and uganga..is the same way we have to tolerate christianity..which i find to be such a waste of time and energy.
In-secured when i have been an atheist nearly all my life. If you met me in primary school..i was an atheist. In high school too. In university the same. I was instinctively atheistic since i was young kid. The only theory i grappled with when i was 10yrs is that earth was round...this i was told by Kiplimo who was in std 8....i agonized how that was possible until we were thought in std 7 about earth...but i knew bible stories were bunch of nonsense very early in my life..and ate all my sadaka (offering)...until i became rude about 10yrs old and completely refused to go to sunday school..1shs sadaka was less an incentive compared to hunting rabbits and other fun things i could do on sunday,
My beef is simple....i am gutted that otherwise intelligent people can spend 10 threads discussing NONSENSE. I know it not my energy or my time..but i would feel the same way if i found somebody running aimless up and down a hill.
The bible is the most concentrated BULLSHIET EVER PUBLISHED.
You can't wish Christianity away. You usually come off like a negro who is insecure in their atheism. Like you wish everyone was so you can be many. There are intelligent and dumb Christians who are more productive than you will ever imagine both here and elsewhere
-
And why do we a forum..again..if not to share our feelings. When you call evolution..evilution..that is your feeling..the same way i describe the bible as child like theories that are monumental waste of time and energy.
Do you mind keeping your feelings to yourself? You are not adding anything to this debate
Termie is a very sober negro. Learn from him
Atheism is as old as humanity so you are not the first and definitely not the last
-
Negro,
when you run into a debate between negroes whose common ground is the Bible is inspired word of God, you are spamming if you keep on insisting that it is not or there is no God because that is not the subject of discussion.
This thread has garnered the highest views yet on this forum because the topic means alot to members and guests. If it is not your cup of tea, vamooz
And why do we a forum..again..if not to share our feelings. When you call evolution..evilution..that is your feeling..the same way i describe the bible as child like theories that are monumental waste of time and energy.
Do you mind keeping your feelings to yourself? You are not adding anything to this debate
Termie is a very sober negro. Learn from him
Atheism is as old as humanity so you are not the first and definitely not the last
-
I have not participated in it. I am just amazed that some of you can try to equate evolution and scientific concepts with stone-age theories. Keep debating god,adam and serpents...just know it a mighty waste of your time and energy...
Pundit, you know if you find religious topics stupid, you don't have to participate in them. You don't even have to read. It really is a free world. :D
Pundit, with respect, I find this attitude towards Christian books to be a tad bigoted.
Personally, I have never encountered anything more sublime than the sermon on the mount anywhere, or prayers more moving than the psalms. Find me something more beautiful than the life of Christ and I will reconsider :D There are people who disbelieve Christianity yet they recognize the profound teachings found in Christian holy books.
To me, Christ is real, even on a balance of probabilities measured on the evidence surrounding his life and the lives of his earliest followers. And since he taught the God of the Jews and their scriptures, I believe them too, on his authority. The Hebrews also were a simple nomadic animal-herding middle-eastern tribe, as far from academia as you can imagine. In fact, they were stone-age, as you put it!??? Yet they knew a God who fits a lofty philosophical concept that no other tribes around them ever knew about. YHWH- the ultimate Being, the actus purus. The definition of the first cause deducted by the most sophisticated human thinkers was long already in ancient Jewish oral History and then literature. Isn't that a tiny bit impressive? :D This tribe claimed that they had encountered this being, a belief that caused them to be radically set apart in lifestyle and beliefs from the entire ancient world and to stringently hold on to their weird uniqueness against all odds/influences, simply based on their non-conventional God. Something happened to this tiny group to make them this way in mind-set, especially as odd as they were in the ancient world.
Besides...I honestly miss what is illogical about God :D It's not illogical to believe in an ultimate, unlimited, immaterial, singular being that is the cause of existence. When people say its illogical, it boggles the mind (mine). There are leading atheistic philosophers who acknowledge that its not illogical, they just opt for a different solution to the problem of existence :zen: I am not asking you to drop your world-view but to be more open minded towards different view-points, just for the sake of understanding if nothing else. :)
-
Not to be drawn into the debate :D but I think the serpent in genesis is literal not symbolic. As we now know, satan can use anything or appear as anything even disguised as a person.
Mya, that's true. He can do that.
Yet it is narrated that God punished the serpent (the animal) by making him crawl on his belly. It is understandable that Adam and Eve could've been fooled by Satan's disguise, yet the same cannot be said for God. But if you read that literally, then it seems like God does not differentiate the animal from the tempter. I am therefore disinclined to treat that literally, but instead figuratively.
Remember, Genesis doesn't really tell us that it was Satan anywhere. This is something that has universally been understood regardless, that the serpent is the devil, who is called the deceiver and the tempter all over the scriptures. That tells me this was a symbol that everyone understood to be a reference to Satan as a tempter of humanity and not a literal occurrence involving a real snake. I see it the same way I see the dragon in revelation. These are generally symbols for Satan. St Peter also compares him to a roaring lion roaming the earth seeking whom he may devour. So satan is compared in many ways to animals deemed dangerous by the human psyche.
The punishment to crawl on the belly seems to represent some kind of punishment or curbing of his powers by God; some way that his leeway in man's world is diminished as a result of his causing man to fall.
Even the proto-evangelium--the curse God uttered to the serpent--has been historically interpreted to be a promise of salvation to Adam immediately after the fall of man. So God says "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Genesis 3:15). That clearly announces the coming of Christ who will crush the serpent's head. After all, he may have lost his legs but yet he still roams free and can even "bruise the heel" of man still.
The tree of life is unmistakably a symbol for Christ, the bread of life, and Christ speaks of himself in the identical terms in which the tree is described, "eat and live forever".
The tree of knowledge of good and evil represents some kind of independence from God, which is why Adam is told not to eat from it. Eating from it means deciding good and evil for oneself instead of placing filial trust in God as one's Lord. It's basically the essence of rebellion, or desiring/becoming one's own God.
So for me, and I understand for many early church fathers, the story of the fall as narrated is not a literal story but a symbolic narration of the fall of Adam and Eve from grace.
I was hesitant to say this, but i will say it since you brought it up. The Bible is Sooooo simple that you really need to get someone to HELP YOU MISUNDERSTAND IT.
