Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Ophiolite]

Then keep it out of this thread please.

Perhaps you should post a list of questions that should not be asked and comments that should not be made. In that way you wouldn't get questions you are unwilling or unable to answer and, on balance, the world would be a happier place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you should post a list of questions that should not be asked and comments that should not be made.

Why would I have to?

If I asked what the weather was like during a specific week, why would people ask me what the weather was like months later?

I would assume they would be willing to keep their questions about the weather confined to that particular week.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why would I have to?

Because what you are declining to answer appears not only relevant to topic, but goes to the heart of it. More than one member has made that point repeatedly. Refusal to answer creates the impression you are not inviting questions in good faith. If you are indifferent to having your action interpreted in that way . . keep on trucking.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because what you are declining to answer appears not only relevant to topic, but goes to the heart of it. More than one member has made that point repeatedly. Refusal to answer creates the impression you are not inviting questions in good faith. If you are indifferent to having your action interpreted in that way . . keep on trucking.

You and your buddies are entitled to their opinions.

 

[driewerf]

Then keep it out of this thread please.

Anything you see, you see well after the creation week in 4004 BC, and is not the subject of this Q&A thread.

So you want only softball questions. Nothing challenging. At the first challenge you want to cancel the questioner.
The more robuster of your ideas isn't tested by softball questions but by hard ones. You only display weakness and insecurity.

@AV1611VET: you should reader my signature and think about what it says. I want my opinions to be challenged and tested. And if they don't pass the test I will feel liberated.

 

[AV1611VET]

You only display weakness and insecurity.

Either that or I expose it.

 

[driewerf]

Either that or I expose it.

How unfortunate. I was editing my post while you were replying. Do you mind to read it again?

 

[Kylie]

It does today.

But not during the Creation Week, when things came into existence suddenly and fully mature.

So you are saying the fundamental nature of the universe changed?

Please describe these changes in detail.

 

[Kylie]

But history does NOT require maturity.
Gubberments and farmassies rewrote history (oh, wait, long before this religion did too),
so they could 'claim' <falsely> they had support or evidence they were right and could continue to oppress the poor even though mentas non competence .

I would argue that this rewritten history is not actually history...

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are saying the fundamental nature of the universe changed?

Yup.

Please describe these changes in detail.

I'll give you what the Bible gives:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

And with that, can we please stick to Genesis 1 & 2?

 

[AV1611VET]

I would argue that this rewritten history is not actually history...

It is His story.

 

[AV1611VET]

@AV1611VET: you should read my signature and think about what it says. I want my opinions to be challenged and tested. And if they don't pass the test I will feel liberated.

If you did, you would take my challenges seriously and answer them as I wrote them.

 

[Kylie]

Yup.



I'll give you what the Bible gives:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

And with that, can we please stick to Genesis 1 & 2?

Yeah, it doesn't work when you use the claim as evidence for the claim.

 

[Kylie]

It is His story.

You didn't understand at all what I was talking about, did you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, it doesn't work when you use the claim as evidence for the claim.

You asked for before-and-after evidence of change.

I gave you before-and-after evidence of change from the same Source.

Before: blessed ground, no thorns.

After: cursed ground, thorns.

What more do you want?

But for the record, let's keep this discussion within the bounds of Genesis 1 & 2 please.

 

[AV1611VET]

You didn't understand at all what I was talking about, did you?

History is His story.

Unless you're talking secular history.

 

[Kylie]

You asked for before-and-after evidence of change.

I gave you before-and-after evidence of change from the same Source.

Before: blessed ground, no thorns.

After: cursed ground, thorns.

What more do you want?

But for the record, let's keep this discussion within the bounds of Genesis 1 & 2 please.

No, you merely repeated the claim.

The claim is not evidence. The Bible is not evidence for the claims made within the Bible. By this logic, The Lord of the Rings is evidence that Middle Earth is real.

You need to provide external evidence.

If I had only one book that spoke about the existence of JFK, then I couldn't use that book as evidence that the book is correct. I'd need to provide other sources that are not related to the book. I could say, "The Books says JFK did such and such, and I have a newspaper article that was written at the time which also says that JFK did that thing."

Yet you can't do that with the claims the Bible makes.

 

[Kylie]

History is His story.

Unless you're talking secular history.

Yeah, the conversation was literally talking about governments rewriting history.

Like I said, you didn't understand the actual conversation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The claim is not evidence. The Bible is not evidence for the claims made within the Bible. By this logic, The Lord of the Rings is evidence that Middle Earth is real.

You need to provide external evidence.

Here's what you said in a previous post:

So you are saying the fundamental nature of the universe changed?
Please describe these changes in detail.

It sounds to me like you're accepting the fact that I'm saying the universe was different before the Fall, as you're asking how it changed.

If you accept the fact that I'm using the Bible to say the universe was different then, then why are you now claiming the Bible is not evidence for my claims?

And yes, I am using external evidence.

Go out and look around.

I'm sure you'll find thorns somewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I said, you didn't understand the actual conversation.

And you don't understand what it is you're asking me to provide, when I give it to you.

You want specific examples in detail, here's one of the best:

Thorns.

Before the Fall, there were none.

After the Fall, they're everywhere.

Just like God said.

And if you don't accept the Bible as evidence, then your challenge to me to provide details of what changed is moot.

Since, in your mind, there's nothing that went from pristine to cursed.