How to assimilate all of evolutionary theory into a literal 7 day creation without changing anything

drich0150 · Sep 13, 2019

Are you the same type of man as adam?
Are you literally made of the mud from a river?
No?? you say? you are flesh and bone... maybe mud man is what died in eden the very day he touched the forbidden fruit Just like God said, and was exiled as flesh and blood.. just like his children where and their children where.

Sanoy · Sep 13, 2019

drich0150 said:
Where did you get planet eden?

Eden was a garden. All I said was eden and everything in it was complete before the rain on day 3 per verse 5.

I did not add soulless people I pointed out man created on day 2/adam in the garden was recorded as having a soul breathed into him.

Then I pointed out man made in the image of God on day 6 was never said to have been given a soul as man made on day 2.

Which again means complete man with soul was placed in the garden which was a picture of what the world look like 6000 ish years ago. and man outside the garden was allow to evolve or "multiply" any way you see fit.

Well either God lied and adam only died once like you seem to be selling or Adam and eve both died or what ever they where in the garden died, and where exiled to earth to live out a 930 sentence here for his sin.

Again even if you did not openly say incest yet... if I asked who did adam's children marry aside from inventing narrative that says God created more people when they were ready to marry the bible never speaks of you would have to concede to incest. So you have to out right invent narritive or you have to accept incest as your only two options if you do not agree with man being made in the garden is apart from day 6 man who was created in the image of God, but again was not have said to have a soul.

I called it 'planet' Eden because you say it is apart from the Earth. I don't know where you are placing it, moon, asteroid, heavenly realm. If you have a better description I'll begin using it.

The Bible doesn't speak about souless people being made, so you add this doctrine when you say "Adam was given a soul, and man out side the garden was just given a likness, IE genetic compatibility with Adam's family." (#54)

I don't follow your dilemma here where you say either God lied and Adam died once, or, Adam died twice contrary to Hebrews 9:27. If you think God lied you will have to explain yourself competently (ex. grammar, scholarship, language etc)

Neither of the points I mentioned require incest.

drich0150 · Sep 13, 2019

Sanoy said:
I called it 'planet' Eden because you say it is apart from the Earth. I don't know where you are placing it, moon, asteroid, heavenly realm. If you have a better description I'll begin using it.

seriously?!? are you messing with me?
Where is heaven? is there also a planet heaven? if Heaven is a city ( as described in several places in scripture) how is (according to your logic) not part of the earth?

Or do you not believe in the city of Heaven as the bible describes it... Now in Heaven could then not eden be a park? or Garden? Ever been to NYC? what is the most prominent land mass in the whole city? (Hint it's 100xs larger than any building)

Yes central park which is or contains many gardens... (strawberry fields is one nearest were lennon was shot)

How is it so hard for you to imagine a garden not of the terrestrial world and yet believe in the God who resides in heaven? The Grand city of God... yet without any parks or gardens..

Let's do it your way.. God creates a garden. let's say it is on the world/apart of the earth

(just because you can not wrap your mind around the idea of a God who can create the earth is not able to create a garden space beyond a planetary setting, so fine let's go wit that)

Let's say the tigris and the euphrates where the tigris and euphrates of genesis and let's ignore the fact there is no other geological evidence of the other two rivers the bible describes ever been in the area. let say it is there and the garden there anyway was and is a well defined gps-able plot of land.

Where are the markers God left to ensure man would never set foot in the garden again? You know what Im feeling very generous today let's say it was some metaphors for the desert sand or the heat or whatever.

The whole of chapter two describes the garden being started mid day day 2 and completed mid day chapter three. in this alone means the garden was special and separate from the rest of creation even if it had a gpsable/set position on this earth you could occupy today. this 1 fact alone makes the garden of eden different/set apart/holy because God gave it special attention and completed it before the rest of the planet per Chapter 1. he also took time and rested in the Garden. Again makes it seperate and set apart.

Now if eden was not a seperate holy place why was adam cast out to work the ground? why cast him out? he placed a angel to guard the tree but if the garden was of the earth then again why the effort to remove him from a arbitrary boarder? only to allow anyne else with a gps to find it again or even live there? Please where is the sense of that? especially when God declared man shall never set foot in the garden again... So me a spot on dry land where we do not have foot prints.

The fact of the matter was Eden was a holy Place God himself walked in. Can't say it was not holy because that is kinda the definition of the word in that it is set apart for God/God's use.

Which means Adam went from being a holy being and in whatever way allowed him to be holy (being made of mud) and to live in the garden with God and not be consumed by his holiness Died. Just as God said he would.

The Bible doesn't speak about souless people being made,

show me where God took day 6 man is breathed into him a living soul as day 2 man received.
chapter 1 day 6:
26 Then God said, “Now let’s make humans who will be like us. They will rule over all the fish in the sea and the birds in the air. They will rule over all the large animals and all the little things that crawl on the earth.”

27 So God created humans in his own image. He created them to be like himself. He created them male and female. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Have many children. Fill the earth and take control of it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the air. Rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

chapter 2: day2:
6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

so you add this doctrine when you say "Adam was given a soul, and man out side the garden was just given a likness, IE genetic compatibility with Adam's family." (#54)

If you believe your telling is the only correct telling then yes from that perspective I did add it.

However (now read this and don't ignore it because it is not something you wish to hear)
However I did not add anything to the bible. your perspective is not recorded in the bible. understand that. therefore your perspective is not canon. (neither is mine)

Day 6 man as the account above shows never was given or made a living soul. This is something genesis 2 man was given his name was adam and God created him and the garden apart from the rest of creation. Meaning the garden and everything in it was complete by the end of day 3 while the rest of the earth took 4 more days.

Again just so the truth can be told again I do not add day 6 man does not get a soul. I point out a soul was made into day2 chapter 2 adam, and no such thing was given to day 6 chapter 1 man who was made with the rest of the earth part from the garden. My bible says this, your bible says this all bibles say this..

Who doesn't say this? your brand of christianity which you seem to have trouble deciding where your religious beliefs begin and where the bible ends. Meaning it seem you think your religious/denominational beliefs are the same as scripture. Scripture does not award day 6 man a soul, even if your branch of christianity does.

(this explanation also accounts for all of the races in that man made out side the garden was diverse and did not have a single point of origin as the fossil record and DNA proves.)

