depthdeception
Well-Known Member
Critias said:
Apparently, you've missed the entire point of glaudy's post, for what you have just said has nothing to do with her meaning.
Upvote
0
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.
Critias said:I am amazed that you would think that if the Bible is silent then it agrees with anyone's assertions.
depthdeception said:You have an interesting defintion of "clear," considering the passage is far from specific on how Adam was formed. Being "formed" from the dust could mean one of an infinite number of things.
Critias said:I gave an explanation for it. No one is bending your arm to agree with me.
You have stated Genesis is a myth.
You have gone on about geneologies (ancestors of ancestors) that seem to have no end.
Seriously, you cannot even see the connection? If not, I am greatly surprised and yet able to see why your beliefs are the way they are.
genez said:Of course it does. Of course!
Now? Name some!
While you do.... Remember.... even Adam's name sounds like the word used for earth.
Waiting to see how creative you are.
Grace and peace, GeneZ
depthdeception said:And how, exactly, does this correlate to your presence on these boards and your often exclamatory responses to other's posts?
Critias said:You don't take six day creation, which comes from Biblical teaching, by faith.
You take a billion year(s) creation by common descent, which comes from scientists' teaching, by faith.
genez said:Difference between you and me? You look for weakness to prey on.
As your public profile declares, you have a vendetta for fundamentalists. But, do you wish to show them what is correct, rather than simply point out what's wrong? Or as you quite often try to confuse the issue by introducing contradictory remarks just to put a match under their seat?
That's all you do. I have yet to see you build anyone up with truth.
There is nothing wrong with higher criticism. IF! You can show the truth that was missing in place of the error you found. But, just to say that the Word is full of errors? What seminary do you attend?
depthdeception said:My point is that I don't think this passage is intended to be an "exact" description of what occurred, or of how life evolved to what we have today, or anything like that.
It is a mythological account whose intention is to express the theological idea that God is God and that God is the source of all that there is. This makes a lot of sense when understood in the context in which it was written--the worshipping community of God remembering God's provision for and care over God's people through generations of suffering and oppression.
genez said:So, all things the Bible is silent on, means consent?
The Bible makes it very plain how Adam was formed. He did not come from another creature that evolved into a homo sapien.
The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground ( adamah it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20).
Ironic, how you sound just like a self righteous religious type who wishes to defend their cherished idols of traditional thought.
No, my assertions don't change the facts either. I have no more magical power over nature than you do.But, you asserting your opinion, is. How nice.
How could you see what you were not privy to seeing with your eyes. It all comes down to thinking God's Word lies..... or, is truthful.
But, you? If you can not see it? It's not so until you do?
Science has corrected itself more than once. What used to be commonly accepted, was later found not to be true.
OK... Then it is a lie to you.
Looks like you have to do your own thinking for once, and not get tossed back and forth everytime you see a disagreement.
They have a job to do. To keep those who want to reject truth feeling justified for doing so. So, they write lies to show that those who wish to reject truth are free to do so. Its quite simple to see what's going on. That is, if you really knew what was going on.
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
That, that passage must be a lie, as well?
It says that all life was destroyed! That life was on this planet. No more birds! No more people! The mountains were shaking! Tohu wa bohu, means wreak and havoc, and having an eerie sense of emptiness about it.
vossler said:
Then you finish with this:
gluadys said:However, the purpose of a hypothesis is to generate predictions of observations which must exist if the hypothesis is true. This whole train of thought gives us many predictions of things that must be fact if the hypothesis is true.
And research has shown that many of these predictions are fact. e.g. the close genetic resemblance of humans to other apes, especially the chimpanzees; the possibility that some dinosaurs had feathers; the successful prediction that we would eventually see the fossil record extended into the Pre-Cambrian (in fact we now have fossils 7 times older than the earliest Cambrian fossils) and the successful predictions of fossils that bridged the higher taxa such as fish/amphibian and reptile/mammal. IOW what we expect to see in nature if all life has a common ancestor is what we actually DO SEE in nature. This is even more true of the more recently discovered genetic evidence. From the study of DNA sequences in a variety of species, it is more certain than ever that all life shares commonalities that transcend species. Furthermore, the pattern in which these commonalities are shared are not the same as the patterns found in manufactured objects, but patterns which are found in genealogies. IOW it appears that the mechanism of sharing common DNA is reproduction, not design.