You are buying into the devils oldest temptation in the book - Did God REALLYY say That?
You are on a dangerous path. Are you going to tell us that Christ didn't REALLY rise from the dead but it was simply "figurative?"
-
Hehehe. I see you want to have unfettered license to mock others without getting it back.
Negro,
when you run into a debate between negroes whose common ground is the Bible is inspired word of God, you are spamming if you keep on insisting that it is not or there is no God because that is not the subject of discussion.
This thread has garnered the highest views yet on this forum because the topic means alot to members and guests. If it is not your cup of tea, vamooz
-
I am sure witches,those who practise hinduism, budhism,devil worship, islam and others would say exactly the same thing about their religion and the beautiful prose in their holy book.
Rather than wasting time and enegry trying to decipher the bible [an impossibility for most of the time]...why don't you engage in an historical inquiry of the bible and christianity. It easier to know what serpent really meant to the people of middle east and north africa.....it easier to understand why the bible is written the way it's written.
It easier to know the source of bible text....they were written by people who existed....within an historical context.
I have read for instance that the Noah and the flooding is actually somewhere in Chad. Such kind of historical inquiry will help unlock the bible for you.
But of course you're at libery to spend the rest of your lifetime trying to understand the literal meaning of the text in the bible.
Pundit, with respect, I find this attitude towards Christian books to be a tad bigoted.
Personally, I have never encountered anything more sublime than the sermon on the mount anywhere, or prayers more moving than the psalms. Find me something more beautiful than the life of Christ and I will reconsider :D There are people who disbelieve Christianity yet they recognize the profound teachings found in Christian holy books.
To me, Christ is real, even on a balance of probabilities measured on the evidence surrounding his life and the lives of his earliest followers. And since he taught the God of the Jews and their scriptures, I believe them too, on his authority. The Hebrews also were a simple nomadic animal-herding middle-eastern tribe, as far from academia as you can imagine. In fact, they were stone-age, as you put it!??? Yet they knew a God who fits a lofty philosophical concept that no other tribes around them ever knew about. YHWH- the ultimate Being, the actus purus. The definition of the first cause deducted by the most sophisticated human thinkers was long already in ancient Jewish oral History and then literature. Isn't that a tiny bit impressive? :D This tribe claimed that they had encountered this being, a belief that caused them to be radically set apart in lifestyle and beliefs from the entire ancient world and to stringently hold on to their weird uniqueness against all odds/influences, simply based on their non-conventional God. Something happened to this tiny group to make them this way in mind-set, especially as odd as they were in the ancient world.
Besides...I honestly miss what is illogical about God :D It's not illogical to believe in an ultimate, unlimited, immaterial, singular being that is the cause of existence. When people say its illogical, it boggles the mind (mine). There are leading atheistic philosophers who acknowledge that its not illogical, they just opt for a different solution to the problem of existence :zen: I am not asking you to drop your world-view but to be more open minded towards different view-points, just for the sake of understanding if nothing else. :)
-
I am sure witches,those who practise hinduism, budhism,devil worship, islam and others would say exactly the same thing about their religion and the beautiful prose in their holy book.
Rather than wasting time and enegry trying to decipher the bible [an impossibility for most of the time]...why don't you engage in an historical inquiry of the bible and christianity. It easier to know what serpent really meant to the people of middle east and north africa.....it easier to understand why the bible is written the way it's written.
It easier to know the source of bible text....they were written by people who existed....within an historical context.
I have read for instance that the Noah and the flooding is actually somewhere in Chad.
But of course you want to spend the rest of your lifetime trying to understand the literal meaning of what is contained in the bible.
Pundit, with respect, I find this attitude towards Christian books to be a tad bigoted.
Personally, I have never encountered anything more sublime than the sermon on the mount anywhere, or prayers more moving than the psalms. Find me something more beautiful than the life of Christ and I will reconsider :D There are people who disbelieve Christianity yet they recognize the profound teachings found in Christian holy books.
To me, Christ is real, even on a balance of probabilities measured on the evidence surrounding his life and the lives of his earliest followers. And since he taught the God of the Jews and their scriptures, I believe them too, on his authority. The Hebrews also were a simple nomadic animal-herding middle-eastern tribe, as far from academia as you can imagine. In fact, they were stone-age, as you put it!??? Yet they knew a God who fits a lofty philosophical concept that no other tribes around them ever knew about. YHWH- the ultimate Being, the actus purus. The definition of the first cause deducted by the most sophisticated human thinkers was long already in ancient Jewish oral History and then literature. Isn't that a tiny bit impressive? :D This tribe claimed that they had encountered this being, a belief that caused them to be radically set apart in lifestyle and beliefs from the entire ancient world and to stringently hold on to their weird uniqueness against all odds/influences, simply based on their non-conventional God. Something happened to this tiny group to make them this way in mind-set, especially as odd as they were in the ancient world.
Besides...I honestly miss what is illogical about God :D It's not illogical to believe in an ultimate, unlimited, immaterial, singular being that is the cause of existence. When people say its illogical, it boggles the mind (mine). There are leading atheistic philosophers who acknowledge that its not illogical, they just opt for a different solution to the problem of existence :zen: I am not asking you to drop your world-view but to be more open minded towards different view-points, just for the sake of understanding if nothing else. :)
-
For instance if you want to understand Genesis; this is one blog by this lady who i love reading
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/
-
Pundito,
Some of these topics are wide and deep, and they are not mutually exclusive. For instance, the best rebuttal against Genesis creation account is that there are similar Babylonian tales, Dead Sea scrolls, Apocrypha, biblical languages...guys earn PhDs on these things
There are sites dedicated to that, I participate in them, I read books. But when I come to Nipate.com/org, I come as a Christian who believes the Bible is the inspired word of God. I think kadame does the same
I am sure witches,those who practise hinduism, budhism,devil worship, islam and others would say exactly the same thing about their religion and the beautiful prose in their holy book.
Rather than wasting time and enegry trying to decipher the bible [an impossibility for most of the time]...why don't you engage in an historical inquiry of the bible and christianity. It easier to know what serpent really meant to the people of middle east and north africa.....it easier to understand why the bible is written the way it's written.
It easier to know the source of bible text....they were written by people who existed....within an historical context.
I have read for instance that the Noah and the flooding is actually somewhere in Chad. Such kind of historical inquiry will help unlock the bible for you.
