Continued...
You're a clever one.
You're welcome 
Very true. I heard that one verse can have three different meanings...although they will never conflict with each other.
Is it that they never conflict, or that you exclude interpretations do? We don't take being carried on eagles' wing literally after all, though the literal interpretation is one possible way to interpret the verse, it is not what was meant.
Are you being purposefully obtuse my very clever friend or just joshing?
Purposely clever? But seriously the bible does not describe Moses writing Genesis, it does not even describe Moses writing Exodus to Deuteronomy but it does describe him writing some of the documents Exodus to Deuteronomy were composed from.
Okay, okay, okay (Joe Pesci)
"
These" refers to the first two chapters of Genesis.
That's the kind of thing I mean
But is it usual to put a title like that right in the middle of an account? Wouldn't the start of an account, or the end of one be a more normal? In other words you have read all of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and it tells you this is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth. Alternatively as you are just about to start the story of the garden, it tells you this is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth.
The same arguments carry over. God is the Great Creator...not the Great Evolver:
Create ~ to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
Evolve ~ to come forth gradually
Who say create means instantaneous? The smith God created took nine months to be born, through ordinary natural processes at that, and years of infancy, childhood, then training in his father's forge before he became the smith God was creating him to be. The Ammonite nation God created took many generations as the family grew in number, through normal biological processes, in the land east of the Jordan river where God created the nation. Of course each new nation God creates and each individual is a unique creation.
For that reason I asked you to forget any interpretation and simply read what is there. Evolution is absent. You would have to place YOUR interpretation there for it to be a fact. My interpretation is based on Scripture...evolution isn't.
How many time do I have to tell you evolution is not in scripture and more than a round earth or heliocentrism. Doesn't mean they are wrong. You can read Gen 1&2 as often as you like and it says nothing about the earth not being 4.5 billion years old or life evolving. It is only when people read it and try to understand what it means, work out it implications and decide what part to take literally and what part not, and decide how the two chapter fit together even though they describe creation happening in two different sequences. It is only when they have done that, when they work out a literal interpretation that they start to claim it contradicts evolution. But like the flat earthers and geocentrists before them, when their interpretation is contradicted by the real world God created, we have to abandon their interpretation, even if they don't realise they are interpreting scripture, and we have to find a better way to understand the text.
Just because you think you don't interpret Genesis doesn't mean you aren't.
It would not be my understanding He needed to correct but what He wrote that He needed to correct should evolution be true.
No just your understanding of what he wrote, just like it was the understanding of the geocentrists that need to be correct not what is written in scripture.
If it is written that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years then...it is literally just that to Him. Christ is literally the tree of life. Does He look like a tree, grow like a tree...No, but He is still our Tree of Life.
If Jesus doesn't look like a tree then he isn't a literal tree of life. He can be described metaphorically as the tree of life, but it is a metaphor not literal.
I'm not switching...I'm
enhancing, bolstering, adding, building upon.
We have looked at all of the arguments that Genesis contradicts evolution, and none of them stand up, each time you have try to support the argument by reverting to some of the other arguments that haven't held up when we looked at them. You cannot bolster an argument with other arguments that don't hold up. There is nothing in Genesis that says God could not have used evolution.
Because it is a very profound question...requiring three question marks?
He is
the fallen angel of all fallen angels. Are angels born of woman (
and don't bring up The Omen)? As for "
life before the womb:"
Romans 11:2 God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
We are His elect...why? Why were we called and chosen?
How does foreknowledge imply preexistence? If they already existed when God first knew them, it wouldn't be foreknowledge.
Why dost thou continue to say
switching when it is but further explanation?
.
Because each time I show an argument doesn't work you go to a different argument instead, you switch arguments. These are not arguments that explain the argument we have been looking at, but
different reasons you think evolution is wrong. Even if the argument you switch to worked and really did contradict evolution, it would not mean the original argument was valid. Switching to a good argument to defend a bad one does not make the bad argument work, you would still just have one good argument. But none of the argumetns you use hold up when we look at them. You need to keep switching to other arguments that don't work. Why would you need to keep switching arguments if you had a good case or if Genesis really did contradict evolution?