So at this point, common ancestry is no longer just a logical inference. It is a concept well-supported by the evidence of nature. In fact some of the evidence in nature (e.g ERVs) simply has no other possible reason for existing than common ancestry.
The fact of evolution makes common ancestry logical. The accumulated evidence which supports common ancestry or which can be explained only by common ancestry means this is not just logical. It is the testimony of created nature. And created nature is given to us by God.
Correct me if Im wrong but I think it would be safe to say that the quotes above are, in your opinion, truth. If so, I think it could also be safe to say that all truth is on the same level, i.e. truth doesn't come in different degrees. Truth is truth, there isn't something that is 95% truth. So, by stating that evolution is truth you have, by inference, put it on the same level as the truths found in the bible. Quite interesting!
Also, can you explain how in the last quote of yours the words assume and infer are used quite liberally, you even go so far to say hypothetical, not fact? If evolution is truth how is it that it requires so many assumptions?
gluadys said:That is correct.
I bet that answer surprises you.
Virtually all of your problems with evolution lie in the fact that when it comes to evolution you haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.
Case in point. If you understood evolution you would understand this question is ridiculous. Nothing has failed to evolve. Different species have evolved in different ways, that's all.
shernren said:Can I ask something that has been pricking me all this while? I honestly don't have an answer for this, and it doesn't make sense even from my TE perspective (unless, of course, I treat this passage as well as being comprehensively mythical). Why is it that in the Isaiah passage on the new heavens and the new earth:
Isaiah 65:17-2017 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. 20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
there is a mention of humans dying? I thought the whole idea of the new heavens and the new earth is that death will no longer be there. Even animal death is supposed to be gone, hence predators and prey lying together. Then why is it that there are still humans dying? My impression of the passage is that all humans will live to be old men who have lived out their years. But what does a human do after s/he has lived out all of his/her years? Why - they die, of course. And it seems as if the number "a hundred years" is explicitly given such that the human lifespan is lengthened, but still qualitatively finite. I really don't get it. Unless, of course, this new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 65 is not to be identified with the Revelations 21 new heavens and new earth.
genez said:I believe God created TRex to show the angels what kind of evil Satan has in his heart towards peace loving angels. For Satan in his evil just loves to bite and devoir souls as to destroy their self esteem and integrity. As you can read and see in Scripture. Animal's natures are used often to describe traits in humans, both good and bad.
shernren said:there is a mention of humans dying? I thought the whole idea of the new heavens and the new earth is that death will no longer be there. Even animal death is supposed to be gone, hence predators and prey lying together. Then why is it that there are still humans dying? My impression of the passage is that all humans will live to be old men who have lived out their years. But what does a human do after s/he has lived out all of his/her years? Why - they die, of course. And it seems as if the number "a hundred years" is explicitly given such that the human lifespan is lengthened, but still qualitatively finite. I really don't get it. Unless, of course, this new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 65 is not to be identified with the Revelations 21 new heavens and new earth.
genez said:
It does. And, it does not. I believe you're just playing coy with me.
For some time now I have had the impression that if someone does not think along the lines you do, you simply dismiss them with a very general answer... No answer, in other words. "That is not so." " You do not understand." "You really never studied this issue." etc...
But, other than that? You fail to educate. You simply seem not wanting to be bothered. That's how I perceive you.
genez said:Evolution is a process God provided for survival. It was not one for bringing creation into being.
Because of that, I had no idea what you are really thinking. It seems you just like to watch and figure out where the other stands, as you refuse to a allow them to know where you really stand. You very often throw out things that would make others do all the work, but fail to show what work you have done.