But of course you're at libery to spend the rest of your lifetime trying to understand the literal meaning of the text in the bible.
Pundit, with respect, I find this attitude towards Christian books to be a tad bigoted.
Personally, I have never encountered anything more sublime than the sermon on the mount anywhere, or prayers more moving than the psalms. Find me something more beautiful than the life of Christ and I will reconsider :D There are people who disbelieve Christianity yet they recognize the profound teachings found in Christian holy books.
To me, Christ is real, even on a balance of probabilities measured on the evidence surrounding his life and the lives of his earliest followers. And since he taught the God of the Jews and their scriptures, I believe them too, on his authority. The Hebrews also were a simple nomadic animal-herding middle-eastern tribe, as far from academia as you can imagine. In fact, they were stone-age, as you put it!??? Yet they knew a God who fits a lofty philosophical concept that no other tribes around them ever knew about. YHWH- the ultimate Being, the actus purus. The definition of the first cause deducted by the most sophisticated human thinkers was long already in ancient Jewish oral History and then literature. Isn't that a tiny bit impressive? :D This tribe claimed that they had encountered this being, a belief that caused them to be radically set apart in lifestyle and beliefs from the entire ancient world and to stringently hold on to their weird uniqueness against all odds/influences, simply based on their non-conventional God. Something happened to this tiny group to make them this way in mind-set, especially as odd as they were in the ancient world.
Besides...I honestly miss what is illogical about God :D It's not illogical to believe in an ultimate, unlimited, immaterial, singular being that is the cause of existence. When people say its illogical, it boggles the mind (mine). There are leading atheistic philosophers who acknowledge that its not illogical, they just opt for a different solution to the problem of existence :zen: I am not asking you to drop your world-view but to be more open minded towards different view-points, just for the sake of understanding if nothing else. :)
-
Not to be drawn into the debate :D but I think the serpent in genesis is literal not symbolic. As we now know, satan can use anything or appear as anything even disguised as a person.
Mya, that's true. He can do that.
Yet it is narrated that God punished the serpent (the animal) by making him crawl on his belly. It is understandable that Adam and Eve could've been fooled by Satan's disguise, yet the same cannot be said for God. But if you read that literally, then it seems like God does not differentiate the animal from the tempter. I am therefore disinclined to treat that literally, but instead figuratively.
Remember, Genesis doesn't really tell us that it was Satan anywhere. This is something that has universally been understood regardless, that the serpent is the devil, who is called the deceiver and the tempter all over the scriptures. That tells me this was a symbol that everyone understood to be a reference to Satan as a tempter of humanity and not a literal occurrence involving a real snake. I see it the same way I see the dragon in revelation. These are generally symbols for Satan. St Peter also compares him to a roaring lion roaming the earth seeking whom he may devour. So satan is compared in many ways to animals deemed dangerous by the human psyche.
The punishment to crawl on the belly seems to represent some kind of punishment or curbing of his powers by God; some way that his leeway in man's world is diminished as a result of his causing man to fall.
Even the proto-evangelium--the curse God uttered to the serpent--has been historically interpreted to be a promise of salvation to Adam immediately after the fall of man. So God says "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Genesis 3:15). That clearly announces the coming of Christ who will crush the serpent's head. After all, he may have lost his legs but yet he still roams free and can even "bruise the heel" of man still.
The tree of life is unmistakably a symbol for Christ, the bread of life, and Christ speaks of himself in the identical terms in which the tree is described, "eat and live forever".
The tree of knowledge of good and evil represents some kind of independence from God, which is why Adam is told not to eat from it. Eating from it means deciding good and evil for oneself instead of placing filial trust in God as one's Lord. It's basically the essence of rebellion, or desiring/becoming one's own God.
So for me, and I understand for many early church fathers, the story of the fall as narrated is not a literal story but a symbolic narration of the fall of Adam and Eve from grace.
I was hesitant to say this, but i will say it since you brought it up. The Bible is Sooooo simple that you really need to get someone to HELP YOU MISUNDERSTAND IT.
You are buying into the devils oldest temptation in the book - Did God REALLYY say That?
You are on a dangerous path. Are you going to tell us that Christ didn't REALLY rise from the dead but it was simply "figurative?"
@Kadude, tusianzane na wewe pia. 8) The fall has been interpreted like that from the earliest times. I am not denying the existence of Adam and Eve, the temptation of the devil, the sin/fall from grace of Adam and Eve, and the consequences that followed. Tell me what is wrong with that interpretation, don't just go into bible-thumping mode. That's less productive.
I have already stated here that the Gospels and the majority of New and Old Testament texts are historical accounts, so I don't know why you are bringing it up. What I am saying about Genesis, especially the first 2 chapters is that it is to me allegorical, and I am not the first Christian to approach these creation narratives this way. How to understand genesis, whether literal or symbolic, has been a thorny issue in the church from the beginning.
@Pundit. Why do you assume Christian scholarship does not involve historical inquiry of the sort you are describing? See, that's the bigotry I was referring to. You seem to assume Christians never think...they do, my friend.
-
Negro, there is a big difference between mocking and spamming.
Look at this thread, what value do you add by regurgitating your mantra of Bible is crab, Jewish myth? How relevant is that? Was that in question?
My Christian faith is so secure, I have had opportunities and exposure to all things you can imagine but I choose Christ. So your mocking is not the problem. It is spamming. I don't believe in evilution and I have infinite reasons not to and none to believe in it, but I don't spam evilutionist threads.
If you want to debate the stupidity of Christian faith, start a thread and we can join if otherwise this is pure spamming which is quite unlike you especially as a moderator
Hehehe. I see you want to have unfettered license to mock others without getting it back.
Negro,
when you run into a debate between negroes whose common ground is the Bible is inspired word of God, you are spamming if you keep on insisting that it is not or there is no God because that is not the subject of discussion.
This thread has garnered the highest views yet on this forum because the topic means alot to members and guests. If it is not your cup of tea, vamooz
-
First am sorry Nipate.org is not a christian forum.
Moving swiftly.
Yes such of stuff (biblical anthropology) interest me. It certainly help unlock the kind of lockjam you're engaged with kadame here endlessly. Even the constitution...which is our country bible...when the literal meaning fails....then you've to go into the drafter notes,minds and circumstances of that time.
