Lions were designed to kill

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I'm going to point you to a specific verse that you probably don't know exists. If you do know, then you may have forgotten it or your lack of understanding "original sin" is the problem.

This is getting a little absurd. If you cannot have a dialogue with someone you disagree with without saying things like "you've probably never heard of this verse" then either you don't have a lot of confidence in your assertions, or you're out of arguments and so you just want to tear someone down. Stick to the point and we can keep talking.[/quote]

Fixed.

(And the reason I no longer reply to his posts.)

[quote author=ddgently]So Adam suffered immediate physical death as the result of his transgression? Then why does Genesis record him living several hundred more years. [/quote]

And Cain was worried about somebody doing him harm...

[quote author=ddgently]Allow me to blow your mind. Paul probably believed in a literal Adam who lived a relatively short time before him. And Paul's belief is reflected in his writings that form a part of Scripture. That doesn't mean that God is not communicating truth to us through Paul.[/quote]

+1

 

[ddgently]

Let's not get too caught up in the example, shall we not? I'm not trying to argue that science is infallible. But the last 400 have produced astounding progress. Does an earlier theory later need to be tweaked in light of new data? Of course, this happens all the time. It doesn't mean that if I haven't personally obtained a terminal degree in a particular field that I review all the accomplishments of that field with suspicion.

Okay. I can accept this. I would like to know how you rate the Scripture in terms of reliability? Is it just as reliable as the last 400 years of astounding progress?

That's not a good comparison. Scripture doesn't change. Our understanding of it can, based on what God reveals to us in other ways.

When we read in Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." we don't think to take this literally (even though we use some of the same phrasing today) because we know that the illusion of the sun rising and setting is caused by the earths rotation (unless you doubt that too).

But we certainly don't believe that the sun "hurries" back to where it's going to rise again. But you sure would if you were Solomon and the best science of your time told you that the earth was a flat disc with a solid dome for a sky.

However, because we know better now, we can take this language figuratively, and with discernment, learn that what Solomon is trying to communicate is the idea of futility. Natural processes just repeat over and over.

If we tried to read "science" into the verse about how the sun operates, we would (1) miss the point of the passage, and (2) be wrong about the science.

I have a very primitive understanding of how a computer works. Does that mean I shouldn't trust a computer scientist? Does the fact that my computer does not work correctly 100% of the time mean the "computer scientists" are lying to me? What a ridiculous way to live one's life.

I just happen to work in the Information Systems. While I do not know everything there is to know about it myself. I do have 25 years of experience. I can tell you. Most of the time. Those that claim to know something about computers..... usually don't. Its rather comical at times to hear people try to explain how one works..... I often think God Himself has the same opinion when we try to explain something we actually know very little about.

Stay focused! So most people don't understand computers? Fewer understand biological evolution! Just because most people don't understand doesn't change the underlying principles!

This is getting a little absurd. If you cannot have a dialogue with someone you disagree with without saying things like "you've probably never heard of this verse" then either you don't have a lot of confidence in your assertions, or you're out of arguments and so you just want to tear someone down. Stick to the point and we can keep talking.

I can be a little sarcastic sometimes. However, have you ever really considered the verse before? It make me wonder sometimes if evolutionary theists have actually studied their subject. I know they study science but I question if they have put the same effort into getting to know the Scriptures. I can't help but think of such verses when I engage someone about the subject. Its not like I am googling to try and be part of this discussion. I have actually spent many years and many hours embracing theology. Its part of me. Since it is part of me.... I seriously wonder how some people believe the things they believe. I can't help but think they really haven't put much effort into knowing. If they had, they wouldn't believe some of the nonsense they believe. Now, if you tell you have spent years studying the issue. I'll drop it. I'll take your word at it. I'm just wondering and being a little sarcastic at the same time.

I've grown up in the church and have studied the Scriptures my entire life. Because we're all flawed I think we all "seriously wonder how some people believe the things they believe" because we're bound to come to different conclusions on some things.

So Adam suffered immediate physical death as the result of his transgression? Then why does Genesis record him living several hundred more years.

Maybe you're being a little sarcastic yourself. That's fine. I rather enjoy a good testy exchange. I'm sure you've picked up on that already.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with what I wrote. There are many members of mankind that die without committing sin. They receive the judgement of God (death) because of their relationship to Adam. Your view of Adam is important. If you believe the term "Adam" spans multiple, different species of humanoid kind.... then you have a problem making a connection to sin.

I don't think Adam "spans multiple, different species of humanoid kind.... " Like I said, I don't have strong views on Adam. We're obviously "fallen" people. Isn't that enough to send us to the feet of the cross. It is for me. Whether God selected a "first couple" out of the many homo sapiens living at that time and made a covenant with them that they broke or not really doesn't impact my theology, because I believe we're living in "God's Plan A Universe" not his "Whoops! the very first people I created messed up the whole plan within two chapters, better send my Son" Universe.

Also, I can't help but notice you've ignored what I said about the book of Hebrews. I look forward to your answer concerning my comments.

I did miss that, but not intentionally.

ddgently wrote.

I'm sure they're upset anyway, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where do "maggots" fit in?

There is a precept taught in the book of Hebrews concerning the priestly work of our Master. It speaks of how our Master took upon Himself the form of that which he redeemed. One of the many characteristics of said "redemption" involves the fact that God so loves man... that he took upon Himself, the very form of Adam. Man had a very special place in the heart of God. God didn't do it for the angels that fell. God didn't do it for any other creature. He took upon Himself the form of Adam.

Now. Stop. Think for a minute. If you believe in a generic application of Adam to apply to various species of "humanoid"... then you have a problem. A big problem. Such teaching falls apart and the analogy has no application.

