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.
It is a simple question. But it is irrelevant.
If you have nothing better to say, then we can stop this conversation.
This is sort of on topic as the OP is as much about whether there was a literal Adam as whether Adam literally named all the dinosaurs.
So I'll try to answer it.
1 Cor 1.23 'but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,'
The witnesses to the resurrected Jesus would have been Jews, so they would be the first to believe it, yet 1 Corinthians states that they didn't accept the Christ crucified.
If the Gospels are either an invention or a midrash then the tens of thousands of eye witnesses are also part of the story and simply did not exist.
I think you have to be a bit more sympathetic to the stance TLK has taken (though not to the way he has taken it).
I was just curious about some of your thoughts on this.
Is Adam a literal person?
If Adam is literal, then did he/did he not literally name ALL the animals?
Where did Jesus say he believed Genesis was literal?Jesus thought so.
Where does the HS state that Genesis was meant to be taken literally?The Holy Spirit who inspired the writing of the books of the Bible thought so.
...
And I'll admit I probably should have been somewhat more sympathetic in my presentation -- at least until juven tried to impress me with his "scientific" credentials. Then my sympathy evaporated.
Did Adam name all the Dinosaurs?
"Woman" Gen 2:23
"Woman" Gen 2:23
You don't need the Hebrew for that, the storyline translates quite clearly into English, Adam gives names to all the animals, God creates Eve and the first thing Adam does is name her. One thing that has been obscured by some of our English translations is the Hebrew term for the animals, living creatures or chai nephesh. It is the same term used to describe Adam in Gen 2:7 and the man became a living creature. That gets obscured in some translations obscure by saying 'living soul' or 'living being'. But Genesis uses the same term to describe people as it does the other animals.So how does that play out in the original Hebrew?
If Adam is literal, then did he/did he not literally name ALL the animals?
I'm sorry I haven't been here to reply to all your responses.
Been really busy.
I have replies.
Be patient.
Well then my opinion of Jesus' logic just went down.Jesus thought so. The Holy Spirit who inspired the writing of the books of the Bible thought so.
Yes.
You should never run out of patience. I always keep a large box of it in the cupboard downstairs.
I agree. this is what I'm trying to do.
CF is for Christians to talk to each other in the Christians only sections, and when they feel like it to come out and take pot shots at atheists, mix socially with those of similar beliefs, other beliefs or none, and try to convince the unregenerate of our need to be reconciled to their particular deity.
Core to it is therefore the willingness to take the other person's point of view, to stand and see the World through their eyes.
That is a skill everyone should develop.
I don't want to get involved in 'mixed in translation' nonsense. Did he name all the Dinos or not?You don't need the Hebrew for that, the storyline translates quite clearly into English, Adam gives names to all the animals, God creates Eve and the first thing Adam does is name her. One thing that has been obscured by some of our English translations is the Hebrew term for the animals, living creatures or chai nephesh. It is the same term used to describe Adam in Gen 2:7 and the man became a living creature. That gets obscured in some translations obscure by saying 'living soul' or 'living being'. But Genesis uses the same term to describe people as it does the other animals.
Hi Juv
Buy Bologna said:Well then my opinion of Jesus' logic just went down.
Thanks for your opinion.[/size]
That's OK. He's still God and you're still wrong.
Your revision doesn't really change anything.
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?