This is another good one http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/
It easier to unlock the genesis by digging into annals of middle and north africa history....mostly ancient egypt....just across our borders in sudan...than yet another 100 thread of evilusion.
Even even kalenjin religion of the yore is similar to your bible. One god. Praying 5 times a day. And many similarities.
Bottomline..you need to step back from seeing the bible as holy text..and realize this was just a text written by people...mostly pharaohs priest of the yore.
Pundito,
Some of these topics are wide and deep, and they are not mutually exclusive. For instance, the best rebuttal against Genesis creation account is that there are similar Babylonian tales, Dead Sea scrolls, Apocrypha, biblical languages...guys earn PhDs on these things
There are sites dedicated to that, I participate in them, I read books. But when I come to Nipate.com/org, I come as a Christian who believes the Bible is the inspired word of God. I think kadame does the same
-
First am sorry Nipate.org is not a christian forum.
Moving swiftly.
Yes such of stuff (biblical anthropology) interest me. It certainly help unlock the kind of lockjam you're engaged with kadame here endlessly. Even the constitution...which is our country bible...when the literal meaning fails....then you've to go into the drafter notes,minds and circumstances of that time.
This is another good one http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/
It easier to unlock the genesis by digging into annals of middle and north africa history....mostly ancient egypt....just across our borders in sudan.
Even even kalenjin religion of the yore is similar to your bible. One god. Praying 5 times a day. And many similarities.
Bottomline..you need to step back from seeing the bible as holy text..and realize this was just a text written by people...mostly pharaohs priest of the yore.
Pundito,
Some of these topics are wide and deep, and they are not mutually exclusive. For instance, the best rebuttal against Genesis creation account is that there are similar Babylonian tales, Dead Sea scrolls, Apocrypha, biblical languages...guys earn PhDs on these things
There are sites dedicated to that, I participate in them, I read books. But when I come to Nipate.com/org, I come as a Christian who believes the Bible is the inspired word of God. I think kadame does the same
-
Stop being stupid. If you cannot handle completely divergent views..don't call it spamming. You do not get to choose who you engage in a public forum.
Negro, there is a big difference between mocking and spamming.
Look at this thread, what value do you add by regurgitating your mantra of Bible is crab, Jewish myth? How relevant is that? Was that in question?
My Christian faith is so secure, I have had opportunities and exposure to all things you can imagine but I choose Christ. So your mocking is not the problem. It is spamming. I don't believe in evilution and I have infinite reasons not to and none to believe in it, but I don't spam evilutionist threads.
If you want to debate the stupidity of Christian faith, start a thread and we can join if otherwise this is pure spamming which is quite unlike you especially as a moderator
-
How many threads have you 2tarted in the last 24 hours?
let's pick SGR. Supposing I responded by bringing up ballin bae? That's spamming. While you can't control who responds to your posts, you would rightfully call me a spammer if I start talking about RV sodomy there
Stop being stupid. If you cannot handle completely divergent views..don't call it spamming. You do not get to choose who you engage in a public forum.
Negro, there is a big difference between mocking and spamming.
Look at this thread, what value do you add by regurgitating your mantra of Bible is crab, Jewish myth? How relevant is that? Was that in question?
My Christian faith is so secure, I have had opportunities and exposure to all things you can imagine but I choose Christ. So your mocking is not the problem. It is spamming. I don't believe in evilution and I have infinite reasons not to and none to believe in it, but I don't spam evilutionist threads.
If you want to debate the stupidity of Christian faith, start a thread and we can join if otherwise this is pure spamming which is quite unlike you especially as a moderator
-
Nobody said it is. Christianity is a faith and a topic just like SGR or devilution. And I doubt it is against any RULE of .org. So swallow your pride from a far and watch those who don't subscribe to your faith enjoying Veritas magic :)
Like I said, just because I have never discussed those topics don't mean they are foreign to me. vooke is a Christian and debates from that perspective. You need to write something I haven't come across, share it with me to convince me to abandon my faith. Otherwise you are wasting your time
First am sorry Nipate.org is not a christian forum.
Moving swiftly.
Yes such of stuff (biblical anthropology) interest me. It certainly help unlock the kind of lockjam you're engaged with kadame here endlessly. Even the constitution...which is our country bible...when the literal meaning fails....then you've to go into the drafter notes,minds and circumstances of that time.
This is another good one http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/
It easier to unlock the genesis by digging into annals of middle and north africa history....mostly ancient egypt....just across our borders in sudan...than yet another 100 thread of evilusion.
Even even kalenjin religion of the yore is similar to your bible. One god. Praying 5 times a day. And many similarities.
Bottomline..you need to step back from seeing the bible as holy text..and realize this was just a text written by people...mostly pharaohs priest of the yore.
Pundito,
Some of these topics are wide and deep, and they are not mutually exclusive. For instance, the best rebuttal against Genesis creation account is that there are similar Babylonian tales, Dead Sea scrolls, Apocrypha, biblical languages...guys earn PhDs on these things
There are sites dedicated to that, I participate in them, I read books. But when I come to Nipate.com/org, I come as a Christian who believes the Bible is the inspired word of God. I think kadame does the same
-
More stupidity. We are engaged here in child like biblical theories of the stone age. You're the only one desperately trying to shut my views regarding the jewish stone age theories...which are relevant...to this thread...that talks about genesis.
How many threads have you 2tarted in the last 24 hours?
let's pick SGR. Supposing I responded by bringing up ballin bae? That's spamming. While you can't control who responds to your posts, you would rightfully call me a spammer if I start talking about RV sodomy there
-
I am not here to evangelize you or convert christian to atheism; am here to share my views, my feelings and my thoughts regarding this subject. And my views once again is that you're engaging in debate of stone age [that is era before iron smelting was even discovered] of the theory of how the universe was formed.....that folks maybe 10,000BC would have found quite novel..but in this century..it pure concentrated nonsense.
Once again this is not a christian forum. The best way if you find my take unpalatable is to ignore them.
