Yesterday at 03:42 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #47
Is this your attempt at a insult?
No, it's a straight question based on the fact that you make assertions that can be shot down with a second's worth of thought. I keep thinking that you would think about your assertions before you post them. I'm amazed that you apparently don't.
Do you think that maybe if you p*ss them off that will cause them to be more likely to want to enter into a discussion with you?
John, I've told you serveral times, I don't care if I have a "discussion" with you at all. I only respond to you for the sake of others.
I do not think the flood killed them off. I believe the flood was in the area between the Tigris and the Euphrates river. There were actually two or three floods in that area that wiped out whole groups of people. But the Bible only records one flood there.
That contradicts the Bible then, since God promised not to destroy the "earth" by flood again. Congratulations, John, in your unthinking exegesis and hypotheses, you've just made God a liar.
So, what did kill all these "hunters and gatherers" created on day 6? And your response didn't answer my point at all: that they had to have had mothers in order to survive all those generations.
Is the question: Who did Seth and Cain marry?
No. The question is: if Eve was the first mother, as you assert, and that there were no mothers before her, as you assert, then how did all those people created on day 6 last for all those generations?
The Bible is a reliable guide.
Anyone who would say the Bible is not reliable is admiting that THEY are not reliable. You can have full confidence in the Bible that it is trustworthy and true.
LOL!! Circular reasoning. The Bible is true. You can know it is reliable because if you question its reliability then you are not reliable.
Now, exactly
what in the Bible can you have full confidence in? Obviously not everything, because you have told us in just this one post that there are three areas we can't have confidence in: one flood, that it was a world-wide Flood, and the source of the wives for Cain and Seth.
lucaspa Now, how did they keep the population up there were no "mothers"? Did God keep zapping new ones into existence? If so, then the Bible is not a reliable guide at all on the subject, is it?
Either your hypothesis is wrong, or we have to dismiss the Bible as useless. Which one would you rather we choose?
John:
To dismiss the Bible as useless is a crude and boorish statement. So we can dismiss that as being false.
It is the choice you've forced upon us, John. So the "crude and boorish' part is your doing, not mine. See what a danger you are to Christianity? Of course, I find it much easier to dismiss
you.
As far as my hypothesis, you still don't understand it well enough to pass judgement on it to determine if it is correct or wrong. That would require you to give up some of the things you cling to for security, and I am not sure your mature enough to do that yet.
Yada, yada, yada. Lots of words, including insults, but no substance. No clear exposition of your hypothesis. Anytime John. We're waiting.
I was going to go onto to Schroeder's question: "Scientific research deals with physical aspects of reality, while the biblical creation of Adam relates to the spirituality of the neshama, the soul of humanity instilled in Adam on Rosh HaShana, almost 6000 years ago. That is the special creation described in Genesis 1:27. But what of Adam's body? Was it also a special creation? Or is there the possibility that the human body developed over time, until it became a vessel capable of receiving and containing a neshama?"
That has nothing to do with your hypothesis, John. Notice that Schroeder doesn't accept your two creations hypothesis. Just one creation of humans. Not a creation on day 6 and another on day 8.
And it's not Schroeder's question. There is a long Jewish tradition that Adam and Eve are the first
Jewish couple. It is designed to confront some of the contradictions between the two creation stories.
Of course, if Schroeder answers "yes" he is about to deny the "plain teaching" that Micaiah is so fond of. However, Schroeder instead denies evolution.
So, it was a nice distraction to sidetrack us to Schroeder, but what is
your hypothesis, John? Go ahead, state it clearly, please. Or even unclearly. Just state it.
