• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

4 Questions Answered

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
V

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But Arkguy, rock does not fold because it is "soft" after water inundation. Also, what scientific evidence did you present for your proposal? Does your proposal explain all the data we have?

Chi is mimicking the tone of most of your own posts very well. While I do not like the style whether you do or he does it, it is a bit ironic that the pot is calling the kettle black.
 
Upvote 0
S

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Ark Guy said:
Christiangamer asked this question in another thread.

I thought I'd re-present it here.
I have a couple questions. Where did Cains wife come from?
Click to expand...
This is one of those topics we can probably discuss and debate as long as we wish without ever coming up with an authoritative and satisfying answer. Since Cain was outside the line of promise, the Bible apparently did not consider this issue important enough to tell us the answer. We are therefore left to our speculations.


The responses generally given tend to fall into two groups: (1) those that think Cain married a relative (i.e., a sister, niece, or other descendent of Adam and/or Eve), and (2) those that think he married a non-relative (i.e., someone not related to Adam and Eve. Sure, that’s an oversimplification, it’s patently obvious, and it pretty well takes in the entire realm of possibilities of Biblical choices.



At first glance, it would appear that only the first of those possibilities could be consistent with what the Bible says. After all, doesn’t the Bible say that Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth? Therefore, they and their children would comprise all of mankind, wouldn’t they?



Although we would be justified in reaching that conclusion from a literal reading of our English versions of the Bible, that is not necessarily what the Bible says. The original Hebrew text and passages from the Talmud (the collection of writings constituting the Jewish civil and religious law) and from ancient Jewish commentators indicate that the Bible does not close the door on the possibility that there were other people—including men before Adam—but that Adam was the first human being to be created with an eternal soul.



Hebrew has two words for soul--nefesh and neshama--and both come into play in the first two chapters of Genesis. When Genesis 1:21 tells us that “God created…every animal,” it signifies that all animals (humans included) are infused with the nefesh or soul of animal life. When humans are mentioned a few verses later (Genesis 1:27 and 2:7), the text tells of a further creation, which distinguishes humans from lower animals: The third “creation” mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis is of our eternal and immortal soul, our neshama (the first two “creations” were of the universe and of life).



The closing of Genesis 2:7 has a subtlety lost in the English. It is usually translated as: “…and [God] breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life and the adam became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). The Hebrew text actually states: “…and the adam became to a living soul.” Over 700 years ago, Nahmanides wrote that the “to” (the Hebrew letter lamed prefixed to the word “soul” in the verse) is superfluous from a grammatical stance and so must be there to teach something. Lamed, he noted, indicates a change in form and may have been placed there to describe mankind as progressing through stages of mineral, plant, fish, and animal. Finally, upon receiving the neshama, that creature which had already been formed became a human. He concludes his extensive commentary on the implications of this lamed as “it may be that the verse is stating that [prior to receiving the neshama] it was a completely living being and [by the neshama] it was transformed into another man.”

Thus, according to Nahmanides--who is the major kabalistic commentator on the Bible--the biblical text has told us that before the neshama there may have been something like a man that was not quite a human.



Note that Nahmanides’ writings preceded discoveries of modern paleontology by hundreds of years---and the Bible text used by Nahmaides said it three thousand years before discoveries of modern science.

 
Upvote 0
S

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Ark Guy said:
Christiangamer asked this question in another thread.

I thought I'd re-present it here....
Two, God created light before the sun. So can we say we can see light, (and not from a light bulb you dolt) without the sun? Cuz there was light before that?
Click to expand...
According to the big bang theory’s Standard Model of the universe, after the initial big bang and inflation occurred, the universe expanded and temperatures and photon energies fell in proportion with the universe’s expansion. When the temperature fell below 3000 degrees Kelvin, electrons were able to be drawn into stable orbits around the hydrogen and helium nuclei by the electromagnetic charges of these nuclei—and light separated from matter and emerged from the darkness of the universe.



Although it may be argued that “light” existed prior to that point in the form of gamma rays, that is an energy form that is in excess of what would be visible to the eye. But as the thermal energy of the photons fell to 3000 degrees Kelvin (thus allowing electrons to bind in stable orbits around hydrogen and helium nuclei), not only did the photons break free from the matter of the universe, but they became visible as well. Now compare the process described in the BBT Standard Model with the wording of Genesis 1: 3-4.
 
Upvote 0
A

Ark Guy

Guest
Vance said:
But Arkguy, rock does not fold because it is "soft" after water inundation. Also, what scientific evidence did you present for your proposal? Does your proposal explain all the data we have?
Click to expand...

Thats not what the theory says.
The strata were not present prior to the flood. The strata...on its way to becoming rocks were still soft which allowed them to fold and not snap as your uniformatarion belief would call for.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Ark Guy said:
Soooo, you're claiming that they bent way underground in the heat and pressure..then rose straight up?

...did you check your old earth text book?
Click to expand...
The strata currently on tops of mountains have indeed formerly been overlaid with other strata. For example, the rocks making up the English Lake District, especially in the Skiddaw area, are Silurian - very old. They would have been overlaid by Mesozoic and probably Cenozoic strata at some time. They have uplifted and the higher layers have eroded.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Ark Guy said:
Thats not what the theory says.
The strata were not present prior to the flood. The strata...on its way to becoming rocks were still soft which allowed them to fold and not snap as your uniformatarion belief would call for.
Click to expand...
But the Bible says that Eden (pre-flood) was situated in a place drained by amongst other rivers the Tigris and Euphrates. These rivers run over and indeed erode into strata.

Are you suggesting that the current Tigris and Euphrates just happen to be in the same place as pre-flood rivers whose original course is thousands of feet underground below the lowest sedimentary rock strata? Indeed, how could any recognisable geography (such as rivers) survive a massive global flood?
 
Upvote 0
A

Ark Guy

Guest

Thgere is no doubt that some areas up-lifted and aided in draining the water off of the earth and into the oceans.

Your question is how rocks folded way down under the ground, then lifted straight up to form the mountains. That is what was originally suggested prior to the goal post being moved by the evos.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Nope. No such thing was suggested.

Strata a laid down. More strata are deposited on them.

They are deformed under heat and pressure

Uplifts lift these strata and those overlying them.

Overlying strata are eroded away.

This is the mainstream model. It's accepted because it works.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Guided by the hand of Mary
Replies
0
Views
113
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
Always Start with Facts: Climate Change I
Replies
0
Views
113
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
We have not wrought any deliverance (SALVATIONS) in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen...
Replies
0
Views
301
Exposition & Bible Study
orbiter
Where Does the Bible Talk About Mortal Sin?
Replies
0
Views
109
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
Questions and Answers
Replies
75
Views
3K
Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum
keras
Menu
Log in
Register