I don't follow your dilemma here where you say either God lied and Adam died once, or, Adam died twice contrary to Hebrews 9:27. If you think God lied you will have to explain yourself competently (ex. grammer, scholarship, language etc)

I point out Adam was hand crafted by God himself from mud.

Is this the typical make up of a homosapeian? No?!?!

So I point out you were not as Adam was in the garden. This alone excludes adam from hebrews 9:27
Plus what of enoch? He did not die God loved him so much he was simply transformed and taken up. What of the raptured? do they die?
Like it or not there are many examples of where men are born and not given to die or even come back unless you are saying Christ never resurected anyone.

If adam where any other joe smoe I would be inclined to lump him in with hebrews 9, but even you have to admit he is a special case.
Where we was a bog monster or human flesh, he would not have been the only one not given to live once and die.

but lets say that is the only difference between you two. (what died was made of mud and what is given once to live and dies in you is flesh and bone)

now is mud genetically compatible with human means of reproduction? Can you have sex with a pile of mud and produce offspring?

I'm saying while in the garden Adam was a mud based creature. (Different that what you are now) what ever "mud is" no one else is made from it not even eve.

Meaning That creature made of mud upon eating of the fruit died. and what was left was exiled onto terrafirma. once he was placed here... his clock on his 930 year prison sentence as a homo sapien began.
As far as your need to measure "fallacies.." (yeah i know but the other spelling breaks the rules) if all of your grammar, scholarship, language etc can not biblically refute my position and you have to result in a ad hom attack that has you pointing to your pedigree as a way to discredit me personally, so as to be able to dismiss my body of work... then what good are those things you want to measure? If I am wrong and you can not show me biblically (make no mistake you have not/you've shown where my theory conflicts with your denominational beliefs but not bible) Then what is the point of those things you prize and wish to measure men by?

who needs a doctorate to point out that there is no time line between gen 2 and gen three?

who need to be able to afford a high end school to show gen 2 is a garden narrative that begins on mid day 2 and ends mid day 3, resulting in that everything in the chapter happened in that time line?

Does one need 20+ years in the ministry to point out day 2 Adam is recorded has having been made a living soul, but no such claim was given to man/men made on day 6.
I like to think myself as one of the foolish lowly things God likes to use to show up the wise and learned of this world. (plus I have already mentioned my credentials at some point.)

again.. I am not changing a word of the bible. just how it is traditionally read. Nothing I say adds to the scripture nor takes it away. i simply show how the bible is big enough to assimilate the whole of evolutionary theory, again without changing a word.

That does not mean your traditional reading will remain in tact.[/quote][/quote]

Tolworth John · Sep 13, 2019

Brightmoon said:
I’ll tell you exactly why creationist storytelling about science isn’t actually doing science but this person summed it up perfectly View attachment 263129
The ‘checkmate atheists’ at the bottom was sarcasm just in case you didn’t get it. This is exactly why scientists DONT accept creationist pseudoscience.

Please let us have some honesty, after all the Christian morality we follow does say 'do not lie.'

Atheist scientists don't accept Christian ideas because they start with the presupposition that there is no God. just as Christian scientists start with the presuposition that there is a God.

Ones bias does influences ones conclusions.

If you don't know this, then it shows how poor you are at reasoning.

Sanoy · Sep 13, 2019

drich0150 said:
seriously?!? are you messing with me?
Where is heaven? is there also a planet heaven? if Heaven is a city ( as described in several places in scripture) how is (according to your logic) not part of the earth?

Or do you not believe in the city of Heaven as the bible describes it... Now in Heaven could then not eden be a park? or Garden? Ever been to NYC? what is the most prominent land mass in the whole city? (Hint it's 100xs larger than any building)

Yes central park which is or contains many gardens... (strawberry fields is one nearest were lennon was shot)

How is it so hard for you to imagine a garden not of the terrestrial world and yet believe in the God who resides in heaven? The Grand city of God... yet without any parks or gardens..

Let's do it your way.. God creates a garden. let's say it is on the world/apart of the earth

(just because you can not wrap your mind around the idea of a God who can create the earth is not able to create a garden space beyond a planetary setting, so fine let's go wit that)

Let's say the tigris and the euphrates where the tigris and euphrates of genesis and let's ignore the fact there is no other geological evidence of the other two rivers the bible describes ever been in the area. let say it is there and the garden there anyway was and is a well defined gps-able plot of land.

Where are the markers God left to ensure man would never set foot in the garden again? You know what Im feeling very generous today let's say it was some metaphors for the desert sand or the heat or whatever.

The whole of chapter two describes the garden being started mid day day 2 and completed mid day chapter three. in this alone means the garden was special and separate from the rest of creation even if it had a gpsable/set position on this earth you could occupy today. this 1 fact alone makes the garden of eden different/set apart/holy because God gave it special attention and completed it before the rest of the planet per Chapter 1. he also took time and rested in the Garden. Again makes it seperate and set apart.

Now if eden was not a seperate holy place why was adam cast out to work the ground? why cast him out? he placed a angel to guard the tree but if the garden was of the earth then again why the effort to remove him from a arbitrary boarder? only to allow anyne else with a gps to find it again or even live there? Please where is the sense of that? especially when God declared man shall never set foot in the garden again... So me a spot on dry land where we do not have foot prints.

The fact of the matter was Eden was a holy Place God himself walked in. Can't say it was not holy because that is kinda the definition of the word in that it is set apart for God/God's use.

Which means Adam went from being a holy being and in whatever way allowed him to be holy (being made of mud) and to live in the garden with God and not be consumed by his holiness Died. Just as God said he would.

show me where God took day 6 man is breathed into him a living soul as day 2 man received.
chapter 1 day 6:
26 Then God said, “Now let’s make humans who will be like us. They will rule over all the fish in the sea and the birds in the air. They will rule over all the large animals and all the little things that crawl on the earth.”

27 So God created humans in his own image. He created them to be like himself. He created them male and female. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Have many children. Fill the earth and take control of it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the air. Rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

chapter 2: day2:
6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
If you believe your telling is the only correct telling then yes from that perspective I did add it.

However (now read this and don't ignore it because it is not something you wish to hear)
However I did not add anything to the bible. your perspective is not recorded in the bible. understand that. therefore your perspective is not canon. (neither is mine)

Day 6 man as the account above shows never was given or made a living soul. This is something genesis 2 man was given his name was adam and God created him and the garden apart from the rest of creation. Meaning the garden and everything in it was complete by the end of day 3 while the rest of the earth took 4 more days.