Nobody said it is. Christianity is a faith and a topic just like SGR or devilution. And I doubt it is against any RULE of .org. So swallow your pride from a far and watch those who don't subscribe to your faith enjoying Veritas magic :)
Like I said, just because I have never discussed those topics don't mean they are foreign to me. vooke is a Christian and debates from that perspective. You need to write something I haven't come across, share it with me to convince me to abandon my faith. Otherwise you are wasting your time
-
Share your thoughts in the right threads. Screaming 'Jewish fables!' at every thread is insecurity negro
Start threads on atheism
Christianity is really hurting you
Negro, you are damn insecure
I am not here to evangelize you or convert christian to atheism; am here to share my views, my feelings and my thoughts regarding this subject. And my views once again is that you're engaging in debate of stone age [that is era before iron smelting was even discovered] of the theory of how the universe was formed.....that folks maybe 10,000BC would have found quite novel..but in this century..it pure concentrated nonsense.
Once again this is not a christian forum. The best way if you find my take unpalatable is to ignore them.
-
If you purport that Bible isn’t scientifically accurate, you are simply wrong. You've never studied the Bible or never studied science.
Johannes Kepler, the famous mathematician and astronomer, once said, “Science is simply thinking God’s thoughts after him.” In other words, God established the laws of physics, and then we discover them.
The Bible wasn’t meant to be a scientific textbook. You don’t study the Bible to build a rocket. And the Bible doesn’t use scientific language. But the Bible never gives bad science! Not once during the 1,600 years in which the Bible was written does it give bad science. In fact, it’s always ahead of science.
For example:
1)For thousands of years, people believed that the earth was flat. But God said 2,600 years ago in Isaiah 40:22 that God is enthroned above the sphere of the earth.
2)For thousands of years, people believed something held the earth up. Hindus believed huge elephants did it. The Greeks believed Atlas did it. The Egyptians believed five columns held the earth up. The Bible never says that anything is holding the planet up.
3)For thousands of years, people believed that the number of stars were finite. But Jeremiah 33:22 says the number of stars can’t be counted.
In 1861 a very famous book came out called “Fifty-one Incontrovertible Proofs that the Bible is Scientifically Inaccurate.” Today, you can’t find a single scientist on the planet who would agree with any one of those incontrovertible facts. They’ve all been disproved by science.
I am not here to evangelize you or convert christian to atheism; am here to share my views, my feelings and my thoughts regarding this subject. And my views once again is that you're engaging in debate of stone age [that is era before iron smelting was even discovered] of the theory of how the universe was formed.....that folks maybe 10,000BC would have found quite novel..but in this century..it pure concentrated nonsense.
Once again this is not a christian forum. The best way if you find my take unpalatable is to ignore them.
-
Why on earth would christianity hurt me. I have pity for christians. What hurt me is stupidity. I just cannot stand stupid people and stupid ideas.
The fact is the bibble is jewish fable. Disprove that.
Share your thoughts in the right threads. Screaming 'Jewish fables!' at every thread is insecurity negro
Start threads on atheism
Christianity is really hurting you
Negro, you are damn insecure
-
You can interpret the bible to say anything. It a fit-all.It written that way. It designed that way. It like those methalis of wazee wa zamani. Or child hood stories...that can mean anything.
Science is quite different.....
If you purport that Bible isn’t scientifically accurate, you are simply wrong. You've never studied the Bible or never studied science.
Johannes Kepler, the famous mathematician and astronomer, once said, “Science is simply thinking God’s thoughts after him.” In other words, God established the laws of physics, and then we discover them.
The Bible wasn’t meant to be a scientific textbook. You don’t study the Bible to build a rocket. And the Bible doesn’t use scientific language. But the Bible never gives bad science! Not once during the 1,600 years in which the Bible was written does it give bad science. In fact, it’s always ahead of science.
For example:
1)For thousands of years, people believed that the earth was flat. But God said 2,600 years ago in Isaiah 40:22 that God is enthroned above the sphere of the earth.
2)For thousands of years, people believed something held the earth up. Hindus believed huge elephants did it. The Greeks believed Atlas did it. The Egyptians believed five columns held the earth up. The Bible never says that anything is holding the planet up.
3)For thousands of years, people believed that the number of stars were finite. But Jeremiah 33:22 says the number of stars can’t be counted.
In 1861 a very famous book came out called “Fifty-one Incontrovertible Proofs that the Bible is Scientifically Inaccurate.” Today, you can’t find a single scientist on the planet who would agree with any one of those incontrovertible facts. They’ve all been disproved by science.
-
Negro,
you can't scream louder than your conscience
Why on earth would christianity hurt me. I have pity for christians. What hurt me is stupidity. I just cannot stand stupid people and stupid ideas.
The fact is the bibble is jewish fable. Disprove that.
Share your thoughts in the right threads. Screaming 'Jewish fables!' at every thread is insecurity negro
Start threads on atheism
Christianity is really hurting you
Negro, you are damn insecure
-
Yeah christianity really hurt me.Now get back to discussing genesis of stone age jewish people. I wonder what 1B hindus creation theory is like or maybe the 4B budha worshiping asians? my bet? equally retarded.
Negro,
you can't scream louder than your conscience
-
But for the accident of birth, vooke would be demanding the head of a Yazidi impaled on his gate. Any Yazidi. Ukoloni, ensures that he is a pastor quoting scriptures. Instead of a witchdoctor reading bones and entrails.
The truth or otherwise of it aside. Religion seems to be thoroughly embedded in the human psyche. I am ready to admit that I and fellow atheists are the oddities.
Another way to put it. Why do hominids worship things? If we ignore the, over 6 billion, religious answers. I think there is an evolutionary value in religion.
-
If you purport that Bible isn’t scientifically accurate, you are simply wrong. You've never studied the Bible or never studied science.
Johannes Kepler, the famous mathematician and astronomer, once said, “Science is simply thinking God’s thoughts after him.” In other words, God established the laws of physics, and then we discover them.
The Bible wasn’t meant to be a scientific textbook. You don’t study the Bible to build a rocket. And the Bible doesn’t use scientific language. But the Bible never gives bad science! Not once during the 1,600 years in which the Bible was written does it give bad science. In fact, it’s always ahead of science.
For example:
1)For thousands of years, people believed that the earth was flat. But God said 2,600 years ago in Isaiah 40:22 that God is enthroned above the sphere of the earth.
2)For thousands of years, people believed something held the earth up. Hindus believed huge elephants did it. The Greeks believed Atlas did it. The Egyptians believed five columns held the earth up. The Bible never says that anything is holding the planet up.