Are you talking about Hebrews 2:14-18? Your paragraph is rather vague. The word "Adam" doesn't appear in Hebrews. Its teaching that God took on human form. So what difference does it make where that human form came from (special creation or gradual evolution). The point is he became like us.

Allow me to blow your mind. Paul probably believed in a literal Adam who lived a relatively short time before him. And Paul's belief is reflected in his writings that form a part of Scripture. That doesn't mean that God is not communicating truth to us through Paul.

I see. You didn't blow my mind. Heard it before. I imagine that you're privy to scientific revelation that poor Paul just couldn't understand. Thus, its taken thousands of years of scientific progress for mankind to accurately understand the "Genesis" of mankind. I get it. You have an high opinion of scientific revelation in nature. Even to the point that you must understand such to properly understand the Scriptures. I get it. Sorry. I can't agree. You've given me no reason to think otherwise.

But we all do this, you just choose not to do it with this particular topic. See the discussion of Ecclesiastes 1:5 above. Or are you ready to affirm that the sun revolves around the earth?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

For what it's worth, I define macro-evolution as the notion that beetles and beavers have a common ancestor. 

 

[rsc2a]

So... after all of this discussion, I see two different approaches to Genesis.

Some (including me) view Genesis 1 as a narrative. The assumption is that the Bible has the priority and true science is compatible. Statements of cosmology would be related to an incomplete knowledge, but what is stated is not wrong. The Hebrew language involved does not demand a flat earth.

Some view Genesis 1 as a metaphor. The assumption is that science has the priority and the Bible may have faulty information based on an incomplete knowledge of cosmology.

And Option 3: Some don't see science and Scripture as enemies but as sister revelations both pointing us to God. They also believe the Bible is fully accurate when consideration is given to the message the author/Author is trying to relay and that any perceived contradictions between Scripture and science are the result of poor interpretation of either the scientific evidence, Scripture, or both.

 

[T-Bone]

So... after all of this discussion, I see two different approaches to Genesis.

Some (including me) view Genesis 1 as a narrative. The assumption is that the Bible has the priority and true science is compatible. Statements of cosmology would be related to an incomplete knowledge, but what is stated is not wrong. The Hebrew language involved does not demand a flat earth.

Some view Genesis 1 as a metaphor. The assumption is that science has the priority and the Bible may have faulty information based on an incomplete knowledge of cosmology.

You can count me in the first group rather than the second group and here is why...it may be true that individuals who penned the book had limited knowledge, but the One who inspired them does not!

 

[T-Bone]

So... after all of this discussion, I see two different approaches to Genesis.

Some (including me) view Genesis 1 as a narrative. The assumption is that the Bible has the priority and true science is compatible. Statements of cosmology would be related to an incomplete knowledge, but what is stated is not wrong. The Hebrew language involved does not demand a flat earth.

Some view Genesis 1 as a metaphor. The assumption is that science has the priority and the Bible may have faulty information based on an incomplete knowledge of cosmology.

And Option 3: Some don't see science and Scripture as enemies but as sister revelations both pointing us to God. They also believe the Bible is fully accurate when consideration is given to the message the author/Author is trying to relay and that any perceived contradictions between Scripture and science are the result of poor interpretation of either the scientific evidence, Scripture, or both.

Also as stated I don't have no problem with this point of view...the problem is the lack of "pure science" and "pure theology".

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]I'm going to point you to a specific verse that you probably don't know exists. If you do know, then you may have forgotten it or your lack of understanding "original sin" is the problem.

This is getting a little absurd. If you cannot have a dialogue with someone you disagree with without saying things like "you've probably never heard of this verse" then either you don't have a lot of confidence in your assertions, or you're out of arguments and so you just want to tear someone down. Stick to the point and we can keep talking.

Fixed.

(And the reason I no longer reply to his posts.)
[/quote]

Liar. You're a coward. That is why you put me on ignore.

 

[christundivided]

So... after all of this discussion, I see two different approaches to Genesis.

Some (including me) view Genesis 1 as a narrative. The assumption is that the Bible has the priority and true science is compatible. Statements of cosmology would be related to an incomplete knowledge, but what is stated is not wrong. The Hebrew language involved does not demand a flat earth.

Some view Genesis 1 as a metaphor. The assumption is that science has the priority and the Bible may have faulty information based on an incomplete knowledge of cosmology.

And Option 3: Some don't see science and Scripture as enemies but as sister revelations both pointing us to God. They also believe the Bible is fully accurate when consideration is given to the message the author/Author is trying to relay and that any perceived contradictions between Scripture and science are the result of poor interpretation of either the scientific evidence, Scripture, or both.

Also as stated I don't have no problem with this point of view...the problem is the lack of "pure science" and "pure theology".

I think I know your beliefs enough...... that is no way you're a evolutionary creationist. That is the issue. The rest is semantics. They are playing a game with the truth of the Scriptures. Scriptures will always be more reliable and easier understood then the "science" they are peddling.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Liar. You're a coward. That is why you put me on ignore.[/quote]

Actually, you are not on ignore. I just ignore you. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=T-Bone]Also as stated I don't have no problem with this point of view...the problem is the lack of "pure science" and "pure theology".[/quote]

Philosophically, I don't even think such a thing is even possible without getting into some form of heresy.

 

[T-Bone]

So... after all of this discussion, I see two different approaches to Genesis.

Some (including me) view Genesis 1 as a narrative. The assumption is that the Bible has the priority and true science is compatible. Statements of cosmology would be related to an incomplete knowledge, but what is stated is not wrong. The Hebrew language involved does not demand a flat earth.