Again just so the truth can be told again I do not add day 6 man does not get a soul. I point out a soul was made into day2 chapter 2 adam, and no such thing was given to day 6 chapter 1 man who was made with the rest of the earth part from the garden. My bible says this, your bible says this all bibles say this..

Who doesn't say this? your brand of christianity which you seem to have trouble deciding where your religious beliefs begin and where the bible ends. Meaning it seem you think your religious/denominational beliefs are the same as scripture. Scripture does not award day 6 man a soul, even if your branch of christianity does.

(this explanation also accounts for all of the races in that man made out side the garden was diverse and did not have a single point of origin as the fossil record and DNA proves.)

I point out Adam was hand crafted by God himself from mud.

Is this the typical make up of a homosapeian? No?!?!

So I point out you were not as Adam was in the garden. This alone excludes adam from hebrews 9:27
Plus what of enoch? He did not die God loved him so much he was simply transformed and taken up. What of the raptured? do they die?
Like it or not there are many examples of where men are born and not given to die or even come back unless you are saying Christ never resurected anyone.

If adam where any other joe smoe I would be inclined to lump him in with hebrews 9, but even you have to admit he is a special case.
Where we was a bog monster or human flesh, he would not have been the only one not given to live once and die.

but lets say that is the only difference between you two. (what died was made of mud and what is given once to live and dies in you is flesh and bone)

now is mud genetically compatible with human means of reproduction? Can you have sex with a pile of mud and produce offspring?

I'm saying while in the garden Adam was a mud based creature. (Different that what you are now) what ever "mud is" no one else is made from it not even eve.

Meaning That creature made of mud upon eating of the fruit died. and what was left was exiled onto terrafirma. once he was placed here... his clock on his 930 year prison sentence as a homo sapien began.
As far as your need to measure "fallacies.." (yeah i know but the other spelling breaks the rules) if all of your grammar, scholarship, language etc can not biblically refute my position and you have to result in a ad hom attack that has you pointing to your pedigree as a way to discredit me personally, so as to be able to dismiss my body of work... then what good are those things you want to measure? If I am wrong and you can not show me biblically (make no mistake you have not/you've shown where my theory conflicts with your denominational beliefs but not bible) Then what is the point of those things you prize and wish to measure men by?

who needs a doctorate to point out that there is no time line between gen 2 and gen three?

who need to be able to afford a high end school to show gen 2 is a garden narrative that begins on mid day 2 and ends mid day 3, resulting in that everything in the chapter happened in that time line?

Does one need 20+ years in the ministry to point out day 2 Adam is recorded has having been made a living soul, but no such claim was given to man/men made on day 6.
I like to think myself as one of the foolish lowly things God likes to use to show up the wise and learned of this world. (plus I have already mentioned my credentials at some point.)

again.. I am not changing a word of the bible. just how it is traditionally read. Nothing I say adds to the scripture nor takes it away. i simply show how the bible is big enough to assimilate the whole of evolutionary theory, again without changing a word.

That does not mean your traditional reading will remain in tact.

The Garden had God's holy mountain. That is why it was sacred, just like Sinai was sacred and God told Moses to keep people off of it. Additionally there was the tree of life in the Garden which God wanted to separate man from. So explain to me why it needed to be guarded if Adam was on earth, and the garden was not. You never told me where Eden was, or what you want me to call it. In the ANE, a planet was a heavenly realm, so it's not in any way clear what you are describing but if you want to say it was a spiritual garden then that's what I'll call it. Just give a name you'll be satisfied with.

You tell me that you did not add soulless people, I quote you where you add it, and then you try to defend the claim that the Bible has soulless people as if you wish to add it? Gen 1 and Gen 2 are different books, the fact that Gen 1 doesn't say anything about breath while Gen 2 does is an argument from silence laid over different texts with different different authors, and different ages. Indeed, show me where the Bible talks about soulless people, because you are adding it, and you are teaching it as the statement I quoted as an affirmative statement, not a "what if".

I am a Berean, I don't have a "brand of Christianity" I look at the text, the grammar, the language, the cultural milieu and scholarly articles. I don't fix problems with a pen.

Adam was not actually made of Mud, he is made of the earth, that is the point of dust of the ground. Unlike our culture, this was a high context culture. Show me a single scholar who says Adam was a mud man or bog monster rather than skin and bones.

This is going into the controversial section where it belongs.

Job 33:6 · Sep 13, 2019

eleos1954 said:
The point being they are theories ... science does change ... yes ... additional information is learned, explored, and theorized as time goes on ... that is the nature of it. That doesn't make it a bad thing ... or a negative thing.

If something gets better (or worse) that is change.

Many "facts" do change.

Regarding the origin of life .... it is theory based upon theory, based upon theory.

If the basic theory (idea) is ... life evolved ... then additional theories are put forth to theorize to that end.

The truth is ... we don't know how life began (we don't have indisputable facts) ... so we theorize ... (ideas and experiments that seem plausible to explain something) ... and theories on the origin of life have been going on since the dawn of mankind and will continue.
So the end game is .. it is what one decides to believe and accepts as truth (and each of us does this) ... doesn't make one right or one wrong. There isn't a right or wrong to it.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

Nobody decides to not believe in gravity. There is a right and wrong to whether or not it exists. Theories of gravitation describe what physically occurs and the facts of these theories have never changed.

Different theories and hypotheses have varying amounts of evidence backing them. Abiogenesis is more In the realm of a hypotheses than it is on the level of something such as plate tectonics. Evolution, much like uniformitarianism and gravitation are well established and supported by facts that have never changed and have been around for generations. Natural selection still is now as it always was, just as Darwin suggested for example. Plate tectonics still are as they have been. Facts of superposition in uniformitarianism are as they've always been for hundreds of years. Abiogenesis on the other hand is somewhat obscure in nature, given its basis in hadean microbiology.

Brightmoon · Sep 13, 2019

Tolworth John said:
Please let us have some honesty, after all the Christian morality we follow does say 'do not lie.'

Atheist scientists don't accept Christian ideas because they start with the presupposition that there is no God. just as Christian scientists start with the presuposition that there is a God.

Ones bias does influences ones conclusions.

If you don't know this, then it shows how poor you are at reasoning.