Assyrian:
Oh, so you liked the cannibal reference?
I thought it was rather clever myself. One would only have to worry about consuming plants and animals if one was a plant or animal. Steak and potatoes anyone?
Oh it is not just common ancestry that makes people worry about eating animals, the fact they are alive is a biggie too. But just because you realise you are related to other animals, it doesn't mean you have to have the same relationship with them as you have to your own species.
Oh wait...It does have legs, you just had your dark shades on and couldn't see them.
What's wrong with my sunglasses? But you need to
show that the dominion argument works, and you haven't come up with a good scriptural basis yet. Remember you are try to show from scripture that evolution is wrong, the fact that you simply like the dominion argument isn't a scriptural argument
I'm glad you like it...the truth is always agreeable. What is written is, or should be, easy to accept and this is written.
I don't think the bible mentions gap theory anywhere.
Unless you're in a hurry but then you can miss so much on those interstates.
Now I could reply to these one liners, but really these posts are too long already
Ideas or written truths? It is a good thing to have back-up in His Word.
Then they didn't understand what is written.
Thats a new one to me.
Start a thread on the gap theory...
That is what must be determined.
The very words
creation and
evolution show the vast difference.
So are the word creation and birth, yet all the nation of the Ammonites God created were born to their mothers and fathers. If God can use human biological reproduction to create people and nations he can use biological evolution to created species.
The creation...is written. Evolution is not.
Creation is written about in the bible, but evolution only contradicts your understanding of what is written, your interpretation of the creation accounts, not the creation accounts themselves.
Another good one. But, they walked under His power, His wings.
Walked.
So God being a potter and making me from clay is literal too? My mother and father lied to me about all that biology stuff? Please come up with a reason why God using the potter as a metaphor for making Adam contradicts God using evolution. Don't just claim that it does. I have said before it is not a metaphor for evolution, it is a metaphor for God making us. But that doesn't mean God didn't use evolution.
He created man before Adam and the time of Adam's formation until today is written. There has been no physical evolving of the Adamic line from one species to another.
You are still just claiming evolution didn't happen, you need to show there is a contradiction between evolution and God using the potter metaphor.
To say one is misunderstanding creation, when that is written, and should replace it with evolution, when it is not written...is a misunderstanding on it's own.
You misunderstanding isn't written.
There is no wasted papyrus. There are lessons to be learned, including in the ones you referenced. I give up on the genealogy Assyrian. To me it is as I see it but to you it isn't. We'll have to disagree.
At least we can save a few pixels when we drop the topic.
So, only mathematicians were to read the Bible?
No but they might be able to describe a circle better than your friends.
He didn't write....Let us evolve man in our image from the animals already evolving.
And that doesn't answer my point. you keep claim you are not interpreting Genesis but you cannot support your claim.
Well, that's asking a bit much...isn't it?
Sadly.
What we choose as the seventh, the abomination, isn't the point. Rather, it is that there are seven things listed, two of which are SEPARATE...false witness and a lying tongue.
If false witness and speaking lies are two things then that is a list of eight, not seven.
The discussion isn't about the Ammonites but about where they shall be judged.
Actually it is a discussion about when the Ammonites were created. God says where they will be judged in the land of their origin and says this where they were created. The land of their origin, also translated in other passages 'land of their nativity' or 'land of their habitation' refer to the kingdom of Ammon. If this is where God created them, as Ezekiel tells us, then God creating the Ammonites refer to how the nation grew from a small family living to the east of the Jordan river around where the city of Amman is now.
No it doesn't. Nativity is where they were born...not created. They, as we, shall be judged where we were created.
Ezekiel says where the Ammonite was born is where God created them.