3)For thousands of years, people believed that the number of stars were finite. But Jeremiah 33:22 says the number of stars can’t be counted.
In 1861 a very famous book came out called “Fifty-one Incontrovertible Proofs that the Bible is Scientifically Inaccurate.” Today, you can’t find a single scientist on the planet who would agree with any one of those incontrovertible facts. They’ve all been disproved by science.
I am not here to evangelize you or convert christian to atheism; am here to share my views, my feelings and my thoughts regarding this subject. And my views once again is that you're engaging in debate of stone age [that is era before iron smelting was even discovered] of the theory of how the universe was formed.....that folks maybe 10,000BC would have found quite novel..but in this century..it pure concentrated nonsense.
Once again this is not a christian forum. The best way if you find my take unpalatable is to ignore them.
Seems Pundit managed to shut down the discussion, lol! I'm over-ruling him. :D
Bitter-truth, I'm wary of Christians digging for "scientific facts" in the Bible to prove the truth of it, just as I am wary of those who claim the Bible has the science wrong. If you believe as you say that the Bible was never intended to teach science, then I think looking for those scientific factoids that "prove" the Bible is itself a mistake. Just my 0.02 Kshs! :D
-
I didn't stop the endless debate. I suggested like i have done previously that unlock the bible; study the source of the bible; the jewish people history; study the anthropology of the bible; and you'll understand the simplistic stone age theories.
Seems Pundit managed to shut down the discussion, lol! I'm over-ruling him. :D
Bitter-truth, I'm wary of Christians digging for "scientific facts" in the Bible to prove the truth of it, just as I am wary of those who claim the Bible has the science wrong. If you believe as you say that the Bible was never intended to teach science, then I think looking for those scientific factoids that "prove" the Bible is itself a mistake. Just my 0.02 Kshs! :D
-
you only need to pdemonstrate that you are more fulfilled and productive as an atheist over vooke.
shairi achia Mark Twain
But for the accident of birth, vooke would be demanding the head of a Yazidi impaled on his gate. Any Yazidi. Ukoloni, ensures that he is a pastor quoting scriptures. Instead of a witchdoctor reading bones and entrails.
The truth or otherwise of it aside. Religion seems to be thoroughly embedded in the human psyche. I am ready to admit that I and fellow atheists are the oddities.
Another way to put it. Why do hominids worship things? If we ignore the, over 6 billion, religious answers. I think there is an evolutionary value in religion.
-
Kadame,
Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: "In the beginning [TIME] God created [POWER] the heaven [SPACE] and the earth [MATTER] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [MOTION] upon the face of the waters." The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.
Therefore it wouldn't be wrong to say that science is born of Gods creation but not Vice versa.
ALso only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. But Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Whereas I concur that the bible was not intended to teach science, you would agree with me that there is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth albeit.
Science is simply thinking God’s thoughts after him
Bitter-truth, I'm wary of Christians digging for "scientific facts" in the Bible to prove the truth of it, just as I am wary of those who claim the Bible has the science wrong. If you believe as you say that the Bible was never intended to teach science, then I think looking for those scientific factoids that "prove" the Bible is itself a mistake. Just my 0.02 Kshs! :D
-
I was in Hyderabad a few months ago. One fact for sure is that more and more hindus are converted to Christianity everyday. I was able to attend a church and shared with prominent Indian Hindu converts.
The Christian doctrine of resurrection stands apart from the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation. These two ideas are not the same. And it is only the resurrection which can be deduced convincingly from historical and evidential study.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Hindu-Christian.html#ixzz3E7PIUQLw
Yeah christianity really hurt me.Now get back to discussing genesis of stone age jewish people. I wonder what 1B hindus creation theory is like or maybe the 4B budha worshiping asians? my bet? equally retarded.
Negro,
you can't scream louder than your conscience
-
you only need to pdemonstrate that you are more fulfilled and productive as an atheist over vooke.
shairi achia Mark Twain
But for the accident of birth, vooke would be demanding the head of a Yazidi impaled on his gate. Any Yazidi. Ukoloni, ensures that he is a pastor quoting scriptures. Instead of a witchdoctor reading bones and entrails.
The truth or otherwise of it aside. Religion seems to be thoroughly embedded in the human psyche. I am ready to admit that I and fellow atheists are the oddities.
Another way to put it. Why do hominids worship things? If we ignore the, over 6 billion, religious answers. I think there is an evolutionary value in religion.
Another way to put it. Granted.
Would the world be a different place without religion? Or is it a vestigial byproduct of excess grey matter?
Do chimps, our closest cousins, have religion?
I am going out on a limb. Saying that everything with a brain has religion on some level. Let's discuss why.
-
What is religion?
Another way to put it. Granted.
Would the world be a different place without religion? Or is it a vestigial byproduct of excess grey matter?
Do chimps, our closest cousins, have religion?
I am going out on a limb. Saying that everything with a brain has religion on some level. Let's discuss why.
-
Great are you, O Lord, and exceedingly worthy of praise; your power is immense, and your wisdom beyond reckoning. And so we men, who are a due part of your creation, long to praise you – we also carry our mortality about with us, carry the evidence of our sin and with it the proof that you thwart the proud. You arouse us so that praising you may bring us joy, because you have made us and drawn us to yourself, and our heart is unquiet until it rests in you.
Grant me to know and understand, Lord, which comes first. To call upon you or to praise you? To know you or to call upon you? Must we know you before we can call upon you? Anyone who invokes what is still unknown may be making a mistake. Or should you be invoked first, so that we may then come to know you? But how can people call upon someone in whom they do not yet believe? And how can they believe without a preacher?
But scripture tells us that those who seek the Lord will praise him, for as they seek they find him, and on finding him they will praise him. Let me seek you then, Lord, even while I am calling upon you, and call upon you even as I believe in you; for to us you have indeed been preached. My faith calls upon you, Lord, this faith which is your gift to me, which you have breathed into me through the humanity of your Son and the ministry of your preacher.
How shall I call upon my God, my God and my Lord, when by the very act of calling upon him I would be calling him into myself? Is there any place within me into which my God might come? How should the God who made heaven and earth come into me? Is there any room in me for you, Lord, my God? Even heaven and earth, which you have made and in which you have made me – can even they contain you? Since nothing that exists would exist without you, does it follow that whatever exists does in some way contain you?