. Honesty !?!?! You’re joking . One of the things that disgusted me the most was that my fellow Christian creationists were lying their heads off and the atheists like Dawkins were telling the truth about evolution and the age of the earth. I’m scientifically literate enough to tell who’s giving out accurate information or not and it’s not the creationists . As I’ve said I was disgusted by the blatant lying. Science has nothing to do with any supernatural phenomena
and any scientist who is a believer knows that. it’s just an extra that doesn’t affect his work one way or the other. It’s the equivalent of wearing a red shirt which has nothing to do with research science either. ( actually the dye in the shirt could affect your results so it might have more of an affect than believing in any deity ,not just the Christian God)

Joy · Sep 14, 2019

MOD HAT ON

This Thread has Moved
From Creation & Theistic Evolution
To Controversial Christian Theology

MOD HAT OFF

eleos1954 · Sep 14, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

Nobody decides to not believe in gravity. There is a right and wrong to whether or not it exists. Theories of gravitation describe what physically occurs and the facts of these theories have never changed.

Click to expand...

Do the theories of gravitation and their principals prove true in relation to the universe?

The discussion is about when life began and how it began and the "factual" proof of it.

Natural selection and survival of the fittest ... evolution ... to factually determine if and when this might have happened one has to prove (observe and test) how our unique universe (compared to what we observe) became into being in the first place to support life of any kind.

Creationists certainly do not dismiss all earthly science ... that would be ridiculous ... and we don't.

Again ... we are discussing how life began.

Both scientists and creationists agree life began in the cosmos and that it happened suddenly.

Scientific theories developed and tested here on earth can not factually be applied to the universe. There is no way for science to observe and repeatedly test earthly theories in relation to the universe. It's impossible to do. The universe is so vast we can't even comprehend it ... we can only theorize.

What we do observe of the universe according to most sources, estimate about 4% that we can "see" (observe) ... and there is no way to test much about it, much less repeatedly test it .... therefore all of it is theorized (not factual) and will remain so.

Both are theories .... evolution or creation. In regard to the beginning of life will remain theories because the universe is too vast and all of it can not be observed or tested.

So ... it ends up being what one chooses to believe.

That is ... what theory one puts their faith in (complete trust or confidence in someone or something).

It has nothing to do with "facts" it has to do with faith in regard to both.

Brightmoon · Sep 14, 2019

again a creationist is misusing a scientific term . You cannot have a theory without facts . Creationists have no facts that support their conjectures about nature . Creationism is an unverifiable hypothesis at best . Evolution is a theory . The old universe is a theory . Geological theories like plate tectonics have facts to support them . All mainstream scientific theories do.

Job 33:6 · Sep 14, 2019

Brightmoon said:
again a creationist is misusing a scientific term . You cannot have a theory without facts . Creationists have no facts that support their conjectures about nature . Creationism is an unverifiable hypothesis at best . Evolution is a theory . The old universe is a theory . Geological theories like plate tectonics have facts to support them . All mainstream scientific theories do.

I suspected that the truth would be exposed soon enough, and so it was.

eleos1954 · Sep 15, 2019

Brightmoon said:
again a creationist is misusing a scientific term . You cannot have a theory without facts . Creationists have no facts that support their conjectures about nature . Creationism is an unverifiable hypothesis at best . Evolution is a theory . The old universe is a theory . Geological theories like plate tectonics have facts to support them . All mainstream scientific theories do.

Theories are based on hypothesis ... theories are theories and called such because it is unknown if all "facts" are "in" and/or if all the "facts" are being analyzed and the data interpreted correctly.

There are all kinds of theories out there ... nobody knows and/or has analyzed all the data (personally). One is basing their beliefs on what opinions one has possibly looked into (varying) degrees.

Not one person knows everything there is to know.

In regard to the beginning of life ...

It takes faith to believe in either one ... faith in the sciences .... or not.

At least creationists admit it takes faith to believe .... evolutionists do not admit that it takes faith to believe what they believe, when it does.

Faith ...

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

They are both theories, both are based on
hypothesis

hypothesis

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Science-wise in regard to the universe where it is believed life began is based on very limited evidence (facts).

drich0150 · Sep 16, 2019

Sanoy said:
The Garden had God's holy mountain. That is why it was sacred, just like Sinai was sacred and God told Moses to keep people off of it.

If this mountain was holy like the garden was holy then why did god not put an angel there to guard it? because even though it was holy it was not like the garden. So you can not use sinai to assign a level of holiness to the garden. (It was not treated the same)

Additionally there was the tree of life in the Garden which God wanted to separate man from. So explain to me why it needed to be guarded if Adam was on earth, and the garden was not.

"So the we could not become like God." was the only reason given. why the angel would indicate that God wanted to keep everyone and or everything else from that tree. IF the tree was in heaven according to scripture it is not just God and jesus, there is quite a few other beings in the way of angels.

my whole reasoning as to why the garden is not apart of the earth does not need to mean the garden occupies another space and or time. (even though it clearly must as there is not a central tresterial location identified as the garden) my focus is that the garden was a creation unto itself started on day 2 and completed n day three as well as everyone and everything in it, that God considered it a place he came to rest and walk with man. No other place on earth even saini could this happen the way it did in the garden. As moses time on the mountain with god aged him. While Adam and God had no such consequence. That is why and the only reason why I say the garden is seperate. Adam was created different/apart with the garden from the rest of creation.

If this place is in heaven as I believe great. if it is on earth despite having no evidence... that's ok too. You are arguing a distinction without a difference. meaning nothing changes for my theory if eden was physically located here or if it was not as it still was set apart/holy while the earth was not. Again my whole theory set is to allow one to take and assimilate evolutionary theory as needed. it realy does not matter how much or little of the creation account you intrepret as literal or not. as it is about freeing the time lines up and whether the garen was apart of the earth is moot.

You never told me where Eden was,

Maybe try reading more the posts I put together. as I suggested that eden was a garden of the Holy city Heaven. how did you miss that? there are two or three paragraphs on it.. ultimately I differ to the bible and say I do not know. as what the bible indicates as land marks only two exist, but where not so identified in the time the bible was written. so the two rivers we know as the tigris and the euphrates could be the rivers of the OT or they could not be. If they are then know there is no evidence of two other rivers the bible says framed out the garden.

or what you want me to call it.

