You refuse to accept the Facts of Science, Scripture and History. I suppose the only thing you would accept is for me to AGREE with your unsupportable ideas. Amen?
Upvote
0
-
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.
First born
- Thread starter tevans9129
- Start date
You refuse to accept the Facts of Science, Scripture and History. I suppose the only thing you would accept is for me to AGREE with your unsupportable ideas. Amen?
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Wrong again. You cannot find a "fact" that I do not accept. The Bible is rather lacking in them.
And why do you keep making obviously false claims? Oh wait, you are going to deny making a claim again.
Upvote
0
lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote
0
Here are facts from Genesis One which you do not accept:
1. We live in a Multiverse with at least 3 Universes/Heavens. Gen 1:8 and Gen 2:4
2. Adam was made the 3rd Day, making it impossible that he could have Evolved from ANY other creature. Gen 2:4-9
3. The combination of the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Humans is the reason for the more than 7 billion Humans (descendants of Adam) alive today. Gen 6:4
These facts come from God Himself and are the BEST and ONLY evidence available. No ancient man could have possibly understood, but the Christians of the last days can. If you don't like these facts, then TRY to refute them. I know in advance that you CANNOT, not with today's science. Amen?
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 39,667
- 29,280
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Agreement with Scripture? Negative. When reading your posts it's evident that your ideas tend to come from no where, and you engage in wild bouts of eisegesis.
Agreement with science? Negative. You don't get to claim agreement with science when you are constantly assaulting and attacking science and the foundations of science.
Agreement with history? You mean natural history? Well that's a negative. What history exactly? Certainly not Christian history, since your ideas are entirely alien from the historic teaching of the Church.
Your claim is that you have special insight based on Daniel ch. 12 which says that things are sealed until the end; from which you claim that you have insight because this is the end and it is revealed to you--you provide nothing by which to demonstrate this claim, you merely assert it.
I'll note that this is also the same claim that Harold Camping used to predict that the rapture would be in 1994, and then in 2011. Guess what didn't happen in 1994 or 2011? But, oh, I know, you're different; unlike Camping you actually "believe the Bible" and you're "just saying what the Bible says".
It is all just a very religious-sounding way to claim authority for one's own opinions without having to actually do any kind of serious mental effort--it is a self-satisfying ego-driven hubris and nothing more.
So no, not a false accusation.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 39,667
- 29,280
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Genesis 1:8 and Genesis 2:4 don't mention 3 universe, multiverses, etc. So false.
Genesis 2 doesn't mention what day Adam was made because it doesn't use the days of the week framework from the previous chapter. The only mention of days occurs in Genesis ch. 1, and human beings are created on the sixth day.
So, again, you're just making something up here.
Your claim that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6 are some prehistoric people is here mere and baseless conjecture.
These came from you, and you are not God; neither are they facts. So doubly wrong on this point. The eisegesis and wild conjectures of Aman777 are not equivalent to divine truth.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, that is merely your very convolution interpretation of Genesis which you cannot justify.
Strike one.
And we know that is not the case.
Strike two.
And another personal interpretation of Genesis that you can't support.
Strike three. your'e out of here.
Nope, no facts there at all. But thanks for playing.
Upvote
0
No, the Gospel according to God's Holy Word in total agreement with every discovery of mankind. Here's what the LORD, Himself, told Daniel.
Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
IOW, At the time of the end, knowledge shall be increased, like it has since the internet became available to almost everyone. This knowledge will allow Christians who understand the Scientific and Historic Truth, which agrees with Genesis, to understand that this knowledge was placed in Genesis to ALERT them that the end time is now at hand. Amen?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Comment: the bible never mentions these "prehistoric non-human bipedal apes" that you claim the descendants of Noah eventually had children with. While there is genetic evidence of some cross breeding between our species and, if I recall correctly, 2 other closely related species, it is notable that our entire species doesn't carry genes from either of them. Thus, this interbreeding was regional and never spread to the entire human population. Furthermore, at least with Neanderthals, even the people that do carry some fraction of their DNA in their cells don't share any mitochondrial DNA with them, meaning that female children of this hybridization were probably infertile, or a male of our species couldn't impregnate a female Neanderthal at all.
That is, from a genetic perspective, what we know of these "prehistoric peoples" would make it impossible for Noah to have preserved his lineage through them. If that were the case, then all modern humans would have traces of "prehistoric people lineage" in them.