But if this is so, how can I, who am one of these existing things, ask you to come into me, when I would not exist at all unless you were already in me? Not yet am I in hell, after all but even if I were, you would be there too; for if I descend into the underworld, you are there. No, my God, I would not exist, I would not be at all, if you were not in me. Or should I say, rather, that I should not exist if I were not in you, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things? Yes, Lord, that is the truth, that is indeed the truth. To what place can I invite you, then, since I am in you? Or where could you come from, in order to come into me? To what place outside heaven and earth could I travel, so that my God could come to me there, the God who said, I fill heaven and earth?
Who will grant it to me to find peace in you? Who will grant me this grace, that you should come into my heart and inebriate it, enabling me to forget the evils that beset me and embrace you, my only good? What are you to me? Have mercy on me, so that I may tell. What indeed am I to you, that you should command me to love you, and grow angry with me if I do not, and threaten me with enormous woes? Is not the failure to love you woe enough in itself?
Alas for me! Through your own merciful dealings with me, O Lord my God, tell me what you are to me. Say to my soul, I am your salvation. Say it so that I can hear it. My heart is listening, Lord; open the ears of my heart and say to my soul, I am your salvation. Let me run towards this voice and seize hold of you. Do not hide your face from me: let me die so that I may see it, for not to see it would be death to me indeed.
https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/621/Our_Heart_is_Restless_St_Augustine.html
St Augustine of Hippo, in his famous confessions. St. Augustine struggled for years to accept the God of his mother St. Monica. Even after he had been intellectually convinced of Christianity, his heart remained yet unbelieving. He prayed to God for belief for years until he got it by the gift of grace. If someone asked him why men seek God, I wager he would say "You(God) have made us for yourself. And our hearts are restless, until they rest in you."
My 0.02/= :)
-
What is religion?
Another way to put it. Granted.
Would the world be a different place without religion? Or is it a vestigial byproduct of excess grey matter?
Do chimps, our closest cousins, have religion?
I am going out on a limb. Saying that everything with a brain has religion on some level. Let's discuss why.
The framework that encompasses worship, veneration, divination, prophecies...Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc. Non-atheism.
Another way to frame the same question. Why are some people atheistic? This question can still help answer why people are religious.
-
Kadame,
Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: "In the beginning [TIME] God created [POWER] the heaven [SPACE] and the earth [MATTER] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [MOTION] upon the face of the waters." The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.
Therefore it wouldn't be wrong to say that science is born of Gods creation but not Vice versa.
ALso only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. But Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Whereas I concur that the bible was not intended to teach science, you would agree with me that there is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth albeit.
Science is simply thinking God’s thoughts after him
Bitter-truth, I'm wary of Christians digging for "scientific facts" in the Bible to prove the truth of it, just as I am wary of those who claim the Bible has the science wrong. If you believe as you say that the Bible was never intended to teach science, then I think looking for those scientific factoids that "prove" the Bible is itself a mistake. Just my 0.02 Kshs! :D
I understand. Interesting view. My view is that there's no science in the scriptures. As I've seen it said by one writer, when our Lord spoke of the mustard seed as the smallest seed and its tree as the greatest herb, he was not thereby laying down a principle of botany. 8) Rather, he was concerned with teaching a supernatural truth about the kingdom of God on Earth using the common understanding of his audience.
-
Kababe,
Science confirms the Bible, Its not a matter of choice between Science and Bible. There is no insoluble conflict between the two.
While the Bible is not written as a science textbook when it speaks of nature you will note that whenever it speaks on nature and science it is accurate. Only creator could communicate this.
A good portion of our modern science was founded by creationists.
Galileo with Heliocentricity ,Issac Newton with Calculas and gravity, particle theory of light
Joseph Liste with Antiseptic surgery
Louis Pastuer - sterilization, bacteriology he is one of the greatest biologists.
Johann Kepler -celestial mechanics astronomy .... the list is huge
I understand. Interesting view. My view is that there's no science in the scriptures. As I've seen it said by one writer, when our Lord spoke of the mustard seed as the smallest seed and its tree as the greatest herb, he was not thereby laying down a principle of botany. 8) Rather, he was concerned with teaching a supernatural truth about the kingdom of God on Earth using the common understanding of his audience.
-
Kababe,
Science confirms the Bible, Its not a matter of choice between Science and Bible. There is no insoluble conflict between the two.
While the Bible is not written as a science textbook when it speaks of nature you will note that whenever it speaks on nature and science it is accurate. Only creator could communicate this.
A good portion of our modern science was founded by creationists.
Galileo with Heliocentricity ,Issac Newton with Calculas and gravity, particle theory of light
Joseph Liste with Antiseptic surgery
Louis Pastuer - sterilization, bacteriology he is one of the greatest biologists.
Johann Kepler -celestial mechanics astronomy .... the list is huge
I understand. Interesting view. My view is that there's no science in the scriptures. As I've seen it said by one writer, when our Lord spoke of the mustard seed as the smallest seed and its tree as the greatest herb, he was not thereby laying down a principle of botany. 8) Rather, he was concerned with teaching a supernatural truth about the kingdom of God on Earth using the common understanding of his audience.
Bittertruth,
It is true that the Bible does not contain scientific errors, and we are both agreed there. But the reason why this is not so, I think we are missing each other completely. The reason why no scientific error (or even accurate scientific teachings) are to be sought in the Bible is only because the Bible is not bothered with teaching science at all, anywhere. I think that stating this and then going on to look for science in the sacred books is self-contradiction. Why look for what is not there in the first place? It is not true that all statements in the scriptures concerning nature are scientifically accurate if we were to transpose them to the scientific language of today. Of course, this does not mean that what is in the Bible is a scientific error, what it means is that the language of the Bible must be taken into account, and where it is not a scientific statement, it must not be treated as so, and this is true not just for non-Christians but Christians as well.
What I mean is that the Bible might use figures of speech common to the language and culture in which the particular book has been written. It is wrong for a reader today to then read into it some kind of scientific statement that was never intended. So for example, I have seen this example used in explaining this concept: Today people might make these statements in everyday conversation.
"it is raining cats and dogs", or "I have a million things to do", or "so and so says/does the craziest things ever!" " or so and so is the craziest person ever" etc etc.