Eden

In the ANE, a planet was a heavenly realm,

no need to be intentionally obtuse.

so it's not in any way clear what you are describing but if you want to say it was a spiritual garden then that's what I'll call it. Just give a name you'll be satisfied with.

Is heaven a spiritual city? Not according to the bible it is not. as John of patmos was given a measuring too land measured out it's walls and boarders. Why do you have such a hard time with an idea so simple it make sense to the rest of the world? Cities have gardens and parks. Heaven is God's holy city. why can't you put the two together as one who believes in God? do you think it beyond the ability of God toplace a garden in his city? Do you think God is opposed to garens?

Now I'm about to really blow your mind, what makes you think that Eden being apart of this world/earth still couldn't be heaven's garden?

You tell me that you did not add soulless people,

I did not ADD. I pointed out Man made in the garden was given a soul. and man made outside the garden was not. He was given God's image.

Day six does not record man receiving a soul like day two adam. that is a fact however I did not add it.I only point it out.

Again the only way to consider me adding this is if you in your heart believe you have the only 1 telling of the creation narrative. and I have added this to your telling. yes I will gladly admit to that as it shows you have a denominationally specific view and not a biblical one. However I did not add anything to the bible.

I quote you where you add it, and then you try to defend the claim that the Bible has soulless people as if you wish to add it? Gen 1 and Gen 2 are different books, the fact that Gen 1 doesn't say anything about breath while Gen 2 does is an argument from silence laid over different texts with different different authors, and different ages. Indeed, show me where the Bible talks about soulless people, because you are adding it, and you are teaching it as the statement I quoted as an affirmative statement, not a "what if".

citations please.. I looked up this crazy idea and it seem only the most liberal scholars believe gen 1 and 2 where written by two different authors as this theory originated outside the church.

The typical conservative view is this
Critical Theory Attacks Genesis 1 and 2

And the reason for this theory is no one could come up with why there are two timelines given in gen 1 and gen 2. a simple answer like gen 1 outlines the creation of the planet by elohim and 2 outlines the creation of the garden and everything in it by yhwh between day 2 and 3.. Not only does it resolve those conflicts it resolves every single other creation paradox or conflict normally associated with the creation narrative.

I am a Berean, I don't have a "brand of Christianity" I look at the text, the grammar, the language, the cultural milieu and scholarly articles. I don't fix problems with a pen.

berean is your brand of christianity. those of like mind who collective worship God with in a et of specific guidelines. That my friend is what it means to have a christian brand.
other wise I'm a berean but I fix my problems with a pen I do not need to read what other men may think no matter how smart they say they are, and I do not like the name berean so I do not use it but I still claim to be one.

What's that you say? I can't be one as I do not conform to berean system of worship? that I do not align myself with what it means to apply the name berean to my efforts? even so if being berean is not a specific form of christian worship/methods or practice then I can claim that name for my self.

That is unless the name represents something more. A dedication to work worship and study that the average person does not care to be apart of. then if it means something or represents a specific discipline within christianity then I probably could not be a berean.

Adam was not actually made of Mud, he is made of the earth, that is the point of dust of the ground.

being obtuse again I see. what was my point? it was to say YOU WHERE NOT FORM FROM THE DUST OF THE GROUND YOU HAD A MOTHER. Adam did not. He was not Born. He was created. you where not created in the way adam was. which makes you different. Not even eve was created as adam was.

This is going into the controversial section where it belongs.

what pride you must have to think putting my message in a different part of the web site is a punishment.. It simply means new eyes get to see the message.
Allow me to pray for you and the pride/anger you must feel to want to 'demote me.'

[/quote][/quote]

Sanoy · Sep 16, 2019

drich0150 said:
If this mountain was holy like the garden was holy then why did god not put an angel there to guard it? because even though it was holy it was not like the garden. So you can not use sinai to assign a level of holiness to the garden. (It was not treated the same)

"So the we could not become like God." was the only reason given. why the angel would indicate that God wanted to keep everyone and or everything else from that tree. IF the tree was in heaven according to scripture it is not just God and jesus, there is quite a few other beings in the way of angels.

my whole reasoning as to why the garden is not apart of the earth does not need to mean the garden occupies another space and or time. (even though it clearly must as there is not a central tresterial location identified as the garden) my focus is that the garden was a creation unto itself started on day 2 and completed n day three as well as everyone and everything in it, that God considered it a place he came to rest and walk with man. No other place on earth even saini could this happen the way it did in the garden. As moses time on the mountain with god aged him. While Adam and God had no such consequence. That is why and the only reason why I say the garden is seperate. Adam was created different/apart with the garden from the rest of creation.

If this place is in heaven as I believe great. if it is on earth despite having no evidence... that's ok too. You are arguing a distinction without a difference. meaning nothing changes for my theory if eden was physically located here or if it was not as it still was set apart/holy while the earth was not. Again my whole theory set is to allow one to take and assimilate evolutionary theory as needed. it realy does not matter how much or little of the creation account you intrepret as literal or not. as it is about freeing the time lines up and whether the garen was apart of the earth is moot.

Maybe try reading more the posts I put together. as I suggested that eden was a garden of the Holy city Heaven. how did you miss that? there are two or three paragraphs on it.. ultimately I differ to the bible and say I do not know. as what the bible indicates as land marks only two exist, but where not so identified in the time the bible was written. so the two rivers we know as the tigris and the euphrates could be the rivers of the OT or they could not be. If they are then know there is no evidence of two other rivers the bible says framed out the garden.

Eden
no need to be intentionally obtuse.
Is heaven a spiritual city? Not according to the bible it is not. as John of patmos was given a measuring too land measured out it's walls and boarders. Why do you have such a hard time with an idea so simple it make sense to the rest of the world? Cities have gardens and parks. Heaven is God's holy city. why can't you put the two together as one who believes in God? do you think it beyond the ability of God toplace a garden in his city? Do you think God is opposed to garens?

Now I'm about to really blow your mind, what makes you think that Eden being apart of this world/earth still couldn't be heaven's garden?
I did not ADD. I pointed out Man made in the garden was given a soul. and man made outside the garden was not. He was given God's image.

Day six does not record man receiving a soul like day two adam. that is a fact however I did not add it.I only point it out.

Again the only way to consider me adding this is if you in your heart believe you have the only 1 telling of the creation narrative. and I have added this to your telling. yes I will gladly admit to that as it shows you have a denominationally specific view and not a biblical one. However I did not add anything to the bible.
citations please.. I looked up this crazy idea and it seem only the most liberal scholars believe gen 1 and 2 where written by two different authors as this theory originated outside the church.