Some view Genesis 1 as a metaphor. The assumption is that science has the priority and the Bible may have faulty information based on an incomplete knowledge of cosmology.

And Option 3: Some don't see science and Scripture as enemies but as sister revelations both pointing us to God. They also believe the Bible is fully accurate when consideration is given to the message the author/Author is trying to relay and that any perceived contradictions between Scripture and science are the result of poor interpretation of either the scientific evidence, Scripture, or both.

Also as stated I don't have no problem with this point of view...the problem is the lack of "pure science" and "pure theology".

I think I know your beliefs enough...... that is no way you're a evolutionary creationist. That is the issue. The rest is semantics. They are playing a game with the truth of the Scriptures. Scriptures will always be more reliable and easier understood then the "science" they are peddling.

You are right in your assessment...the problem is that many offer their bias science for the real thing...it is like the truth, I believe all real truth is God's truth, but I don't believe that everything people call truth is truth!

 

[T-Bone]

[quote author=T-Bone]Also as stated I don't have no problem with this point of view...the problem is the lack of "pure science" and "pure theology".

Philosophically, I don't even think such a thing is even possible without getting into some form of heresy.
[/quote]

And there is the rub!

 

[christundivided]

When we read in Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." we don't think to take this literally (even though we use some of the same phrasing today) because we know that the illusion of the sun rising and setting is caused by the earths rotation (unless you doubt that too).

Sure I take this literally. Why wouldn't I. The sun does go down and it does arise. The expression doesn't imply the earth doesn't move. Get a grip man. You're being silly. I hope you do realize that the sun is moving throughout "space". We do not know enough to say that the known celestial heavens does not itself rotate in a grander... much larger space. This is the arrogance of your stupid arguments. You see a millions/billions of stars and think you've seen it all. Yeah. Right.

But we certainly don't believe that the sun "hurries" back to where it's going to rise again. But you sure would if you were Solomon and the best science of your time told you that the earth was a flat disc with a solid dome for a sky.

You're crazy. Solomon didn't believe such. Why are you lying about Solomon? You didn't know Solomon.

However, because we know better now, we can take this language figuratively, and with discernment, learn that what Solomon is trying to communicate is the idea of futility. Natural processes just repeat over and over.

Even if it is a figurative expression. That doesn't mean the creation account should likewise be taken "figuratively". See. that is the problem with you idiots. You see a figurative expression somewhere in the bible and then you start to see it EVERYWHERE. How about this. Why don't you believe there really wasn't a man called Christ Jesus. Its was just a story used to figuratively express the love of our our Evolutionary Creator. Its nothing more than the evolution of man's own imagination. Yeah... right.

Stay focused! So most people don't understand computers? Fewer understand biological evolution! Just because most people don't understand doesn't change the underlying principles!

I do understand. You're blindly trusting someone else. You don't care to find out for yourself. STAY FOCUSED.

This is getting a little absurd. If you cannot have a dialogue with someone you disagree with without saying things like "you've probably never heard of this verse" then either you don't have a lot of confidence in your assertions, or you're out of arguments and so you just want to tear someone down. Stick to the point and we can keep talking.

I'm not going to let you dictate the rules of our conversation. I told I would take you at your word. The fact is.... you didn't know. If you already knew about the verse... just say you did. IS the reason you're having a hard time saying such.... .is because it would be a lie?

I've grown up in the church and have studied the Scriptures my entire life. Because we're all flawed I think we all "seriously wonder how some people believe the things they believe" because we're bound to come to different conclusions on some things.

Good for you. Seems like you've abandoned the idea of original sin in a literal man called Adam. I'd say that is heresy.

I don't think Adam "spans multiple, different species of humanoid kind.... " Like I said, I don't have strong views on Adam. We're obviously "fallen" people. Isn't that enough to send us to the feet of the cross. It is for me. Whether God selected a "first couple" out of the many homo sapiens living at that time and made a covenant with them that they broke or not really doesn't impact my theology, because I believe we're living in "God's Plan A Universe" not his "Whoops! the very first people I created messed up the whole plan within two chapters, better send my Son" Universe.

What? So you think it DOESN'T matter if there are other homo sapien descendants on this planet that did not originate with the literal man Adam? I know it may not seem important you.... but have you ever heard of the term "offspring". Sorry buddy. Its important to be a genealogical descendant of Adam. Not of his "brother" or His "sister" or some "distant cousin" of a mother twice removed... ...what horse hockey.

I did miss that, but not intentionally.

Are you talking about Hebrews 2:14-18? Your paragraph is rather vague. The word "Adam" doesn't appear in Hebrews. Its teaching that God took on human form. So what difference does it make where that human form came from (special creation or gradual evolution). The point is he became like us.

Now you know that is not true. You have already talked about other forms of humanoid man on this planet. Sorry. You can't redefine your belief by simply saying that all of these forms are genetically and completely identical...... and they form some cooperative group called "Adam".

But we all do this, you just choose not to do it with this particular topic. See the discussion of Ecclesiastes 1:5 above. Or are you ready to affirm that the sun revolves around the earth?

The verse doesn't teach such. Its only in your imagination. I will admit. You have quite a vivid imagination.... Yet, there is no reason to "project" you silliness onto the Holiness of Scripture.

 

[ddgently]

When we read in Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." we don't think to take this literally (even though we use some of the same phrasing today) because we know that the illusion of the sun rising and setting is caused by the earths rotation (unless you doubt that too).

