Eve came from Adam, evolution does not allow this

[Cis.jd]

So your tree rather than God's word in Genesis is to be desired to make one wise!? Interesting.

Sorry, but the last time we spoken you where already making stuff up (bible believers) just for the sake of having an argument. The 3 of you present the bible to be something disputable by grade 5 academics, you call your arguments as "God's word" just to make you feel that your bad arguments have credibility.

 

[Archivist]

Wow. So the folks who were inspired of God that said it entered through one real man cannot be believed!? It got here some other unknown way!?

Where did I say that sin didn't enter the world through one man? Show me those words please. I said that we don't know.

 

[trophy33]

You realize God spoke to Moses, right, and knew all about Hebrew?

I was talking about historical "Adam" - Adam was not his name, because its a Hebrew word.

Now you can answer a few questions.

If there was no real man named Adam, who was formed directly by God from the dust of the earth, then how did sin get in the world. The bible says it came through him.

Adam was real, even though his name was probably different.

For his representative priestly role its not needed to be from literal dust. As Bible says, men are animals and our body is animal body, so evolution is true.

 

[trophy33]

Because the bible explained it..you denied it..so, what really happened?

No, I just do not buy literal uneducated reading of the ancient text from people who are not willing to learn about the literature of those times and think its written to them.

The question of Gen is not "what really, technically, scientifically happened", but "what is the meaning, how can we see ourselves in this world".

Genesis is not a house story (how the roof was built, how electricity was brought in, what material are walls from...) but a home story (how we live in it, what is our position in it, what is the purpose of the building for us).

 

[The Barbarian]

Archivist said: ↑
But I'm a believer in the Bible and in the God of the Bible. I just don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis.

Neither did the serpent.

You got that backwards. The serpent was a Biblical literalist. God tells Adam that he'll die the day he eats from the tree. The serpent tells Eve; "no, you won't die, you'll become like God."

So they eat from the tree, and become like God. And they don't die physically. They die spiritually. Like many YECs, the serpent lied by telling part of the truth. Because the serpent is a Biblical literalist.

 

[-57]

If God used atoms, why not simply say so? If God used DNA, why not simply say so? You still don't get it. You're ignoring what He's telling you, and put out because He didn't write a treatise in biology.

Well, God did say He used dirt.

Why didn't He say he used animals?

 

[-57]

No, I just do not buy literal uneducated reading of the ancient text from people who are not willing to learn about the literature of those times and think its written to them.

The question of Gen is not "what really, technically, scientifically happened", but "what is the meaning, how can we see ourselves in this world".

Genesis is not a house story (how the roof was built, how electricity was brought in, what material are walls from...) but a home story (how we live in it, what is our position in it, what is the purpose of the building for us).

Genesis answers the question..you say it didn't happen that way and when asked to explain why we sin...YOU STLL RUN AWAY.

Feel free to answer here.

 

[-57]

You got that backwards. The serpent was a Biblical literalist. God tells Adam that he'll die the day he eats from the tree. The serpent tells Eve; "no, you won't die, you'll become like God."

So they eat from the tree, and become like God. And they don't die physically. They die spiritually. Like many YECs, the serpent lied by telling part of the truth. Because the serpent is a Biblical literalist.

Or perhaps the innocent animal that's skin was made into garments covered their death.

 

[-57]

Yes, sin entered to world. We don't know exactly how, but it did. That is part of the Genesis allegory.

And there lies the problem and the reason to throw Theo-Evoism in the trash heap.

The Bible tells you how and the Theo-Evo sect must filter the Bible through the false religion of Evolutionism...losing the reason.

Real christianity tells us it was disobedience. Theo-Evoism tells us it was a natural cause, perhaps sin mutation.

Feel free to reply here.

 

[The Barbarian]

Or perhaps the innocent animal that's skin was made into garments covered their death.

Or maybe you should just accept Genesis as it is. Then you wouldn't need to invent new doctrines to cover for the problems with your old doctrines.

 

[Archivist]

And there lies the problem and the reason to throw Theo-Evoism in the trash heap.

You go right ahead and think that.

The Bible tells you how and the Theo-Evo sect must filter the Bible through the false religion of Evolutionism...losing the reason. Real christianity tells us it was disobedience. Theo-Evoism tells us it was a natural cause, perhaps sin mutation.

Ah, so now I believe in a false religion.

 

[-57]

You go right ahead and think that.



Ah, so now I believe in a false religion.

Partially false. Too many verses that need to be changed or removed for Theo-evoism to work.

The funny thing is the way you justify with doing away with original sin and the human sin nature. The can't explain why people sin.

 

[-57]

Or maybe you should just accept Genesis as it is. Then you wouldn't need to invent new doctrines to cover for the problems with your old doctrines.

I would ask such as....but then we'd be off topic.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Or maybe you should just accept Genesis as it is. Then you wouldn't need to invent new doctrines to cover for the problems with your old doctrines.

I would ask such as....

Stuff like this:

Or perhaps the innocent animal that's skin was made into garments covered their death.

If you have to invent new stories to patch up problems with your old stories, maybe you'd be better off just believing scripture as it is.

 

[Cis.jd]

Ah, so now I believe in a false religion.

It blows my mind that regardless of the evidence being provided, it is the ones who provide no academical support and don't even know simple things such as "metaphors" pointing fingers on "false religion". You'd think an ounce of common sense would would creep in their line of reasoning.

 

[Archivist]

Partially false. Too many verses that need to be changed or removed for Theo-evoism to work.

The funny thing is the way you justify with doing away with original sin and the human sin nature. The can't explain why people sin.

Please show me exactly where I justified doing away with "the human sin nature." Show me those words, please.

 

[-57]

You'd think an ounce of common sense would would creep in their line of reasoning.

So, if you believe in a literal Genesis you have no common sense.

Well, looks like Cis.jd has to resort to ad-hom attacks.

 

[-57]

Please show me exactly where I justified doing away with "the human sin nature." Show me those words, please.

Your claim is Gen 3 didn't happen. Gen 3 tells how we got our sin nature. But, if it didn't happen, you know not literal then you justified doing away with how and why we received a sin nature.

Now if you would like to explain how....now's your chance

 

[Archivist]

Your claim is Gen 3 didn't happen. Gen 3 tells how we got our sin nature. But, if it didn't happen, you know not literal then you justified doing away with how and why we received a sin nature.

Now if you would like to explain how....now's your chance

I’ve already answered that question. Try reading the thread.

 

[-57]

I’ve already answered that question. Try reading the thread.

Could you repeat it? I must have easily refuted it or missed it. 722 post is a lot to go through.