The typical conservative view is this
Critical Theory Attacks Genesis 1 and 2

And the reason for this theory is no one could come up with why there are two timelines given in gen 1 and gen 2. a simple answer like gen 1 outlines the creation of the planet by elohim and 2 outlines the creation of the garden and everything in it by yhwh between day 2 and 3.. Not only does it resolve those conflicts it resolves every single other creation paradox or conflict normally associated with the creation narrative.

berean is your brand of christianity. those of like mind who collective worship God with in a et of specific guidelines. That my friend is what it means to have a christian brand.
other wise I'm a berean but I fix my problems with a pen I do not need to read what other men may think no matter how smart they say they are, and I do not like the name berean so I do not use it but I still claim to be one.

What's that you say? I can't be one as I do not conform to berean system of worship? that I do not align myself with what it means to apply the name berean to my efforts? even so if being berean is not a specific form of christian worship/methods or practice then I can claim that name for my self.

That is unless the name represents something more. A dedication to work worship and study that the average person does not care to be apart of. then if it means something or represents a specific discipline within christianity then I probably could not be a berean.
being obtuse again I see. what was my point? it was to say YOU WHERE NOT FORM FROM THE DUST OF THE GROUND YOU HAD A MOTHER. Adam did not. He was not Born. He was created. you where not created in the way adam was. which makes you different. Not even eve was created as adam was.

what pride you must have to think putting my message in a different part of the web site is a punishment.. It simply means new eyes get to see the message.
Allow me to pray for you and the pride/anger you must feel to want to 'demote me.'

God didn't need to guard the mountain in the Garden until after Adam sinned, at which point it was guarded. I fail to see your objection to Sinai.

You say that the garden must have occupied another space and time from that of earth, and you believe it's in heaven, so again why does it need a guard to keep Adam out. Did Adam have a time machine or a space ship which would make such a guard necessary? All you explained was why God wouldn't want Adam to come back in, not why it was guarded given its not even on earth in your view. If it was on Earth, Adam, who likely doesn't have access to space travel or time travel, could walk back in without such a guard.

Your claim that man outside the garden was not given a soul is an addition because the text does not say they didn't have a soul. It's an argument from silence to begin with, and worse given it is over 2 separate works from separate ages and authors. Gen 2 is a different author because the language shifts from God to LORD, or LORD God, it's a different genre as well, with Gen 1 being metered poetically. Further, see discussions on Priestly, Yahwist, Elohist, P, J, E respectively.

So Adam, preexile in Eden, was not a mud man as you stated but was made of flesh and bones? Having Adam being a mud man is no less far fetched to my reckoning than a lot of what you have said, so it's hard to tell when you are serious.

Your thread is where it belongs, the "Goading" in your replies is not.

Tolworth John · Sep 16, 2019

Brightmoon said:
. Honesty !?!?! You’re joking . One of the things that disgusted me the most was that my fellow Christian creationists were lying their heads off and the atheists like Dawkins were telling the truth about evolution and the age of the earth. I’m scientifically literate enough to tell who’s giving out accurate information or not and it’s not the creationists . As I’ve said I was disgusted by the blatant lying. Science has nothing to do with any supernatural phenomena
and any scientist who is a believer knows that. it’s just an extra that doesn’t affect his work one way or the other. It’s the equivalent of wearing a red shirt which has nothing to do with research science either. ( actually the dye in the shirt could affect your results so it might have more of an affect than believing in any deity ,not just the Christian God)

I'm sorry you think that way.

Hopefully you are aware that evolutionary believe equally does not effect how science is done.
But has a large evvect on how it is reported.

drich0150 · Sep 16, 2019

Sanoy said:
God didn't need to guard the mountain in the Garden until after Adam sinned, at which point it was guarded. I fail to see your objection to Sinai.

The tree of life was the reason for the guard. which not only made this place holy, it was of extreme importance that no one had access to the tree of knowledge and the tree of life.
meaning Man nor angel, if in fact the garden was in heaven.

No such artifact on sinai was so powerful as either of those two trees, so there was no reason to guard the mountain.

You say that the garden must have occupied another space and time from that of earth, and you believe it's in heaven, so again why does it need a guard to keep Adam out.

The guard was not specifically in the bible for adam's sake:
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

24 God forced the man to leave the garden. Then he put Cherub angels and a sword of fire at the entrance to the garden to protect it. The sword flashed around and around, guarding the way to the tree of life.

"turned every way" "flashed around and around guarding"
this word in the hebrew is: haphak the idea is guard every direction:
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

So God sent an angel with a flaming sword to guard every direction to keep everything out, not just keep adam out.

Did Adam have a time machine or a space ship which would make such a guard necessary?

thought your brand of christianity where supposed to be researchers and lookers up of the word. how did you miss this? Oh, that's right it does not serve your purpose so you want to shift the angel's responsibility to Adam. Not cool or this shows a severe discrepancy between what you claim to be and what you are doing..

All you explained was why God wouldn't want Adam to come back in, not why it was guarded given its not even on earth in your view.

read it again hot rod, this time SLOW down read everything. I answer this question in the last thread.

If it was on Earth, Adam, who likely doesn't have access to space travel or time travel, could walk back in without such a guard.

indeed. So too could an number of angels if it were located in heaven.

Your claim that man outside the garden was not given a soul is an addition because the text does not say they didn't have a soul.

No you are adding that. you are making my observation an argument from silence because you eliminate authorship of chapter two. I said chapter 1 does not record God giving man outside the garden a soul. chapter 2 does which would indicate the author knew which man was issued a soul and which would not. Argument from silence says the author did not know about souls but if he did... when you make the author of chapter one J and the author of chapter 2 D then you can claim an argument from silence on my part.

Either Way this is just another superfluous fact in my theory soul no soul my theory works either way. I am simply showing as many distinctions between day 2 man and day 6 man as possible from a single author's understanding.. with no soul
/day 6 this guy resolves the "Son of Elohim (day 6 man) creating giants with the daughters of Man (man=Adam man with a soul) paradox (where did the second species of man come from if adam was the only one created)
If day 6 man where the sons of God as they where made in his image and the daughters of man was the daughters of Adam day 2 man then this would resolve itself.