Sure I take this literally. Why wouldn't I. The sun does go down and it does arise. The expression doesn't imply the earth doesn't move. Get a grip man. You're being silly. I hope you do realize that the sun is moving throughout "space". We do not know enough to say that the known celestial heavens does not itself rotate in a grander... much larger space. This is the arrogance of your stupid arguments. You see a millions/billions of stars and think you've seen it all. Yeah. Right.

Where do you think your hostility comes from? Of course it (like many other verses) implies that the earth is stationary. I hope you realize that no one, Christian or not, thought the earth moved until the 16th century AD. So why would we expect Solomon to write assuming anything different?

But we certainly don't believe that the sun "hurries" back to where it's going to rise again. But you sure would if you were Solomon and the best science of your time told you that the earth was a flat disc with a solid dome for a sky.

You're crazy. Solomon didn't believe such. Why are you lying about Solomon? You didn't know Solomon.

I'm not crazy. How do you presume to know what Solomon believed? You didn't know him either.

However, because we know better now, we can take this language figuratively, and with discernment, learn that what Solomon is trying to communicate is the idea of futility. Natural processes just repeat over and over.

Even if it is a figurative expression. That doesn't mean the creation account should likewise be taken "figuratively". See. that is the problem with you idiots.

Again, the hostility, man. You gotta tamp that down

You see a figurative expression somewhere in the bible and then you start to see it EVERYWHERE. How about this. Why don't you believe there really wasn't a man called Christ Jesus. Its was just a story used to figuratively express the love of our our Evolutionary Creator. Its nothing more than the evolution of man's own imagination. Yeah... right.

Contrary to what you probably think, I take the biblical text very, very seriously. I want to know what it really says and means. The gospels are an entirely different genre of literature than Genesis 1-11. They were also written within a few decades of the events they record, rather than hundreds or even thousands of years after the events.

This is where discernment comes in: What kind of text is this? Who wrote it? What was his motivation for writing? To whom was it written? How has the text been interpreted through the centuries? These types of questions, coupled with the rational minds God gave us, allow us to discern what God intends the text to communicate, and usually as a peripheral issue, whether the text is "historical" in the way we think of that word.

Stay focused! So most people don't understand computers? Fewer understand biological evolution! Just because most people don't understand doesn't change the underlying principles!

I do understand. You're blindly trusting someone else. You don't care to find out for yourself. STAY FOCUSED.

I have done a lot to educate myself. Which is why I reject a young earth and special creation. But we all trust others, with some degree of blindness, because we can't possibly know everything. Except for you, of course.

This is getting a little absurd. If you cannot have a dialogue with someone you disagree with without saying things like "you've probably never heard of this verse" then either you don't have a lot of confidence in your assertions, or you're out of arguments and so you just want to tear someone down. Stick to the point and we can keep talking.

I'm not going to let you dictate the rules of our conversation. I told I would take you at your word. The fact is.... you didn't know. If you already knew about the verse... just say you did. IS the reason you're having a hard time saying such.... .is because it would be a lie?

Actually, I did know about that verse. I know about lots of verses. I'm sure you do too. I don't agree with your interpretation, and you don't agree with mine.

I've grown up in the church and have studied the Scriptures my entire life. Because we're all flawed I think we all "seriously wonder how some people believe the things they believe" because we're bound to come to different conclusions on some things.

Good for you. Seems like you've abandoned the idea of original sin in a literal man called Adam. I'd say that is heresy.

Great. Tell you what, if I make it to the New Jerusalem in spite of my "heresy" I'll buy you a beer.

I don't think Adam "spans multiple, different species of humanoid kind.... " Like I said, I don't have strong views on Adam. We're obviously "fallen" people. Isn't that enough to send us to the feet of the cross. It is for me. Whether God selected a "first couple" out of the many homo sapiens living at that time and made a covenant with them that they broke or not really doesn't impact my theology, because I believe we're living in "God's Plan A Universe" not his "Whoops! the very first people I created messed up the whole plan within two chapters, better send my Son" Universe.

What? So you think it DOESN'T matter if there are other homo sapien descendants on this planet that did not originate with the literal man Adam? I know it may not seem important you.... but have you ever heard of the term "offspring". Sorry buddy. Its important to be a genealogical descendant of Adam. Not of his "brother" or His "sister" or some "distant cousin" of a mother twice removed... ...what horse hockey.

Why is it so important? Is there a "sin" gene? Like the Bible (the book we're arguing about) says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Not "All were born with the stain of original sin because they are biological descendants of a man named Adam." Pretty sure we're all sinners whether there is a literal Adam or not. Show me in the Bible where it says there are some sinless people out there who only need Jesus because of original sin.

I did miss that, but not intentionally.

Are you talking about Hebrews 2:14-18? Your paragraph is rather vague. The word "Adam" doesn't appear in Hebrews. Its teaching that God took on human form. So what difference does it make where that human form came from (special creation or gradual evolution). The point is he became like us.

Now you know that is not true. You have already talked about other forms of humanoid man on this planet. Sorry. You can't redefine your belief by simply saying that all of these forms are genetically and completely identical...... and they form some cooperative group called "Adam".

Jesus was genetically human. Just like you. Just like me. Sure, there have been other hominins, but Jesus didn't become like them. Where did I say that he did? I've also never said anything about a cooperative group called "Adam."

But we all do this, you just choose not to do it with this particular topic. See the discussion of Ecclesiastes 1:5 above. Or are you ready to affirm that the sun revolves around the earth?

The verse doesn't teach such. Its only in your imagination. I will admit. You have quite a vivid imagination.... Yet, there is no reason to "project" you silliness onto the Holiness of Scripture.
[/quote]

 

[christundivided]

Where do you think your hostility comes from? Of course it (like many other verses) implies that the earth is stationary. I hope you realize that no one, Christian or not, thought the earth moved until the 16th century AD. So why would we expect Solomon to write assuming anything different?

