Missing link was a lie (2)

[AV1611VET]

By what mechanism do you propose that sin is passed down through the male only?

I don't.

 

[Skaloop]

I don't.

Not even a hypothesis? A possible idea? I mean, you've proposed that the flood waters went to Neptune and that the ark was built in Jersey and such. Do you have any sort of proposal as to how sin is passed down through men only? I'm not looking for a fight here or anything, because obviously I would disagree with you, but I would be interested in knowing of any explanation you might have. I won't even try to argue against it; I'd just like to hear it, if you have one.

 

[dad]

Yes, obviously, sin must be passed down by something other than the Y chromosome if women are to have a sin nature. Any ideas on what that might be? Is there some male-specific part of the soul or spirit? By what mechanism do you propose that sin is passed down through the male only?

Sin is spiritual. Genes are physical. When Adam was still alive, animals came under the curse. It was not something handed down in their genes because their parents sinned. Spiritual genetics...don't think science is ready for it.

I wonder, if Adam had kids at the fall, wouldn't they be under sin just as we are now too?

 

[Skaloop]

Sin is spiritual. Genes are physical. When Adam was still alive, animals came under the curse. It was not something handed down in their genes because their parents sinned. Spiritual genetics...don't think science is ready for it.

I wonder, if Adam had kids at the fall, wouldn't they be under sin just as we are now too?

If sin is spiritual rather than physical, then what is it about male spirituality versus female spirituality that allows sin to pass down only through male spirituality?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not even a hypothesis? A possible idea?

I've already been through this with Cabal: 196.

Even you responded in that thread.

 

[Skaloop]

I've already been through this with Cabal: 196.

Even you responded in that thread.

Yeah, I remember discussing this before. I was just hoping you had come up with an answer in the meantime.

 

[dad]

If sin is spiritual rather than physical, then what is it about male spirituality versus female spirituality that allows sin to pass down only through male spirituality?

I would have to do some research, and see if Christians claim that sin does that? It seems to me, off hand, that the reason Jesus was not born into sin was because His dad was God. Not because His mom was perfect.

Looking at AIG, I see this


"To summarize, this view holds that sin nature is not physical and, thus, not passed along by genetic means but by spiritual means."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/art...the-fall-good-evil-how-is-original-sin-passed

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, I remember discussing this before. I was just hoping you had come up with an answer in the meantime.

Nope.

 

[Skaloop]

Nope.

Ah, OK. Very good day to you, then, sir.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, OK. Very good day to you, then, sir.

You too, Skaloop -- I hope you're not disappointed.

 

[Skaloop]

You too, Skaloop -- I hope you're not disappointed.

Not at all. To be disappointed, I'd have to have expected an answer.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

ArnautDaniel, take a look at this verse:

Mt 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

Did Jesus walk on water?

It would appear to say so, unless there is some peculiarity in the Greek preposition here that isn't being translated correctly.

I of course don't buy into any theory of a particular English translation being special.

But if that's what the Greek says, then that's what the Greek says.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Ok, truth is, I am actually pretty familiar with all these things. You really are beating the drum here, strongly insinuating you have some point. Should I guess at it? Or will you put it on the table here?

I'm not making any point at all, other than calling into question your command of the source materials (the Bible).

I'm a get back to the basics sort of guy.

You can assert that you are "pretty familiar" all you want, and I won't care until you actually demonstrate it.

Abomination of desolation, what, you want to bury that in history, as if it was already fulfilled? That would not be possible, as anyone remotely familiar with scripture would know. It also would contradict Jesus. So...what is your point? Stop insulting commentators. At least they are honest enough to say what they think.

I don't know.

You seem unable to produce the source texts about it though.

That makes me think you are familiar with a bunch of commentators, but not really familiar with the Biblical text.

Like one of those people who are really sure it says all sorts of things, and are wrong.

I'd love to be proven wrong about that though.

Martin Luther? I don't think he would be opposed to honest men looking at what the bible says, and expounding on it.

No he wouldn't.

And I've been asking you to produce what the Bible says on the matter and expound on.

Not like the commentators are keeping the bible text from anyone here.

In a way they are...in as much as a person thinks the commentators are a reasonable substitute for an actual familiarity with the biblical text.

I am not sure I would look to old Marty, for bible intricacies about Israel, anyhow. I hear that he may have been less than totally unbiased and fair minded about them?

 

[AV1611VET]

But if that's what the Greek says, then that's what the Greek says.

Greek can take a hike.

Does this look Greek to you?

↓

Mt 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Greek can take a hike.

Does this look Greek to you?

↓

Mt 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

This does:

τετάρτῃ δὲ φυλακῇ τῆς νυκτὸς ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης

So I guess it gets to what ἐπὶ means in the context.

 

[AV1611VET]

This does:

τετάρτῃ δὲ φυλακῇ τῆς νυκτὸς ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης

Again, that Greek -- (or Russian, or whatever it is) -- can take a hike.

So I guess it gets to what ἐπὶ means in the context.

No, it doesn't -- I specifically asked you this: 261.

What you want to do is change the focus of the camera, then claim the picture is too fuzzy to be able to describe it.

Did Jesus walk on water, or didn't He?

Either yes or no, please.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Again, that Greek -- (or Russian, or whatever it is) -- can take a hike.


No, it doesn't -- I specifically asked you this: 261.

What you want to do is change the focus of the camera, then claim the picture is too fuzzy to be able to describe it.

Did Jesus walk on water, or didn't He?

Either yes or no, please.

I dunno. I wasn't there.

The only reasonable question we can answer is "what does the text say?"

So I can't do anything with "did Jesus walk on water" but I can do something with "does Matthew say Jesus walked on water"

 

[AV1611VET]

I dunno. I wasn't there.

I do know, and I wasn't there either.

How do you explain that?

What do I have that you don't?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I do know, and I wasn't there either.

How do you explain that?

What do I have that you don't?

You are only 56 years old and if it happened, it happened c. 2000 years ago?

Here's a question for you:

When pressed, do you always try to change the topic with a useless aside, or do you merely usually do so?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a question for you:

When pressed, do you always try to change the topic with a useless aside, or do you merely usually do so?

Nope -- I'm just trying to show that, no matter what Daniel said or didn't say in the AV1611 Bible, you're 'I dunno' is what prevails.

In other words, suppose Jesus fully-endorsed everything Daniel said -- would that really matter to you?

You thought you were going to nail dad by demanding he show you Jesus even mentioning Daniel, and when I came in and showed you (which, I'm sure you weren't expecting) -- you now want to change the focus of your argument.

('Useless aside', my foot.)