An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet

[vooke]

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

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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?

[Kababe]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[Kababe]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[vooke]

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.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

  blood of Abel

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

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?

[Kababe]

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.

[Kababe]

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.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

  blood of Abel

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

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.

[vooke]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[veritas]

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.

[Kababe]

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.

[veritas]

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.

[Kababe]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[Kababe]

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.

[Kababe]

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".

[vooke]

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.