No it doesn't. You only have their observation. Its actually very hilarious that people like you say that the Genesis account isn't scientific and yet you demand that Solomon give a scientific view of the rotation of the earth. You are entirely inconsistent and dishonest in your methodology.

I'm not crazy. How do you presume to know what Solomon believed? You didn't know him either.

I'm not reading anything into what he said. I take it face value. You're the one READING INTO what Solomon wrote.

Contrary to what you probably think, I take the biblical text very, very seriously. I want to know what it really says and means. The gospels are an entirely different genre of literature than Genesis 1-11. They were also written within a few decades of the events they record, rather than hundreds or even thousands of years after the events.

No you're not taking them seriously. Contrary to your imagination. GOD divinely GAVE MOSES the revelation of Genesis. Your instance it is somehow different because he was thousands of years removed from the event GOD DIVINELY revealed to him..... is entirely silly. You have abandoned the ideals of inerrancy and inspiration. If you want to make an argument concerning transmition of the texts..... then I'll listen. If you're going to say that They are less reliable or inferior than other texts of the Scriptures.... simply because the author did not personally experience the events.... then I'm going to classy you as a heretic..... and I don't use those words lightly. There is big difference between being a textual critic and a "higher critic". I hope you're not the latter.

This is where discernment comes in: What kind of text is this? Who wrote it? What was his motivation for writing? To whom was it written? How has the text been interpreted through the centuries? These types of questions, coupled with the rational minds God gave us, allow us to discern what God intends the text to communicate, and usually as a peripheral issue, whether the text is "historical" in the way we think of that word.

You know... this is really laughable. What makes you think God wrote it for your scientific mind to discern. You are actually saying you are the one that really understands what its trying God was convey more than those to whom it was written. Its really comical. Your mythology is self defeating. You sound just like rsca. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I have done a lot to educate myself. Which is why I reject a young earth and special creation. But we all trust others, with some degree of blindness, because we can't possibly know everything. Except for you, of course.

LOL. Okay. I know what I know from the Scriptures. I use the Scripture to constrain my ideals of modern science. I don't use unproven scientific method to constrain my ideals of the Scriptures. Most here would tell you I am overtly liberal when it comes to the transmitting of the texts of the Scriptures, but I have never abandon the core values of Inspiration and Inerrancy. To believe what you believe..... You have to take the approach you've taken. Its progressive and destructive. One thought brings about another thought.... that brings about another thought. Lie upon lie... upon lie.... until you have the gall to cast aside the inerrant revelation of Genesis to be nothing more than a figurative account without any detail into a literal creative action of our Master. You have built a progressive theology that elevates one portion of Scripture above another. You insult my intelligence by taking the Genesis account as a figurative expression without any literal/practical application and then claim the you still believe in a literal Christ that takes away the sins of humanity... Yet, you don't know exactly what "humanity" really is. Does it include neanderthal "man" or "Homo erectus". It doesn't matter to you. The origins of sin are important. It is a key part of the Gospel. It explains why sin has passed along to every man. Its in his nature. Part of his being because he inherited it from a literal ADAM.

Actually, I did know about that verse. I know about lots of verses. I'm sure you do too. I don't agree with your interpretation, and you don't agree with mine.

Fair enough. I will leave it at that. I will take your word for it. I said I would and I try to be a honest person.

Great. Tell you what, if I make it to the New Jerusalem in spite of my "heresy" I'll buy you a beer.

LOL. I have very little tolerance anymore for false teachings. I'd tell my friends the same things. Even though I have grown tired of such nonsense..... I am generally a people person. I don't try to treat anyone any different. Yet, I will not abandon my beliefs for the sake of friendship. I'll take you up on that offer as long as its bitter cold and comes with a good conversation...

Why is it so important? Is there a "sin" gene? Like the Bible (the book we're arguing about) says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Not "All were born with the stain of original sin because they are biological descendants of a man named Adam." Pretty sure we're all sinners whether there is a literal Adam or not. Show me in the Bible where it says there are some sinless people out there who only need Jesus because of original sin.

You're arguing from silence and I don't understand the point you're trying to make. If there are generations of mankind that have no direct tie to a literal Adam.... then the Scriptures are nothing more than a myth.

Jesus was genetically human. Just like you. Just like me. Sure, there have been other hominins, but Jesus didn't become like them. Where did I say that he did? I've also never said anything about a cooperative group called "Adam."

From what I've seen....you've grouped various "hominins" into the same group as Adam. I don't see how you're separating them. Can you draw the line a little clearer?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I am generally a people person.[/quote]

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]I am generally a people person.

[/quote]

Retracted....

Its not worth it..... Jesus loves you rsc2a.

 

[ddgently]

Where do you think your hostility comes from? Of course it (like many other verses) implies that the earth is stationary. I hope you realize that no one, Christian or not, thought the earth moved until the 16th century AD. So why would we expect Solomon to write assuming anything different?

No it doesn't. You only have their observation.

Whose observation? It's tough to debate you when you're so vague.

Its actually very hilarious that people like you say that the Genesis account isn't scientific and yet you demand that Solomon give a scientific view of the rotation of the earth. You are entirely inconsistent and dishonest in your methodology.

I'm not inconsistent. The Genesis account isn't scientific, but it does represent the cosmology of the time. I don't "demand that Solomon give a scientific view of the rotation of the earth." Rather, I recognize that he too uses language that reflects the cosmology of the time. If you read Solomon's words, without your "modern science" you would conclude, in the absence of anything else, that the sun goes around the earth. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not crazy. How do you presume to know what Solomon believed? You didn't know him either.

