Eve came from Adam, evolution does not allow this

[Archivist]

Oh yes.. Piltdown.. thanks.

And... If this hoax is not taught.. good. Three out of three would be better... I'll take what small progress we can get.

I have had too many TE's argue all of these, and many more hoaxes, to be true.

If the farce of these hoaxes was significantly taught as the huge hoax that it is.. I would not be getting the arguments in regards to these fakes.

I asked because I hadn't heard that Piltdown was being taught today, other than perhaps being taught as an example of a hoax.

 

[Archivist]

Sorry. The wine and bread are "elements", "icons", "representatives" of the blood and body of Christ. We participate to show our belief and remembrance of Christ's actual work on the cross.

I think that the belief that it is the actual blood and body is a RC view.

it is actually straight from the Bible: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.'" And it isn't just a RC view, the Episcopal and Lutheran churches hold the same view.

 

[JacksBratt]

I asked because I hadn't heard that Piltdown was being taught today, other than perhaps being taught as an example of a hoax.

That would be great.

 

[JacksBratt]

it is actually straight from the Bible: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.'" And it isn't just a RC view, the Episcopal and Lutheran churches hold the same view.

Thanks for the info about the other denominations that have this view.

And... again... If I was sitting at a table with you and you took a bun and said this is my body... I would have the intelligence to understand that you were being figurative as for the simple fact that you were still sitting there alive.

It's like when you were kids and you were playing hide and seek.. One kid gets down and draws a map on the ground, in the dirt... He then puts a pebble in one spot and says "this is old man Johnsons barn" and then a stick gets laid down and he says "this is the creek by the back of his house".... etc....

When you were a kid.. did you really believe it was a barn and a creek?

It still pales in comparison to "there was evening and there was morning, the first day" and repeating it for all six days.

Do you think that maybe... just maybe... God was making a point?

Do you think that maybe... just maybe... God knew that Satan would spawn this hoax about billions of years...... Huh?

 

[dad]

But your exact words were "All references to the garden and Adam and creation are just people who ignorantly wrote in the bible in your mind then I guess." That is just rude, because I have said over and over that it is an allegory. In case you don't understand the word allegory, it means "the expression by means of symbolic figures and actions of truths about human existence." It isn't ignorantly "writing in the bible in my mind. Apparently your mother didn't teach you manners.

Sensitivity issues aside, I seem to recall some poster, if not you, who was also an Eve denier, who said the folks in the rest of the bible were basically just mistaken. (so ignorant is a term that would be fitting)

 

[Archivist]

Sensitivity issues aside, I seem to recall some poster, if not you, who was also an Eve denier, who said the folks in the rest of the bible were basically just mistaken. (so ignorant is a term that would be fitting)

I just went back 20 pages and didn’t see where I said that the folks in the rest of the Bible were “mistaken” or “ignorant.” I did say that Paul didn’t read Genesis as an allegory because he didn’t understand how the universe was created, but that isn’t calling him mistaken or ignorant. He was going based on what he had been taught. Oh, and there is a difference between mistaken and ignorant—read the definitions.

Now, are the elements of Holy Communion the actual body and blood of Jesus? He said they were.

 

[Archivist]

Thanks for the info about the other denominations that have this view.

And... again... If I was sitting at a table with you and you took a bun and said this is my body... I would have the intelligence to understand that you were being figurative as for the simple fact that you were still sitting there alive.

So an omnipotent God can’t turn bread into His bidy when he is alive?

It's like when you were kids and you were playing hide and seek.. One kid gets down and draws a map on the ground, in the dirt... He then puts a pebble in one spot and says "this is old man Johnsons barn" and then a stick gets laid down and he says "this is the creek by the back of his house".... etc....

When you were a kid.. did you really believe it was a barn and a creek?

None of which has anything to do with Jesus saying “this is my body.”

It still pales in comparison to "there was evening and there was morning, the first day" and repeating it for all six days.

But those same words work if it is an allegory as I believe.

Do you think that maybe... just maybe... God was making a point?

Yes, God Was making a point. He was using an allegory to show that He created everything and that sin had entered the world.

Do you think that maybe... just maybe... God knew that Satan would spawn this hoax about billions of years...... Huh?

Except it isn’t a hoax.

 

[JacksBratt]

So an omnipotent God can’t turn bread into His bidy when he is alive?

He could... but, do you think it would still look like bread?

None of which has anything to do with Jesus saying “this is my body.”

Your right, and none of Jesus saying "this is my body" has anything to do with "There was evening and there was morning, the first day"

The scene and context was totally different. But, if you want to believe that Jesus gave them pieces of His flesh and actual blood... It's up to you.

But those same words work if it is an allegory as I believe.

Context and setting is way different.

Yes, God Was making a point. He was using an allegory to show that He created everything and that sin had entered the world.

LOL nice try...

Except it isn’t a hoax.

OK... sure....

 

[dad]

I just went back 20 pages and didn’t see where I said that the folks in the rest of the Bible were “mistaken” or “ignorant.” I did say that Paul didn’t read Genesis as an allegory because he didn’t understand how the universe was created, but that isn’t calling him mistaken or ignorant. He was going based on what he had been taught. Oh, and there is a difference between mistaken and ignorant—read the definitions.