And I know what you may be thinking, "well obviously, the prehistoric peoples through which Noah's lineage continued were neither of those species and since we all have the DNA of that prehistoric people within us, we'd recognize it as exclusively human".
If you are confident in that, then name how long ago you think Noah's flood occurred.
Upvote
0
Sure they do. Gen 1:6-8 tells us that God the Trinity made the first Heaven, the firmament of Adam, on the SECOND Day.
Gen 2:4 tells us that Lord God/YHWH made other HeavenS (Plural) on the next Day, the THIRD Day, the SAME Day the Adam's Earth was made according to Genesis 1:10
IOW, The Trinity made one Heaven and YHWH/Jesus made the others on different Days. Amen?
*** Genesis 2 doesn't mention what day Adam was made because it doesn't use the days of the week framework from the previous chapter. The only mention of days occurs in Genesis ch. 1, and human beings are created on the sixth day.
So, again, you're just making something up here.
False, since Adam was formed on the THIRD Day before the plants, herbs, rain and before the Trees Grew Gen 2:4-9 by Lord God/Jesus. Adam was "created in God's Image" or born again Spiritually in Christ, on the present 6th Day by the Trinity (God). Gen 1:27 AND Gen 5:1-2
*** Genesis 6 are some prehistoric people is here mere and baseless conjecture.
Then tell us WHO they are in your opinion.
Aman:>>These facts come from God Himself
*** These came from you, and you are not God; neither are they facts. So doubly wrong on this point. The eisegesis and wild conjectures of Aman777 are not equivalent to divine truth.
Then refute them IF you think you can. Please cite the agreement of Scripture, Science and History or I will be forced to show that your's is but a half-truth. God Bless you
Upvote
0
lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote
0
Not so fast there Ump. Here is empirical evidence, discovered this year by Science:
www.foxnews.com/tech/.../scientists-may-have-found-evidence-parallel-universe.html
It's evidence that even Trump would agree with. I noticed that you had NO evidence to present. Just the usual disagreement, supported by nothing.
****And we know that is not the case.
Strike two.
Show us your better evidence ole friend. I don't think you can BUT I can:
Adam was "formed" of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day/Age his Earth was made. Gen 1:10 Adam was made BEFORE the plants, herbs and rain Gen 2:4-7 and before the Trees grew. Gen 2:8-9
*** And another personal interpretation of Genesis that you can't support.
Strike three. your'e out of here.
Only according to the willingly ignorant, according to ll Peter 3:3-7
*** Nope, no facts there at all. But thanks for playing.
Then you must THINK that you know more than God, even WITHOUT any evidence of your own to present. Have you ever heard of such arrogance? Yes, brother Trump practices it daily and so does Lucifer. Amen?
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 39,667
- 29,280
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Genesis 1:6-8 reads: "And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day."
Nothing there about a "first heaven" at all.
Genesis 2:4 reads: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,"
No mention of "the next day" here; "in the day the Lord God made the heavens and the earth" introduces us to the second creation story, it is a separate story from the first story.
This seems like a somewhat bad place for verse divisions as the first statement likely refers still to the previous story, while the second introduces us to the second story. The chapter/verse divisions, keep in mind, are very recent additions to the Bible; chapter divisions were added in the 13th century, while verse divisions of chapters were added in the 16th century. These are great for easy referencing, but they have the unfortunate side effect of breaking up continuous thoughts or, in this case, combining two thoughts as one.
Genesis 1:10 reads: "God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good." makes no mention of heavens or of Adam.
It doesn't say Adam was formed on the third day, that's you introducing a foreign idea into the text. Genesis 2 doesn't mention the days of the week, it describes everything occurring all on one day, "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,"
The two chief hypotheses is that these are either angels or regular human beings (of the line of Seth vs the line of Cain who are the "sons of men"); both ideas are expressed in ancient Jewish and Christian literature and commentary; with the angel theory largely being found in the Enochian literature of the 2nd Temple Period, while the the lineage of Seth hypothesis is the one shared chiefly among both the ancient fathers of the Church and the Jewish sages.
Ultimately we don't know because the text doesn't bother to tell us. Personally I reject the angel hypothesis and am favorable toward the Seth/Cain interpretation--but, again, we don't know.