I'm not reading anything into what he said. I take it face value. You're the one READING INTO what Solomon wrote.

Explain to me, without referencing modern science, what that verse tells you about the sun's relationship to the earth.

Contrary to what you probably think, I take the biblical text very, very seriously. I want to know what it really says and means. The gospels are an entirely different genre of literature than Genesis 1-11. They were also written within a few decades of the events they record, rather than hundreds or even thousands of years after the events.

No you're not taking them seriously.

Thank you for the mind-reading. I usually have to pay a psychic $49.95 an hour for that.

Contrary to your imagination.

This sentence no verb.

GOD divinely GAVE MOSES the revelation of Genesis. Your instance do you mean "insistence"? it is somehow different because he was thousands of years removed from the event GOD DIVINELY revealed to him..... is entirely silly. You have abandoned the ideals of inerrancy and inspiration. If you want to make an argument concerning transmition of the texts..... then I'll listen. If you're going to say that They are less reliable or inferior than other texts of the Scriptures.... simply because the author did not personally experience the events.... then I'm going to classy you as a heretic My new signature line "DDGently: One Classy Heretic..... and I don't use those words lightly. There is big difference between being a textual critic and a "higher critic". I hope you're not the latter.

Allow me to answer your accusation with a question. Was the story of Adam and Eve known before Moses wrote it down?

This is where discernment comes in: What kind of text is this? Who wrote it? What was his motivation for writing? To whom was it written? How has the text been interpreted through the centuries? These types of questions, coupled with the rational minds God gave us, allow us to discern what God intends the text to communicate, and usually as a peripheral issue, whether the text is "historical" in the way we think of that word.

You know... this is really laughable. What makes you think God wrote it for your scientific mind to discern. You are actually saying you are the one that really understands what its trying God was convey more than those to whom it was written. Its really comical. Your mythology is self defeating. You sound just like rsca. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

That's the thing. I don't think God gave scripture to instruct us in science at all. But I definitely think God gave us scripture for our minds to discern. So you disagree with my assertion that we need to look at scripture through the lens of who wrote it, to whom it was written, and for what purpose it was written? Are those factors irrelevant to you?

I have done a lot to educate myself. Which is why I reject a young earth and special creation. But we all trust others, with some degree of blindness, because we can't possibly know everything. Except for you, of course.

LOL. Okay. I know what I know from the Scriptures. I use the Scripture to constrain my ideals of modern science.

NOT true. You use what you already think Scripture must mean to constrain what it means. Everyone does this, but it's important to recognize it. Do you not think you have to interpret scripture to determine what it means. Or are you of the "God Said It. I Believe It. That Settles It." school of thought?

I don't use unproven scientific method to constrain my ideals of the Scriptures. Most here would tell you I am overtly liberal when it comes to the transmitting of the texts of the Scriptures, but I have never abandon the core values of Inspiration and Inerrancy. To believe what you believe..... You have to take the approach you've taken. Its progressive and destructive. One thought brings about another thought.... that brings about another thought. Lie upon lie... upon lie....

Why do you assume it is a lie upon a lie?

until you have the gall to cast aside the inerrant revelation of Genesis to be nothing more than a figurative account without any detail into a literal creative action of our Master.

Of course I blieve our Master is the creator. He just didn't tell us exactly how he did it in Genesis.

You have built a progressive theology that elevates one portion of Scripture above another.

So you give equal weight to all Scripture? Where do you get support for that? You don't think the words of, oh I don't know, Jesus, the Son of God, are a little more important than, say, a genealogy in Genesis or Luke?

You insult my intelligence by taking the Genesis account as a figurative expression without any literal/practical application and then claim the you still believe in a literal Christ that takes away the sins of humanity

I've NEVER said that Genesis 1-3 has no literal or practical application.

... Yet, you don't know exactly what "humanity" really is. Does it include neanderthal "man" or "Homo erectus". It doesn't matter to you.

Allow me spit out my snack so you can stuff more words in my mouth.

The origins of sin are important. It is a key part of the Gospel.

Is it? I thought a key part of the gospel was that I have a personal sin problem and Jesus has the answer. What difference does it make to me where the sin problem came from?

It explains why sin has passed along to every man. Its in his nature. Part of his being because he inherited it from a literal ADAM.

So there is a sin gene? So if, contrary to your belief, God made a covenant with a man who was one among many man, and that man broke the covenant, and sin entered the earth through that man, that wouldn't be good enough for you?

Actually, I did know about that verse. I know about lots of verses. I'm sure you do too. I don't agree with your interpretation, and you don't agree with mine.

Fair enough. I will leave it at that. I will take your word for it. I said I would and I try to be a honest person.

Great. Tell you what, if I make it to the New Jerusalem in spite of my "heresy" I'll buy you a beer.

LOL. I have very little tolerance anymore for false teachings.

And yet you promulgate so many...

I'd tell my friends the same things. Even though I have grown tired of such nonsense..... I am generally a people person. I don't try to treat anyone any different. Yet, I will not abandon my beliefs for the sake of friendship. I'll take you up on that offer as long as its bitter cold and comes with a good conversation...

Deal!

Why is it so important? Is there a "sin" gene? Like the Bible (the book we're arguing about) says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Not "All were born with the stain of original sin because they are biological descendants of a man named Adam." Pretty sure we're all sinners whether there is a literal Adam or not. Show me in the Bible where it says there are some sinless people out there who only need Jesus because of original sin.

You're arguing from silence and I don't understand the point you're trying to make. If there are generations of mankind that have no direct tie to a literal Adam.... then the Scriptures are nothing more than a myth.

