Testing Out My Writing Please Have A Look

[BNR32FAN]

Some Christians think so; most others do not. In any case, it is not essential Christian doctrine.

That’s not an answer. It’s a yes or no question. Adam being the first man is not subjective, either he was or he wasn’t. You can’t have it both ways and there is no in between.

”So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.“
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭45‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

How can the Bible not teach this verse that I’ve just quoted?

 

[Estrid]

No, it's a counter point to the petty "he's an atheist" comment that has no bearing on the topic. There are loads of Christians who recognize that what is observed in reality and what is written in their holy book don't mesh well and they have chosen the path of accepting reality instead of dogmatic and often misapplied interpretations of their scriptures. THey are able to reconcile this with their beliefs and have no issue. Christians who don't accept the ToE and other scientific theories think they're special because they believe in what is essentially magic. That's it at its most basic. They are not. They do not possess special knowledge or wisdom because of their beliefs. They have no special insight, wisdom or authority to make the criticisms against science that they think they're entitled to make and have anyone listen to or consider those vapid opinions as were displayed in the OP valid.

The op was essentially a gish. As such it was too much
for a comprehensive response, hence short appraisals like
"Bollocks"..

If he'd care to start over, and present ideas/ opinions one
at time, then a reasoned/ reasonable discussion is
possible.

As is this one was hopeless from the first.

 

[Estrid]

You asked for input on your writing. You did not specify what you wanted evaluated. I took the time to read the entire thread, think carefully about what you had written, and provide a carefully considered assessment of your content. I did this in an effort to be helpful to you. You chose to ignore 90% of my observations and instead tried to justify why you will ignore the criticism, criticism that you invited. Duly noted. I'll refrain from any further attempt to give you the benefit of many years of proof reading technical documents.

As in my "I'm not going to help you "

 

[BCP1928]

That’s not an answer. It’s a yes or no question. Adam being the first man is not subjective, either he was or he wasn’t. You can’t have it both ways and there is no in between.

”So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.“
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭45‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

How can the Bible not teach this verse that I’ve just quoted?

Who says it doesn't? However, it doesn't require a literal interpretation of Genesis. That is all by the way. If you want to proselytize for a particular theological point of view, this is not the place for it. We know what you believe about the Bible. Why you believe it and what you think of other Christians who disagree with you about it are decidedly off-topic and out of place in this forum.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Who says it doesn't? However, it doesn't require a literal interpretation of Genesis. That is all by the way. If you want to proselytize for a particular theological point of view, this is not the place for it. We know what you believe about the Bible. Why you believe it and what you think of other Christians who disagree with you about it are decidedly off-topic and out of place in this forum.

Fair enough, I understand that was a pretty tough question to answer.

 

[BCP1928]

Fair enough, I understand that was a pretty tough question to answer.

Not tough it all. That verse doesn't teach the literal inerrancy of Genesis. I can't even imagine why you think it does. But really, it's off topic for this forum.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not tough it all. That verse doesn't teach the literal inerrancy of Genesis. I can't even imagine why you think it does. But really, it's off topic for this forum.

Ok thank you for admitting that evolution teaches that the Bible isn’t true and that Genesis contains errors.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some Christians think so;

I believe that question was put to you.

Please employ your reading comprehension skills and answer it.

It's a good one.

Instead of telling us what other Christians think, and how wrong we are, how about we hear from you as to whether or not you agree with us that -- literally interpreted -- the Bible states that Adam was the first man.

 

[Estrid]

Not tough it all. That verse doesn't teach the literal inerrancy of Genesis. I can't even imagine why you think it does. But really, it's off topic for this forum.

Thread is dead anyway.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not tough it all. That verse doesn't teach the literal inerrancy of Genesis. I can't even imagine why you think it does. But really, it's off topic for this forum.

I thought it was obvious that 1 Corinthians 15:45 had nothing to do with the inerrancy of Genesis 1, it was completely about who the first man was. You seem angry or frustrated that the Bible says this.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I believe that question was put to you.

Please employ your reading comprehension skills and answer it.

It's a good one.

Instead of telling us what other Christians think, and how wrong we are, how about we hear from you as to whether or not you agree with us that -- literally interpreted -- the Bible states that Adam was the first man.

Oh no brother he did answer it, he finally admitted that he believes Genesis 1 has errors.

Not tough it all. That verse doesn't teach the literal inerrancy of Genesis. I can't even imagine why you think it does. But really, it's off topic for this forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure.

Thank you.

No, not explicitly.

How about implicitly?

That's an interpretation that was added to what is written.

It's also a calculation arrived at with simple arithmetic.

Question:

How many years does the Bible show transpired between Adam and Seth on your calculator?

A jot here. A tittle there...

A number here, a number there.

 

[BCP1928]

I thought it was obvious that 1 Corinthians 15:45 had nothing to do with the inerrancy of Genesis 1, it was completely about who the first man was. You seem angry or frustrated that the Bible says this.

I can't think why I would be. Certainly I have no objection to Paul's teaching that verse. Why did you even bring it up if it has nothing to do with literal inerrancy?

 

[AG_BIC96]

To this we add, stated directly or implied attacks on
character...mean spirited, uncivil, angry, mean, brutal,
unkind, impolite, condescending, just plain mean, silly,
indoctrinated ( with lies), harass, insult assault character,
rude, unhinged, impolite, abusive.

Did I miss some?

Nope, is it not true? I don't really care you can highlight as much as you like but you attacked first and foremost and we have the comments to prove that. I see you are still commenting and must feel very strongly on the subject. Can you kindly leave as we discussed before?

 

[AV1611VET]

If he'd care to start over,

A simple check, using the resources this site gives us, would reveal that "he" is a "she."

Take your own advice and investigate before you communicate.

(Or can science take a hike?)

 

[BCP1928]

I believe that question was put to you.

Please employ your reading comprehension skills and answer it.

It's a good one.

Instead of telling us what other Christians think, and how wrong we are, how about we hear from you as to whether or not you agree with us that -- literally interpreted -- the Bible states that Adam was the first man.

The Bible names the first man Adam; it's a pun. But the entire statement that I was supposed to agree with was that Adam was the first man and created 6000 years ago, which is not part of Gnesis.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I can't think why I would be. Certainly I have no objection to Paul's teaching that verse. Why did you even bring it up if it has nothing to do with literal inerrancy?

Maybe, just maybe, it was because the topic we were discussing was whether or not the Bible says that Adam was the first man? How could you possibly not know this?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nope, is it not true? I don't really care you can highlight as much as you like but you attacked first and foremost and we have the comments to prove that. I see you are still commenting and must feel very strongly on the subject. Can you kindly leave as we discussed before?

Yeah this guy has no business quoting the rules I can tell you that which is precisely why I can’t see his posts anymore.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who says it doesn't? However, it doesn't require a literal interpretation of Genesis. That is all by the way. If you want to proselytize for a particular theological point of view, this is not the place for it. We know what you believe about the Bible. Why you believe it and what you think of other Christians who disagree with you about it are decidedly off-topic and out of place in this forum.

How convenient.

You make your point about we believing in "magic."

Then you make the doosey of a statement that "we know what you believe about the Bible."

Ya -- right.

And now you want it dropped.

Can't say as I blame you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

A simple check, using the resources this site gives us, would reveal that "he" is a "she."

Take your own advice and investigate before you communicate.

(Or can science take a hike?)

Are you talking about BCP? Because I checked his/her profile and it doesn’t say on my end.