Now we, reading these statements today understand exactly what they mean. It would be utterly ridiculous for a reader from the future finding our writings and reading their translations in some other language in the future that does not have such idioms/hyperboles in it to then decide that we were making scientific errors (or scientifically proper statements even!) when we made such statements! :D
Suppose our Lord lived in our own age and not 2000 years ago and he told a parable like this,
"A man left home to run an errand one day and on the way, it began to rain cats and dogs. He thought to himself "I have a million things to do today! And I am so far away from home. What must I do? I am also afraid to lodge here with these people because they are known to do the craziest things (or are the craziest people)....." etc etc.
Now, imagine this debate between these two fellaz living in 3,000 AD.
The Skeptik: Jesus knew nothing about science! Look at all the absurd statements he was making!
Literalist in a non-English language: You are wrong! In fact, science has not established all there is to know about rain! It could have been a miracle. Plus its not technically impossible for someone to perform a million tasks in a day because he may even have delegated it to servants who could perform 1 million tasks on that same day, and since there's no test to measure craziness, this people with the lodging may indeed have been the craziest people who ever roamed this earth. How on earth do you know they were not? Were you there? etc etc
My point? Poking around a book that does not make any claim to teach science and trying to find scientific facts there seems utterly absurd to me. I say that with respect, not intended to offend you. So I hope you dont take it that way. :)
Christians would do well to quit insisting that all statements in the Bible are scientifically accurate when planted onto today's scientific language when this is demonstrably not the case.
-
Also, Bittertruth, look at what this guy says and you'll get what I mean:
Mustard Seed Mistake or Misunderstanding?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
In Matthew 13:31-32, the apostle recorded a brief parable that Jesus taught regarding His heavenly kingdom. “The kingdom of heaven,” Jesus said, “is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.” The central truth of Jesus’ lesson was that the kingdom of heaven (i.e., the church; Matthew 16:18-19; Colossians 1:13), would be very small in the beginning (Acts 2), but in time would become very large. Rather than be a movement that died with its leader (cf. Acts 5:33-39), history shows that Jesus was exactly right in His prophecy: since His death and resurrection 2,000 years ago, multiplied millions of people have become citizens of this heavenly kingdom of which Jesus foretold.
Rather than acknowledge Jesus’ impressively fulfilled prophecy, His critics allege that He blundered in His reference to the mustard seed being “the least of all the seeds” (or as Mark words it, “smaller than all the seeds on earth”—4:31). Since other plant seeds technically are smaller than mustard seeds (e.g., epiphytic orchid seeds found in tropical rainforests), critics claim that Jesus made a scientific mistake (Wells, 2011; McKinsey, 2000, p. 263).
Although the Bible has shown itself to be historically and scientifically accurate time and again over the last 2,000 years (see Butt, 2007), the reader must bear in mind that, just as we often do in modern times, Jesus and the Bible writers frequently used figures of speech. They sometimes used numbers as names instead of literal numbers (e.g., calling the apostles “the twelve” after Judas had died—1 Corinthians 15:5; see Lyons, 2002). They oftentimes referred to things as they appeared instead of as they actually were (e.g., Christians who had died were said to have “fallen asleep”—1 Corinthians 15:6). They used Hebrew idioms, even when writing in the Greek language (e.g., “three days and three nights”—Matthew 12:40; see Lyons, 2004). And, just as we communicate truths in the 21st century through easily interpreted exaggeration (e.g., “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse”), Jesus and the Bible writers also made use of hyperbolic expressions. For example, when Paul noted in his letter to the church in Colosse that the Gospel “was preached to every creature under heaven” (1:23), readers understand that Paul is not technically saying that every living thing on Earth heard the Gospel. He’s not even saying that every person, including every infant, invalid, and mentally-ill person, heard the Gospel. Paul was obviously using a figure of speech to communicate an astounding truth: the then-known world (of both Jews and Gentiles) had been exposed to the Good News of Jesus Christ.
So what about Jesus’ comment regarding the mustard seed being “the least of all the seeds” (Matthew 13:32)? Was Jesus scientifically inaccurate? Only in the same sense that people are today when they refer to it “raining cats and dogs” during heavy precipitation, or “burning up” during a heat wav. The fact is, Jesus was speaking proverbially in this parable. In Palestine, mustard seeds were used comparatively when talking of very small things. For example, when Jesus taught about how the smallest amount of faith could bring about great results, He referred to this “faith as a mustard seed” (Matthew 17:20). Since the Jews were very familiar with the mustard seed, Jesus referred to what they could understand and appreciate. In their world, where they lived, planted, and harvested, they understood that the mustard seed was the smallest of the seeds they normally planted. And still, it could germinate, take root, and flourish, eventually becoming an eight- to 10-foot tall shrub (Lane, 1974, p. 171).
Similar to how we might say to someone, “everyone knows that two plus two is four,” Jesus told His Palestinian peers that the mustard seed is “the least of all the seeds.” Do most people on Earth likely know that two plus two is four? Yes. But millions of infants are ignorant of this mathematical fact, as are many mentally-ill individuals. Thus, the term “everyone” would be used in a limited sense. Likewise, when Jesus spoke of the mustard seed, He was speaking hyperbolically in a limited sense. The mustard seed “was the smallest usually sown in Jewish fields” (McGarvey, 1875, p. 121, emp. added).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=6&article=3738
I think part of the problem with literalism is failing to understand the difference between inspiration versus dictation. Muslims believe that Al'Quran was dictated TO Mohammed, by the Archangel Gabriel. There was no part for the idosyncracies of the Quraish or Meccan Arabs or indeed the ones from Medina to enter into the Quran. The Quran is basically God's literal words, all Mohammed did was repeat them as they were read to him by the angel.
That is NOT what Christians understand by inspiration. Inspiration means that God the Holy Spirit communicated eternal truths through the pen of a human author. The language used is not a heavenly language like the Arabic of the Quran (according to Sunni beliefs). No. It is the language and concepts of that human writer as he was writing within a particular historical and cultural context that is used, but the truths communicated through that language and pen are divine...Inspiration. Reading these works, you should be aware of what truths God wanted to communicate, were they scientific, theological, historical, or what? You cannot just ignore the concrete contexts of language/culture/history and presume you are reading it as if it was written today by a scientist using the English language. That's my view.