Why? That's a bold assertion. How do you get there?

Jesus was genetically human. Just like you. Just like me. Sure, there have been other hominins, but Jesus didn't become like them. Where did I say that he did? I've also never said anything about a cooperative group called "Adam."

From what I've seen....you've grouped various "hominins" into the same group as Adam. I don't see how you're separating them. Can you draw the line a little clearer?

If there was one "Adam" I believe he was a homo sapien.

 

[christundivided]

Whose observation? It's tough to debate you when you're so vague.

I can't help you're lost in the conversation. "Their".... belongs to.... or is associated with people or things previously mentioned. You know exactly what I was referencing. IF, somehow, you don't. Do some reading.

I'm not inconsistent. The Genesis account isn't scientific, but it does represent the cosmology of the time. I don't "demand that Solomon give a scientific view of the rotation of the earth." Rather, I recognize that he too uses language that reflects the cosmology of the time. If you read Solomon's words, without your "modern science" you would conclude, in the absence of anything else, that the sun goes around the earth. That's all I'm saying.

Sure... Sure... Anyone with common sense would recognize that Solomon was describing what he witnessed. He wasn't going into a detailed explanation as to how he was standing on a rotating object. NOR what he trying to say the EARTH WAS FLAT.

Explain to me, without referencing modern science, what that verse tells you about the sun's relationship to the earth.

Its like going on vacation and later describing how beautiful it was to be laying on the beach as the "SUN WENT DOWN". Relative to your position the STINKING THING WENT DOWN. Its an observation. Its not a conversation about the rotation of the earth around the sun. Which in turn rotates in its own space relative other systems in the vast emptiness of space.

Contrary to what you probably think, I take the biblical text very, very seriously. I want to know what it really says and means. The gospels are an entirely different genre of literature than Genesis 1-11. They were also written within a few decades of the events they record, rather than hundreds or even thousands of years after the events.

This sentence no verb.

Petty humanoid.

Allow me to answer your accusation with a question. Was the story of Adam and Eve known before Moses wrote it down?

Yes. By those that experienced it first hand.... You know Adam and Eve. Nice to meet you Higher Critic.

That's the thing. I don't think God gave scripture to instruct us in science at all. But I definitely think God gave us scripture for our minds to discern. So you disagree with my assertion that we need to look at scripture through the lens of who wrote it, to whom it was written, and for what purpose it was written? Are those factors irrelevant to you?

That's isn't what you said. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in the principles of Inspiration and Inerrancy?

Do you believe God via INSPIRATION of the Scriptures, related to mankind, information that was beyond his natural ability to collect. In other words.... THINGS that man could never know unless he had been TOLD of them?

Do you believe that GOD is without error of any kind or sort.... gave to mankind the REVELATION of Scripture?

NOT true. You use what you already think Scripture must mean to constrain what it means. Everyone does this, but it's important to recognize it. Do you not think you have to interpret scripture to determine what it means. Or are you of the "God Said It. I Believe It. That Settles It." school of thought?

You know... I'm growing tired of this. Really... I am. I told you my methodology. Nothing more. Nothing less. Don't be dishonest with me by moving the goal post.

Why do you assume it is a lie upon a lie?

I assume nothing. It is a lie.

Of course I blieve our Master is the creator. He just didn't tell us exactly how he did it in Genesis.

You're right. He not only told us in Genesis. He told us in Job. He told us in Romans. He told us in Hebrews. He told us in Ezekiel. He told us throughout the Bible.

So you give equal weight to all Scripture? Where do you get support for that? You don't think the words of, oh I don't know, Jesus, the Son of God, are a little more important than, say, a genealogy in Genesis or Luke?

Don't twist what I said. By the way. I'd like to remind you.... of what your Master.... said.

Mat 19:4  Jesus answered, "Don't you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman?

No. I do not elevate the words of Christ above the words of His prophets and apostles. They are one in the same WORD. Now. HE, Himself is greater the prophets and the apostles. Not the Words. They are one in the same.

Again... Nice to meet you.... Higher Critic.

Allow me spit out my snack so you can stuff more words in my mouth.

I don't think I'll ask what that "snack" might have been. Reminds of a joke that I heard years ago about a fellow and brown paper bag.

Is it? I thought a key part of the gospel was that I have a personal sin problem and Jesus has the answer. What difference does it make to me where the sin problem came from?

Sounds like Hilary's statement on Benghazi.

I can see its not important to you. It can't be. Your system fails to address it. It is important enough to the apostles to have personally dealt with the issue. You might want to take it a little more seriously.

So there is a sin gene? So if, contrary to your belief, God made a covenant with a man who was one among many man, and that man broke the covenant, and sin entered the earth through that man, that wouldn't be good enough for you?

No it wouldn't. Your sin isn't my sin. The affect of sin in your life is not the affect of sin in my life. I will not face God for your sin. Its comical you're talking of some "community of sin" in a group of various genetically different species of "humaniods" and then appealing some ideal of "we have all personally sinned".... Poor Poor methods. Its really pitiful.

And yet you promulgate so many...

Nice word. Proud of your choice?

If there was one "Adam" I believe he was a homo sapien.

But you don't believe there was one Adam. Try drawing the line again and this time.... don't pretend you believe something you don't.

 

[ddgently]

Whose observation? It's tough to debate you when you're so vague.

I can't help you're lost in the conversation. "Their".... belongs to.... or is associated with people or things previously mentioned. You know exactly what I was referencing. IF, somehow, you don't. Do some reading.