Again not adding anything but pointing out the bible shows that Adam in the garden was not given the image of God but given a soul, man outside was given the image of God but no soul.

Again this is what the bible records, whether they have souls or not makes no difference to me. I don't care, nothing in the theory depends on it. the only thing I have done is seperate day 2 Adam from day 6 man outside the garden with how the bible describes the two differently. (with no special training or inside knowledge/just a straight read from a uncalloused mind.) Ie if you where to just pick up and read with no knowledge or no religious filter to run the story through cherry picking or changing the text. This is how it would appear.

It's an argument from silence to begin with,

allow me to help you with your wording:
To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.[2][3] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author's available writings.[3]
Argument from silence - Wikipedia

In order for this to be an argument from silence you have to eliminate chapter 2 as a single source creation story. (which is why you do.) when all/vast majority modern Christian scholarship shows chapter 1 and chapter 2 are properly read as one event. When one does that the argument from silence goes away because the argument from silence states that the author is ignorant of the availability of a soul in chapter 1 and the writer of chapter 2 is ignorant of being made in the image of God. This means the author knew of the soul when he described chater 1 man and knew of man made in the image of God when he describe chapter 2 man. But chose to describe one, one way and the other another way. why??? BECAUSE THEY WERE DIFFERENT!

Your theory is known as, the Documentary Hypothesis, became popular in the 19th century when a French physician by the name of Jean Astruc claimed that he had isolated certain “source” authors in the Pentateuch. His views were expanded and popularized by others, so that by the end of the century numerous biblical commentators had gravitated to this liberal concept. Though this approach is widely circulated and defended today, it will not bear the test of honest, scholarly investigation.
christiancourier.com/articles/162-critical-theory-attacks-genesis-1-and-2

and worse given it is over 2 separate works from separate ages and authors.

I have cited church accepted scholarship that chapters one and 2 are not of dual authorship. you have cited nothing but your sheer will to believe whatever makes you happy. I asked for a citation and you pretend as if I did not. I'm am now demanding that you show the dual authorship as a legitimate non secular way of examining chapter 1 and 2 of genesis. Show me something that disproves my reading of this passage. show me anything beside your say so, because it does not carry the weight you seem to think it does.

your efforts/writing shows a complete lack of any extra faith effort. IE I am made to think you want me believe because it works for you. You write as if you write as God and no one can question. I have asked for citations many times and have gotten no response even after I have left material representing the church that contradicts what you have claimed specifically. Look if you a faith is all that it takes kinda of guy I will back off but if I remember correctly you said you research everything... So how abouts show me a little of that work and let me pick it part.

otherwise... If this is the best you can do I will respect you enough to not continue hammering with points you can not answer or properly defend.

Gen 2 is a different author because the language shifts from God to LORD, or LORD God, it's a different genre as well, with Gen 1 being metered poetically. Further, see discussions on Priestly, Yahwist, Elohist, P, J, E respectively.

again... because you said so...

How about this: a different member of the trinity did the work in chapter 2. As such needs a different monitor than the generic term God/elohim. As the OP points out Elohim does the seven day creation. Yhwh starting mid day chapter 2 and completes the garden and everything in it mid day chapter 3 apart from the rest of the 7 day creation, Yhwh Does all of the work of chapter 2. and is the creator of the garden adam eve the trees and everything that goes on there. Again apart from the normal 7 day plot line where man is created in the image of God is not recorded in having being made a living soul but at the same time made in the image of God.

So chapter 2 retains the Same author, but records a different narrative which takes place within the chapter one, 7 day out line.

So Adam, pre exile in Eden, was not a mud man as you stated but was made of flesh and bones?

what was adam made from? is my point. answer the question please if you wish to continue I ask you participate fully. I will not waist time talking to a stone who just plays his own track.

Having Adam being a mud man is no less far fetched than a lot of what you have said, so I can't tell when you are actually serious.

again do not be obtuse. you can tell when I point stuff like that out. IF YOU WHERE TO READ what I write (all of it/you only seem to be reading the first few lines and then go off.) you should be able to discern the point I am making. unless you suffer from some spectrum related affliction where you mind demands everything be literal even after I point out it is not.

Your thread is where it belongs, the "Goading" in your replies is not.

rayers:and again thank you for making such an effort to put my work before some fresh eyes.

Sanoy · Sep 17, 2019

drich0150 said:
The tree of life was the reason for the guard. which not only made this place holy, it was of extreme importance that no one had access to the tree of knowledge and the tree of life.
meaning Man nor angel, if in fact the garden was in heaven.

No such artifact on sinai was so powerful as either of those two trees, so there was no reason to guard the mountain.

The guard was not specifically in the bible for adam's sake:
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

24 God forced the man to leave the garden. Then he put Cherub angels and a sword of fire at the entrance to the garden to protect it. The sword flashed around and around, guarding the way to the tree of life.

"turned every way" "flashed around and around guarding"
this word in the hebrew is: haphak the idea is guard every direction:
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

So God sent an angel with a flaming sword to guard every direction to keep everything out, not just keep adam out.

thought your brand of christianity where supposed to be researchers and lookers up of the word. how did you miss this? Oh, that's right it does not serve your purpose so you want to shift the angel's responsibility to Adam. Not cool or this shows a severe discrepancy between what you claim to be and what you are doing..

read it again hot rod, this time SLOW down read everything. I answer this question in the last thread.

indeed. So too could an number of angels if it were located in heaven.
No you are adding that. you are making my observation an argument from silence because you eliminate authorship of chapter two. I said chapter 1 does not record God giving man outside the garden a soul. chapter 2 does which would indicate the author knew which man was issued a soul and which would not. Argument from silence says the author did not know about souls but if he did... when you make the author of chapter one J and the author of chapter 2 D then you can claim an argument from silence on my part.

Either Way this is just another superfluous fact in my theory soul no soul my theory works either way. I am simply showing as many distinctions between day 2 man and day 6 man as possible from a single author's understanding.. with no soul
/day 6 this guy resolves the "Son of Elohim (day 6 man) creating giants with the daughters of Man (man=Adam man with a soul) paradox (where did the second species of man come from if adam was the only one created)
If day 6 man where the sons of God as they where made in his image and the daughters of man was the daughters of Adam day 2 man then this would resolve itself.

Again not adding anything but pointing out the bible shows that Adam in the garden was not given the image of God but given a soul, man outside was given the image of God but no soul.