Already have, twice now in fact.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 39,667
- 29,280
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Seeing as you reject science this whole "Christians who understand the Scientific and Historic Truth" statement is self-defeating. Or at the very least it excludes you.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
I would like to clarify that I accepted a long time ago that you're going to persistently have different views on this matter from myself. At this point, I find your views to be an enjoyable deviation from the norm.
-_- however, we both know that you view that the "heat death" of the universe will occur much faster than mainstream scientific measurements would conclude. That is, you have said that this "heat death" will occur at some point during the 7th "day", with each "day" being 4.5 billion years. This would mean that, from your perspective, the universe will perish by the time it is 31.5 billion years old. Written in scientific notation, that is 3.15 x 10^10. However, by the standards of mainstream science, the heat death of the universe will not occur for at least 10^100 years; much farther in the future than you would suggest.
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 39,667
- 29,280
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
And you, Aman777, being unique have this truth and understanding--which every other Christian does not; which, then no doubt, means that we aren't real Christians.
The desire to feel like one is a very special part of a very select group is a natural human tendency--we all want to feel like we're very special. But in Christian teaching we are taught that pride is a vice to be avoided, and we aren't to seek after glory or privilege.
The thing about God's grace is that He is gracious toward everyone; His love is poured out on all through Christ who died for all; thus the Christian is not a special person who has some special place apart from "all those sinners"; on the contrary the Christian is to be reminded that s/he is is a sinner beloved of God; a sinner who must daily drown themselves in repentance, beloved of God therefore finding our strength in His love and mercy to then live out our faith in love toward our neighbor. We are simul iustus et peccator; at once both saints and sinners; justified freely by God's grace on Christ's account alone apart from ourselves,, and nevertheless still sinners who through our own power have no righteousness of ourselves and therefore have no occasion to boast. Our election in Christ is not because we are special or specially beloved of God; it is because of the God who freely comes down to us in grace and love, in Christ, and offers Himself, taking us to Himself. "Therefore may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" says St. Paul. Ours is not glory, instead we are a people called to give glory to God alone, from whom alone is our hope, salvation, and indeed the salvation of the whole world. Ours isn't glory, but the cross.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
Sure it does. Gen 1:21 shows that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from water on the 5th Day, which was 3.77 Billion years ago, in man's time. Science agrees that all life came from water. www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-...
We also know that prehistoric people walked upright, descended from water, and left their bones all over our Earth for millions of years, therefore they "moveth". Also, they were made of flesh like that of Adam's descendants after his fall.
*** While there is genetic evidence of some cross breeding between our species and, if I recall correctly, 2 other closely related species, it is notable that our entire species doesn't carry genes from either of them. Thus, this interbreeding was regional and never spread to the entire human population.
Sure it did...from Babel. Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Only the LORD had a method of transportation 10k years ago. It's WHY Human Farming began all over our planet at the same time. It's proof of God.
*** Furthermore, at least with Neanderthals, even the people that do carry some fraction of their DNA in their cells don't share any mitochondrial DNA with them, meaning that female children of this hybridization were probably infertile, or a male of our species couldn't impregnate a female Neanderthal at all.
Noah's grandsons had no problem at all, otherwise Cush and a prehistoric woman could never have had Nimrod, the builder of Babel. Gen 10:8
*** That is, from a genetic perspective, what we know of these "prehistoric peoples" would make it impossible for Noah to have preserved his lineage through them. If that were the case, then all modern humans would have traces of "prehistoric people lineage" in them.
Amen. We do have the DNA of prehistoric people within us. Ever heard of Mitochondrial Eve, who lived long BEFORE the Ark arrived 11k years ago?
*** And I know what you may be thinking, "well obviously, the prehistoric peoples through which Noah's lineage continued were neither of those species and since we all have the DNA of that prehistoric people within us, we'd recognize it as exclusively human".
That's the mistake today's Science makes. They cannot tell us How or When we changed from prehistoric people, who descended from Apes, into modern Humans..BUT History does. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE
*** If you are confident in that, then name how long ago you think Noah's flood occurred.
According to the History of the Fertile Crescent, where Babel was built, the FIRST Human farming, city building, and every other trait of modern Humans (descendants of Adam) first appeared in the mountains of Ararat, 11k years ago. God Bless you
Upvote
0
lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
According to you no theologian or biblical scholar can either. You alone are the enlightened one.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