Now, are the elements of Holy Communion the actual body and blood of Jesus? He said they were.

So Paul was mistaken NOT to read Genesis as an allegory according to you. NOT led by the holy Spirit then.

 

[trophy33]

Where does the bible teach that evolving man developed a higher intellect and then could sin?

Where does the Bible teach that you can sin if you are not able to understand the concept?

"If you were blind, you would not have sin. But you say that you see, therefore your sin stays".

What was Gods remedy for one of the advanced primates that developed this higher intellect and sinned?

Jesus Christ, you can read about him in books after the book of Genesis.

 

[trophy33]

You can go as deep as you like...but they were instructed not to eat from the tree.

The point is their disobedience and that they wanted to have knowledge, to be like gods, not that it was a literal tree. The point of Genesis is not to teach us botany.

It most certainly puts away the message that people disobeyed God.

As you just learned, it does not.

The reason is they have inherited a sin nature.

Through their animal bodies, as Bible says:
it is sown an animal body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is an animal body, there is also a spiritual body.
1 Cor 15:44

You on the other hand have no biblical support for your theorized doctrine. None.

Its clearly the message of Genesis, that people God chosen for the service sinned and disobeyed. If you do not believe in the basic message of Genesis and concentrate only on YEC details, thats not my problem.

 

[trophy33]

No. But apostles were inspired. Others are quoted showing they were not perfect...like the captive Jews wishing to dash people's kids on stones..etc.

Creation and Adam and Eve are themes in the bible..not isolated.

So, you do not agree that to understand those human authors you should learn about their background, language, style of writing?

If you would write something and used words like "calvinism, OSAS, superman, ironman, batman, social media, UFO, FBI, theory of relativity, European union, Facebook" and somebody in 1000 BC would read that, how could he understand what you mean? He would need to first learn about your culture and language.

Or you could use writing style/genre unknown to him, for example you could rewrite some Shakespeare play to be a polemic, more godly play - he would not understand that, he would think you are writing about something you witnessed.

Why dont you agree with such simple concept? Oh, because it would put your surface literal reading of their literature away.

Hints:
- are there words in Genesis, commonly used in their culture to symbolize something?
- are there any similar pagan writings about creation, Flood etc. the Genesis authors knew about and tried to be polemical against?

 

[Cis.jd]

So Paul was mistaken NOT to read Genesis as an allegory according to you. NOT led by the holy Spirit then.

I think you should just drop it dad because not only have you been completely dishonest with your arguments but you are repeating what already been answered.

Being inspired by the Holy Spirit doesn't mean the writers where dictated. There is 0 reason for anybody to assume the Holy Spirit gave these men a package deal by including a complete guide to everything about the Physical universe.

The 3 of you have shown how low your respect (or just understanding) is for intellectualism. And what's worse is that you enforce yourselves by repping your arguments to have this "holy credibility" (being Bible believers) just for discrediting the value of evidence.

 

[Archivist]

He could... but, do you think it would still look like bread?

Yes, I consume His body every Sunday. It does look like bread.

Your right, and none of Jesus saying "this is my body" has anything to do with "There was evening and there was morning, the first day"

Then why do me have to accept Genesis as being literal, not allegory, but not literally accept the very words oof Jesus literally?

The scene and context was totally different. But, if you want to believe that Jesus gave them pieces of His flesh and actual blood... It's up to you.

Yes, I consume His body and blood in church every week.

 

[Archivist]

So Paul was mistaken NOT to read Genesis as an allegory according to you. NOT led by the holy Spirit then.

No, as I have said multiple times, Paul was reading Genesis according to the understanding of his time.

Now, you still have not answered my question. Is Holy Communion the actual body and blood of Jesus?

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes, I consume His body every Sunday. It does look like bread.



Then why do me have to accept Genesis as being literal, not allegory, but not literally accept the very words oof Jesus literally?



Yes, I consume His body and blood in church every week.

So, You see Genesis as allegorical... and Jesus real body as real....and not allegory?

 

[Archivist]

So, You see Genesis as allegorical... and Jesus real body as real....and not allegory?

As a Christian how could I see the body and blood of Jesus as allegory? You are, of course, free to your own interpretation of the Gospel.

 

[JacksBratt]

As a Christian how could I see the body and blood of Jesus as allegory? You are, of course, free to your own interpretation of the Gospel.

Just ask'n here, but how can you call me out for looking at Genesis as truth and Jesus body as allegorical... while you do the opposite?

 

[Archivist]

Just ask'n here, but how can you call me out for looking at Genesis as truth and Jesus body as allegorical... while you do the opposite?

But I’m now calling you are anyone else out because of your interpretation. I don't understand how you can say that since I have said throughout this thread that you are free to your interpretation of scripture just as I am free to my interpretation.

 

[-57]

Where does the Bible teach that you can sin if you are not able to understand the concept?

"If you were blind, you would not have sin. But you say that you see, therefore your sin stays".


Jesus Christ, you can read about him in books after the book of Genesis.

JOHN 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.