Hmm.  You said "you only have their observation" when I said that Ecclesiastes 1:5 implied the sun went around the earth, and that's that is what everyone believed until the 1600s. Who is the "their." The people who thought the sun went around the earth (i.e., everyone?).

I'm not inconsistent. The Genesis account isn't scientific, but it does represent the cosmology of the time. I don't "demand that Solomon give a scientific view of the rotation of the earth." Rather, I recognize that he too uses language that reflects the cosmology of the time. If you read Solomon's words, without your "modern science" you would conclude, in the absence of anything else, that the sun goes around the earth. That's all I'm saying.

Sure... Sure... Anyone with common sense would recognize that Solomon was describing what he witnessed. He wasn't going into a detailed explanation as to how he was standing on a rotating object. NOR what he trying to say the EARTH WAS FLAT.

Sure, he was making an observation, I'll give you that. But he certainly didn't know he was standing on a rotating object. But Solomon certainly would have believed the earth was FLAT, whether or not Ecclesiastes implies it, given when and where he lived in history.

Contrary to what you probably think, I take the biblical text very, very seriously. I want to know what it really says and means. The gospels are an entirely different genre of literature than Genesis 1-11. They were also written within a few decades of the events they record, rather than hundreds or even thousands of years after the events.

This sentence no verb.

Petty humanoid.

Allow me to answer your accusation with a question. Was the story of Adam and Eve known before Moses wrote it down?

Yes. By those that experienced it first hand.... You know Adam and Eve. Nice to meet you Higher Critic.

So Adam and Eve knew their life story . . . and then what? I really want to know what you think. Had their story been forgotten by the time of Moses?

Before Moses wrote Genesis, did the Israelites know about:
- Adam and Eve?
- The Flood?
- Babel?
- Abraham?

That's the thing. I don't think God gave scripture to instruct us in science at all. But I definitely think God gave us scripture for our minds to discern. So you disagree with my assertion that we need to look at scripture through the lens of who wrote it, to whom it was written, and for what purpose it was written? Are those factors irrelevant to you?

That's isn't what you said. Let me ask you a question.

Only if you'll answer mine. Do we need to look at scripture through the lens of who wrote it, to whom it was written, and for what purpose it was written?

Do you believe in the principles of Inspiration and Inerrancy?

Do you believe God via INSPIRATION of the Scriptures, related to mankind, information that was beyond his natural ability to collect. In other words.... THINGS that man could never know unless he had been TOLD of them?

Yes.

Do you believe that GOD is without error of any kind or sort.... gave to mankind the REVELATION of Scripture?

Those clauses don't really go together, but what I think you're trying to ask is if God gave the scriptures free of errors of any kind? Is that your question?

NOT true. You use what you already think Scripture must mean to constrain what it means. Everyone does this, but it's important to recognize it. Do you not think you have to interpret scripture to determine what it means. Or are you of the "God Said It. I Believe It. That Settles It." school of thought?

You know... I'm growing tired of this. Really... I am. I told you my methodology. Nothing more. Nothing less. Don't be dishonest with me by moving the goal post.

I'm not moving the goalposts. I asked you a question, because you seem to be saying either that (1) Scripture doesn't require interpretation, or (2) Scripture does require interpretation, but you have the right interpretation.

Why do you assume it is a lie upon a lie?

I assume nothing. It is a lie.

Well, that settles that!

Of course I believe our Master is the creator. He just didn't tell us exactly how he did it in Genesis.

You're right. He not only told us in Genesis. He told us in Job. He told us in Romans. He told us in Hebrews. He told us in Ezekiel. He told us throughout the Bible.

The flat, dome-sky, four-cornered, immobile, set on foundations earth? Because that's what's described, whether you want to conveniently stop taking the text literally or not.

So you give equal weight to all Scripture? Where do you get support for that? You don't think the words of, oh I don't know, Jesus, the Son of God, are a little more important than, say, a genealogy in Genesis or Luke?

Don't twist what I said. By the way. I'd like to remind you.... of what your Master.... said.

Mat 19:4  Jesus answered, "Don't you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman?

No. I do not elevate the words of Christ above the words of His prophets and apostles. They are one in the same WORD. Now. HE, Himself is greater the prophets and the apostles. Not the Words. They are one in the same.

So you must look like this young man

because you're still keeping all the Old Testament laws. Gotta give 'em equal weight!

Again... Nice to meet you.... Higher Critic.

You could mean anything by that term, so I won't accept it, yet.

Is it? I thought a key part of the gospel was that I have a personal sin problem and Jesus has the answer. What difference does it make to me where the sin problem came from?

Sounds like Hilary's statement on Benghazi.

I can see its not important to you. It can't be. Your system fails to address it. It is important enough to the apostles to have personally dealt with the issue. You might want to take it a little more seriously.

So there is a sin gene? So if, contrary to your belief, God made a covenant with a man who was one among many man, and that man broke the covenant, and sin entered the earth through that man, that wouldn't be good enough for you?

No it wouldn't. Your sin isn't my sin. The affect of sin in your life is not the affect of sin in my life. I will not face God for your sin. Its comical you're talking of some "community of sin" in a group of various genetically different species of "humaniods" and then appealing some ideal of "we have all personally sinned".... Poor Poor methods. Its really pitiful.

Thank you for your pity? Does it make you feel big?

And yet you promulgate so many...

Nice word. Proud of your choice?

Didn't give it much thought. Glad you enjoyed it.

If there was one "Adam" I believe he was a homo sapien.

But you don't believe there was one Adam. Try drawing the line again and this time.... don't pretend you believe something you don't.

You were asking me to clarify and I did. Are we done here? As fun as it is, this conversation seems utterly unproductive.