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.
Yea but that's half of the equation.
So just man? Breath the spirit through the nostrils. I haven't read in scripture where animals had the breath spirit through the nostrils.
Treating Leprosy isn't a natural process. Growing an ear from someone's DNA in a dish isn't a natural process but it's being done.
The same human DNA was needed.
I agree. It had to be human DNA, but was it identical to Mary's? And what about the Y chromosome? Was it a brand new one, not tainted with sin? Or something else??
Every creature of flesh and blood that breathes air is, in the OT, classified as a nephesh/soul. These are that which died, except for the ones in the ark. See Gen. 7:21-22; 9:15, etc.
Mitochondrial DNA, mothers can pass on both Y and X. Joseph DNA was of the same lineage as Mary. But Joseph is symbolic of sorts the king lineage from David. Both lineage go back to David. Mary had everything that was needed as far as DNA for a human vessel. Literally carried the sin on His shoulders. You don't think Jesus was stronger than flesh?
Is that why skin cells can live up to 2 weeks after the breath is gone. Stem cells live on for while, reason why some organs can be transplanted.
I've never heard of that. Can you give some reference for it?
Except a y chromosome, unless you can show how it's passed from mother to a male child.
I don't see what this has to do with the topic, which was already a departure from the thread topic.
All of these kind of arguments have been answered. You leave out divine assistance (the supernatural realm). There is a lot of science showing a global flood. Engage the evidence and arguments, but don't attack the messengers (authors). A good place to start is the book, "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications," by Morris and Whitcomb. Also see the website Answers in Genesis. Remember to engage the science and not commit the argument ad hominem fallacy.
No. In fact, the world consisted of the land plus the waters. So it could not have meant the entire world.
If the Spirit hovered over the surface of the waters, and the earth was "formless" (no identifiable forms) and void (nothing to see), then there was no land yet. If "eretz" is used for that condition, then it can't always mean "land".
Since Genesis 1:1 says that first God created the earth, but then separated land from water, so by His own word, there was land then.
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Ok good, bc I’m thinking about returning to Catholicism. But given all he said, where did Adam and Eve come from?
We aren't even sure what species they were. But IMO, scripture makes it clear that they were real people. There's nothing in biology to rule that out; God created them as unique beings by give them immortal souls.
Yes, "earth" and "heaven" are the two things He speaks of in Gen 1:1. No water is mentioned. Therefore, since He then starts to work on the water to make both heaven, by separating water from water, and land, by gathering water into smaller areas, the word "eretz" must include all of the land, at a minimum.
Neither is assuming that "land" only ever means a particular region, when you've shown that it means all the land of the world in this instance.
All the land, yes.
No, because the land and water were joined in some way, making the water part of the land, or vice versa, until they were separated.
Observable evidence? Of what the earth was like during the unfinished creation?
Unavailable observable evidence contradicts written testimony?
You certainly haven't made a case for hopelessness, except by appeal to something you don't have. At the very least, eretz can mean "all the land under heaven".