But, there is a flaw in what you just told me. For, if you agree with me? Then why do you insist that the Lord did not form Adam's body from the elements of the earth?
If you believe like I do that God created man, and man has slowly changed (evolved) over time. Then why do you find the idea that God created man's body from scratch is something you do not agree with?
That resistance leaves the field wide open to think you believe man evolved from an ape, since you do not accept that God formed Adam's body from the elements of the earth.
The Hebrew word to "form" is Yatsar. It means to mold and to form.
It does not mean to isolate elements in a test tube and sythesize them into flesh and bones.
God's power and mind does not require such primitive (and slow) means.
You never explain. You never impart knowledge. You simply let the other know that he does not know what he is talking about and leave it at that.
I guess your an evolution book salesman? You simply come here to get others to buy more books? You do not want to debate the issues in detail. You only want us to spend our money on more books! That must be it.
I have looked at books on evolution. I get the same feeling reading them as I do reading the Watchtower Society's books. Those I looked at were based upon a premise that no one is supposed to question. That is... that God's Word is not explaining how God created man and animals. Period.
God's Word teaches that he destroys creations and replaces them with entirely new ones...
I believe God created TRex to show the angels what kind of evil Satan has in his heart towards peace loving angels.
depthdeception said:For all your criticisms of a "mythological" reading of Genesis, you certainly have some mythological ideas. Furthermore, for all your criticism of "silence is consent," you certainly build a huge amount of your cosmos on the very thing!
Thats encouraging to know and always a good place to start.gluadys said:I look for some indication that a person is curious and willing to learn. If someone tells me that I am mistaken about something, it piques my curiosity. I want to know what I have wrong, and what the correct information is
I suppose thats why you didnt respond to my last post. Im one of those creationists you describe. Thats fine, I dont have a problem with that, you and I are on completely different planes and the two shall probably never meet, that is unless divine intervention changes that.gluadys said:Most creationists, even when told many times that they do not understand evolution, do not show any curiosity. They are not interested in learning about evolution. They want to cling to their strawman version. Why should I waste time trying to educate people who have no interest in accurate information?
Its interesting that you state we owe our existence to a process. Could you please show me, biblically, how and where that can be reconciled?gluadys said:Evolution is a process God provided for survival. It is not a process for bringing creation into being. It is a process, though, for bringing new and different species into being as the original species changes and adapts to new conditions. While evolution was not the process that brought life from non-life, it is the process to which all species alive today (including humans) owe their existance.
Please show me biblically how you support our bodies being formed via a process over time.gluadys said:Because the biblical story does not require that our bodies be made "from scratch". It only requires that they be made from the dust of the earth. And that the formation of the body was a formation, i.e. a process which occurred over time, not an instantaneous transformation of dust to human body. There is no reason why Gen. 2:7 cannot be a mythological summation of our evolutionary history.
Just for my own clarification if nothing else, you claim that apes are our ancestors?gluadys said:You forget that the bodies of apes are also made from the elements of the earth. All bodies on earth are made from the elements of the earth, so any body which was ancestral to ours still connects us to the elements of the earth.
gluadys said:Here are some of the errors in your picture of evolution which have appeared in your posts:
Evolution is a progress from simple to complex, from lower to higher.
Evolution proceeds in a straight-line such that the ancestors of current forms ought to be extinct. Therefore if humans evolved from chimps there should be no chimps alive today.
Humans evolved from chimps. Edit: or Apes
Evolution occurs when a species wants it to occur.
Evolution occurs at the level of the organism.
Evolution requires jumps from one higher taxon to another e.g.from the cat family to the dog family.
Evolution requires all of an organ system to appear in its modern form all at once.
My point is that not one of those statements is true.
depthdeception said:Most likely, the author isn't attempting to convey exact information about what everlasting life will look like (probably wouldn't fit in with his worldview). Rather, the author is describing a state of being that is the "ideal" of the world in which the author lives--the language about infants and old men is simply metaphorical to describe the blessedness of the righteous.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?