- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,109
- 51,508
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Cute.... so you're God now are you?
Upvote
0
Cute.... so you're God now are you?
Cute.
Add to that that there are 2 different versions of the timeline in Genesis 1 and 2. Surely the people writing it would have not been so stupid as to not notice this.
Why should it?So there is at least one atheist who doesn't credit them with that level of stupidity, but doing so gives YECs no problems at all.
Why should it?
It's only a problem for unbelievers.
And for the record, I have no problem with it whatsoever -- and I'm not even a YEC.
Not the writers -- the readers.So you have no problem with saying that the biblical writers are stupid.
I miss thread tags.The village idiot's been necroing 5-9 year old threads and responding to people who haven't posted in 3-5 years. For some reason people don't check the date of the OP... or who it was that did it... and we're off to the races with more nonsense.
Then I have to ask: what's wrong with calling it Darwinism?
Either that, or you work hard not to understand; and just end up confusing yourselves.Most people prefer to use language to clarify meaning, as opposed to yourself, who chooses to use it to obfuscate meaning.
Why not?Why would an ultimate God need 6 whole days to create the universe?
I guess He felt like having a rest from the work He did.Why would he need to "rest" at all?
How does it not?How does this suggest God can do anything he wants?
"and it was evening, and it was morning"Surely makes more sense that its written that way so a "day" is simply the passage of time, and the "ages" of the earth at various points?
No it says that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. This illustrates that God is not time-bound like we are, as in "He that is, was and cometh" (simultaneously)Heck it even says "a day is a thousand years".
Not really, but i understand the confusion.Add to that that there are 2 different versions of wthe timeline in Genesis 1 and 2
Maybe they didn't expect stupid readers?Surely the people writing it would have not been so stupid as to not notice this.
Exodus 20:11So with all things considered this shows that the timeline is very likely not meant to be literally either.
No. Why would it?And then we have humans made out of dirt, clay, mud. Whatever. And woman made out of mans rib, come on doesnt this suggest its a metaphor for something?
You seem to know what God can and can not do.And the tree of knowledge, how is that not a metaphor? And what of the fruit of the tree? Eating fruit of any tree isnt going to give you knowledge except of the way it tastes. Its a clear analogy!
It is quite clear who spoke through the snake.And take the talking Snake.
It's a pity you form this strong opinion without looking for exegesis and apologetics.I mean do you really think animals talked back then or does it make more sence to think it wasnt meant to be taken literally? And if it wasnt totally obvious up to now, they DID NOT die when they ate the fruit as God told them they would. You know why? Because it wasnt meant to be taken literally of course! It was meant to be much deeper, and more meaningfull that that.
Because the temptation in Genesis 3 was a coup by a high ranking son of God / angel.Why would Jesus have to forgive us for what Adam and Eve did?
It's also legal salvation from the fate that comes with the coup and the reign of rebellious gods / angels.How much sence do you think that makes? Surely it makes more sence to forgive us for OUR sins, you know the ones we actually have some kind control and responsibility over?
I dearly hope to have shed some light on the matter for you.To believe in a literal Genesis is to make the entire idea completely incoherent and renders the whole story meaningless!
Ed
Romans 1:20-23Except light can be proven to exist. Gods cannot.
Either that, or you work hard not to understand; and just end up confusing yourselves.
Ya ... believe is not an option, is it?Well, given the choice...
Ya ... believe is not an option, is it?
Sorry.What are you babbling about?
The only way OEC works is if you look at the time line from the beginning. From our perspective each day is half the length of the day before it.So with all things considered this shows that the timeline is very likely not meant to be literally either.
Why not?I guess He felt like having a rest from the work He did.How does it not?"and it was evening, and it was morning"No it says that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. This illustrates that God is not time-bound like we are, as in "He that is, was and cometh" (simultaneously) Not really, but i understand the confusion.
Genesis 2 focusses on the 6th day and is set in the Garden alone.Maybe they didn't expect stupid readers? Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
No. Why would it?You seem to know what God can and can not do.It is quite clear who spoke through the snake.
Just like it's quite clear who spoke through the mule in Numbers 22:28
It's a pity you form this strong opinion without looking for exegesis and apologetics.
"Dying you shall die" is what the Hebrew text says, and die they did, but not immediately.
So like God said and like the serpent denied: "You shall surely die."
Don't get me wrong, i don't think it's an easy to comprehend piece of Scripture either, but that only means that jumping to conclusions is to be avoided.
Because the temptation in Genesis 3 was a coup by a high ranking son of God / angel.
It's also legal salvation from the fate that comes with the coup and the reign of rebellious gods / angels.I dearly hope to have shed some light on the matter for you.
Some things to consider:
Psalms 81:1
Genesis 6:1-4