Oh I think I get it just fine as it comes as no big shocker. Rather typical of someone insisting on a literal view of the Creation story but unable to be consistent with having everything in the same story being literal, which is why when asked about God needing rest the topic has to be changed.
Except we were not talking about the "Bible itself" or even the whole book of Genesis. We were talking about the beginning of the Bible and what some claim must be taken as a completely literal explanation of exactly what occurred in every detail - remember - so it can only be understood literally like a laboratory dissection of what God made to create a companion for the guy He LITERALLY apparently did not consider would be lonely without a mate, followed by God LITERALLY needing to rest. So what is LITERALLY very wrong with that LITERAL picture????
Well finally an attempt to at least partially address the elephant in the room. Thank you, I suspected as much from the beginning and like I said it helps explain why the questions were repeatedly avoided.
shrug.
I never denied God created the first humans, which is rather my point and directly refutes the notion that anyone disagreeing with the idea that God literally dissects Adam to make Eve must believe that none of it every happened. My only denial is that it is necessary to believe that the Bible literally "teaches" that Adam got gutted like a frog in 7th grade science lab in order to accept the actual truth that the Bible teaches God created the first humans. Literally continuing to make that claim makes one look foolish.
Gutted like a frog? Dissected? Are you serious?
Really? Why have you not commented on te scripture I have presented to you?
No, not serious. Just trying to get someone to admit something so we can move on beyond their erroneous claims/opinions about something when post suggests no bother to research properly before attempting to refute them.
15 post have been made in this thread before this was being written. Lots of claims in the first 12 posts about other Scripture and allusions to something being explained already which was not, finally a brief mention of Saint Paul in the 13th post and finally two NT Scripture snips in the 14th post. So pardon me for ignoring allusions to imagined references and explanations. Though am pretty sure at one point I attempted to address the allusions anyway as am not new to these discussions and it did not matter anyway.
And our discussion needing to bring up the creation that is ongoing in human wombs, and all animals for that matter if one believes in spirits, has everything to do with statements made regarding my initial question which was how to explain God needing something. When that question was not understood and I had to point to God needing to rest, a failed attempt was made to deflect and avoid talking about the point by appealing to entomology to suggest it was not “resting” on the 7th day, but instead desisting, stopping or ceasing from Creating. As if that entomology matters and an appeal to Strong’s makes someone a good theologian. God is Creator. Literally who He is. The idea He could stop being Who He is, even for a day suggests God changes, which hopefully none present in this thread believe (they are out there too). So womb was necessary to support the idea that God did not stop Creating and has not ever stopped Creating. Hopefully not alone thinking it at least odd for a Creationist to attempt to appeal to Strong’s to suggest God stops Creating in desperate attempt to support their very literal (and also not literal) understanding of the Creation story.
First it was only recently presented in this thread, next to last post. Second I did comment on those two verses at the bottom of my last reply (it was “pointless” was my reply) and I commented again in more detail again above since there was some concern that I was ignoring so many imagined allusions to Scriptures and unoffered explanations which had been made prior to the last two posts.
LOL that is the first time “populations” was mention in 15 posts, so unclear what imagined reference to “numerous times” means. Have we had this discussion before and I forgot?
As a creationist willing to give people holding to theistic evolution the benefit of being at least as smart as I am, I do not see myself or them caught in populations.
What does having to “close up flesh” imply was LITERALLY done prior to that point? Or does one literally imagine God made Adam from dust with skin and muscle flapping loosely over exposed ribs of his chest – Eden and all animals being medically sterile and all, I guess.
Unlike the suggestions made in this thread, the RCC holds those teachings, traditions and the Bible to be inerrant. Since we will never agree on what that means, I find trading Scripture snips rather pointless. The reply will simply be it does not mean what the Church, tradition or the Apostles taught that it means.
No, not at all. What is prideful is to boast of holding a very literal view and while glossing over the "elements" one considers NOT literal while refusing to give anyone else the same courtesy for their beliefs.
Brah, one doesn't even hold a literal view of the whole story oneself and we agree on probably many of those "elements" being not literal. So to base a false claim of denial of the Bible on not taking some things literally means both "dudes" here are denying "what the Bible says", dude.