Again this is what the bible records, whether they have souls or not makes no difference to me. I don't care, nothing in the theory depends on it. the only thing I have done is seperate day 2 Adam from day 6 man outside the garden with how the bible describes the two differently. (with no special training or inside knowledge/just a straight read from a uncalloused mind.) Ie if you where to just pick up and read with no knowledge or no religious filter to run the story through cherry picking or changing the text. This is how it would appear.

allow me to help you with your wording:
To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.[2][3] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author's available writings.[3]
Argument from silence - Wikipedia

In order for this to be an argument from silence you have to eliminate chapter 2 as a single source creation story. (which is why you do.) when all/vast majority modern Christian scholarship shows chapter 1 and chapter 2 are properly read as one event. When one does that the argument from silence goes away because the argument from silence states that the author is ignorant of the availability of a soul in chapter 1 and the writer of chapter 2 is ignorant of being made in the image of God. This means the author knew of the soul when he described chater 1 man and knew of man made in the image of God when he describe chapter 2 man. But chose to describe one, one way and the other another way. why??? BECAUSE THEY WERE DIFFERENT!

Your theory is known as, the Documentary Hypothesis, became popular in the 19th century when a French physician by the name of Jean Astruc claimed that he had isolated certain “source” authors in the Pentateuch. His views were expanded and popularized by others, so that by the end of the century numerous biblical commentators had gravitated to this liberal concept. Though this approach is widely circulated and defended today, it will not bear the test of honest, scholarly investigation.
christiancourier.com/articles/162-critical-theory-attacks-genesis-1-and-2

I have cited church accepted scholarship that chapters one and 2 are not of dual authorship. you have cited nothing but your sheer will to believe whatever makes you happy. I asked for a citation and you pretend as if I did not. I'm am now demanding that you show the dual authorship as a legitimate non secular way of examining chapter 1 and 2 of genesis. Show me something that disproves my reading of this passage. show me anything beside your say so, because it does not carry the weight you seem to think it does.

your efforts/writing shows a complete lack of any extra faith effort. IE I am made to think you want me believe because it works for you. You write as if you write as God and no one can question. I have asked for citations many times and have gotten no response even after I have left material representing the church that contradicts what you have claimed specifically. Look if you a faith is all that it takes kinda of guy I will back off but if I remember correctly you said you research everything... So how abouts show me a little of that work and let me pick it part.

otherwise... If this is the best you can do I will respect you enough to not continue hammering with points you can not answer or properly defend.

again... because you said so...

How about this: a different member of the trinity did the work in chapter 2. As such needs a different monitor than the generic term God/elohim. As the OP points out Elohim does the seven day creation. Yhwh starting mid day chapter 2 and completes the garden and everything in it mid day chapter 3 apart from the rest of the 7 day creation, Yhwh Does all of the work of chapter 2. and is the creator of the garden adam eve the trees and everything that goes on there. Again apart from the normal 7 day plot line where man is created in the image of God is not recorded in having being made a living soul but at the same time made in the image of God.

So chapter 2 retains the Same author, but records a different narrative which takes place within the chapter one, 7 day out line.

what was adam made from? is my point. answer the question please if you wish to continue I ask you participate fully. I will not waist time talking to a stone who just plays his own track.
again do not be obtuse. you can tell when I point stuff like that out. IF YOU WHERE TO READ what I write (all of it/you only seem to be reading the first few lines and then go off.) you should be able to discern the point I am making. unless you suffer from some spectrum related affliction where you mind demands everything be literal even after I point out it is not.

rayers:and again thank you for making such an effort to put my work before some fresh eyes.

I still need you to explain why a guard for the tree of life was needed if Eden wasn't on earth where Adam could trespass. It's pretty clear in the text that the Guard was for Adam since it is placed there for the first time upon his expulsion, and within the same sentence. The addition makes no sense otherwise. The breadth of the Guardianship has nothing to do with the question of why he is there to prevent trespass from someone on Earth. Let me remind you that the issue of geographic description of known places in Genesis 2 and how that relates to heavenly Eden still remains and also add another problem to resolve, how did Adam name the animals if he was in heavenly Eden?

Your argument about the soulless people is an argument from silence with or without different authorship because it relies on what the text doesn't say. From the definition you provide - to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements (IE breathing of a soul in Gen 1). That these are different authors, time periods, and genres, just makes your argument from silence that much worse. It won't matter if you make it the same author and same work, that will only mitigate the severity, not the fact that it is an argument from silence.

The Christian Courier is one of my bookmarks, but the regarded objections are nominal. One could say that the Bram Stoker was the actual author of the twilight series because writers often change up their style, and use different words for things. The fact is that using a different name for the person that is the center of your life is a big indication that you are dealing with a different writer. Not a certain indication, but a very strong one. To deny that strength and method here is to deny the same ability to distinguish any work from any author. This uses a scholar, but it isn't scholarly. A scholarly article would survey the arguments for it, like the fact that Gen 2 uses puns in the Hebrew language which was not created till after Moses. I already referred you to discussions on J,E,P source works - if you were reading responses in complete before hacking them up for line by line responses you would not accuse me of not using scholarly stuff and then in the next line by line include where I do.

The Trinity works together, not apart, per Trinitarian beliefs, the Father acts through the Son by the Holy Spirit. Neither does it need a different name as both Jesus and the Father were called Yahweh in the OT (Genesis 19:24), discussed popularly as Yahweh invisible (Father), and Yahweh visible (Jesus, who can be seen face to face). Aditionally all three are Elohim.

Adam was made of Flesh and Bone, I'm asking you to tell me what he was made from in Genesis 2. Your replies have been verbose, like a stream of consciousness recorded with every personal disrespect, tangent thought, and wishful goading that occurred, and which I have to look past. I cannot follow when you are serious or not. It would be a tremendous benefit if you would strive to be concise and focused, and avoid the personal remarks.

St. Helens · Sep 20, 2019

MOD HAT ON
Closed for review
MOD HAT OFF

Joy · Sep 21, 2019

MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review

Thread is Now
Permanently Closed
RV: Goading

MOD HAT OFF

How to assimilate all of evolutionary theory into a literal 7 day creation without changing anything

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Well-Known Member

God is Love

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Well-Known Member

God is Love

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

I stand with Israel

Well-Known Member

Similar threads