Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
lucaspa said:
Actually, both did. Neither the editor of Genesis or Jesus or Paul referred to the creation stories as literal. They all looked upon them as theological stories.
I say...prove it.
I have already proven they took it as literal...the problem is your science REQUIRES it to be a myth.
For example, Barnabus certainly took it as literal.
So did Peter...want me to present it again?
lucaspa said:
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
That is not what the bible says. It is what you are twisting it to say....which you should be ashamed of.
Anyway, I'm glad that you have now admitted that the first portion of Genesis the days equal 24 hours. That's an improvement.
Now as to the second part, or what you have labeled as "b"....day means a time frame. It is a different word than YOM used in the first instance. Of course you should already know that.
When the word day has the article the prior to it...such as Gen. 2:4 does, it means "at the time". It's like saying, in the day of George Washington...now we all know that George Washington lived for more than a day. Right?
lucaspa said the folowing:
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
It has already been explained to you that they did die that very day. Just like you died the very day you committed your first sin....yet you still physically live.
Now once this first sin was committed, they did began to physically die as announced in Genesis 3:19.
lucaspa also said:
Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY, based upon the individual data points of dead bodies we have observed.
....soooooooo, you are saying that death is just a theory? Get real lucaspa. Please.
Once you have died and especially for 3 days...YOU STAY DEAD. No theory, scientific fact. Try again lucaspa.
The theory states that a person dead will not come back to life. However, you can never prove a theory, you can only test it. So far, all the data supports that theory.
I think it has been proven lucaspa. That is why a miracle was required. By the way did you know that miracles were employeed as Jesus created during the six literal days? It's amazing how you so easily accept one miracle, then deny another. You let you science influence your thought in one instance, then reject it in the other.
BUT, Yeshu's resurrection is DATA. That is the point that has to be kept firmly in mind. The Resurrection is data. Data can always overthrow theory. But you cannot use theory reject data. You cannot generalize from what you have observed to reject the next observation. And that is what you did above. You have used the theory to reject data. Invalid science.
Just as Jesus' resurrection is data, so is the creation as per Genesis.
Both are scientifically impossible. FACT. Both required miracles.
Then again you use the ah, er, "Theory of Evolution" to try and reject Genesis. This is invalid science as per your logic above.
lucaspa said:
Actually, both did. Neither the editor of Genesis or Jesus or Paul referred to the creation stories as literal. They all looked upon them as theological stories.
I say...prove it.
I have already proven they took it as literal...the problem is your science REQUIRES it to be a myth.
For example, Barnabus certainly took it as literal.
So did Peter...want me to present it again?
You take it as literal too. You're not too bright. Erego, those who take it as literal aren't too bright.
Since we know that the OT and NT people referred to in the Bible were bright, they didn't take it as literal.
Good day.
__________________
"Arguing with idiots is like banging your head on a rock. All you end up with is a headache and nothing to show for it." - Brian H. West (1986-?)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Bushido216,
Did you actually read what you wrote? You should have used the edit button. Less embarassement for you.
The bible is quite clear that the Old and New Testament folk took their scripture literal.....or perhaps you can show me where they took it as allegorical. I've been waiting for that answer for years and so far no evo has stepped up to the plate. Perhaps you can be the first. Yes?
God could certainly ressurect someone who has been dead for three days. God could also create the world in six days. But God does not hide his works. When he ressurected Jesus, Jesus did not hide in a cave and write a few papers that said "God brought me back, but he doesn't want you to know that he did." He went out and proclaimed that he had been ressurected. Similarly, if God created the world in six days, six thousand years ago then the evidence would proclaim it. It doesn't. He didn't.
God could certainly ressurect someone who has been dead for three days. God could also create the world in six days. But God does not hide his works. When he ressurected Jesus, Jesus did not hide in a cave and write a few papers that said "God brought me back, but he doesn't want you to know that he did." He went out and proclaimed that he had been ressurected. Similarly, if God created the world in six days, six thousand years ago then the evidence would proclaim it. It doesn't. He didn't.
The evidence speaks loudly to a young earth....not an old universe.
Linear Mode
