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.
So your tree rather than God's word in Genesis is to be desired to make one wise!? Interesting.
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.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!?
I was talking about historical "Adam" - Adam was not his name, because its a Hebrew word.You realize God spoke to Moses, right, and knew all about Hebrew?
Now you can answer a few questions.
Adam was real, even though his name was probably different.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.
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.Because the bible explained it..you denied it..so, what really happened?
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.
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.
Genesis answers the question..you say it didn't happen that way and when asked to explain why we sin...YOU STLL RUN AWAY.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).
Or perhaps the innocent animal that's skin was made into garments covered their death.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.
Yes, sin entered to world. We don't know exactly how, but it did. That is part of the Genesis allegory.
Or perhaps the innocent animal that's skin was made into garments covered their death.
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.
Partially false. Too many verses that need to be changed or removed for Theo-evoism to work.You go right ahead and think that.
Ah, so now I believe in a false religion.
I would ask such as....but then we'd be off topic.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....
Or perhaps the innocent animal that's skin was made into garments covered their death.
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.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.
You'd think an ounce of common sense would would creep in their line of reasoning.
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.Please show me exactly where I justified doing away with "the human sin nature." Show me those words, please.
I’ve already answered that question. Try reading the thread.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
Could you repeat it? I must have easily refuted it or missed it. 722 post is a lot to go through.I’ve already answered that question. Try reading the thread.
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?