-
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
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
I know the bible says that, but put it into perspective: to non-Christians, this is an empty claim made by a book with no holy significance. It'd be like a poet that says anyone that doesn't like their poetry "just doesn't understand it".
It's especially annoying, because even under conditions where the claim is false, it is impossible for believers and nonbelievers alike to disprove it entirely. This is because NO ONE interprets the text exactly the same, so any believer can latch onto the differences, no matter how minor, as examples of how a nonbeliever "doesn't understand the true meaning". Believers can't demonstrate it because they aren't subject to the claim, and even believers demonstrably not understanding the text has no relevance to said claim. The claim being that only believers are capable of understanding the text, not that all believers automatically do. Even former believers that became nonbelievers can thus be stated to have "never truly understood the bible in the first place".
-_- why do you even bother to bring up that part in the bible, when I am pretty sure that the number of people that interpret the bible the same as you do is fewer than the number of fingers and toes you have?
Additionally, have I ever shown an inability to understand what you claim the bible says?
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,842
- 7,864
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
It is worth noting that "renormalization" is a specific mathematical approach for dealing with integrals that yield infinite values. It is not an approach used in evolutionary biology.
Upvote
0
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,338
- 1,559
- 77
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Another simple question. Do you understand how the theory of gravitation provides compelling evidence for the existence of the Oort cloud of comets?
Upvote
0
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,338
- 1,559
- 77
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
I have presented evidence many times. You are just going over arguments that you lost a long time ago once again, there is no need to post evidence again. And your link does not work. And even if it did that is not evidence for your claims. You need to learn what is and what is not evidence.
Sorry, but the book of Genesis is not reliable evidence. That is what is being. When you post something new then you can demand evidence. Until you do I have already refuted your claims countless times.
That does not help you since you are the willfully ignorant one here. Please note that I have offered to help you many times over. Your prefer ignorance.
Wrong again. You are making the mistake of thinking that the Bible is the "word of God". That is highly blasphemous since you are claiming that God is incompetent. You may not be able to understand this, but people that can reason will see how that is what you are doing.[/quote]
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- I meant that the bible never says that Noahs children or grandchildren specifically had to settle for "prehistoric peoples". As in, it never mentions these "prehistoric peoples" via a specific label.
XD that there are bones in multiple places is not how we know they walked. Plenty of organisms that can't move have gametes that can or utilize organisms which can move to spread. Like those weeds that produce burrs that latch onto furry animals.
Also, what of animals that can't move? Their origin?
This just means, from a Genesis standpoint, at the time the tower of Babel was built, all humans spoke the same language and lived relatively close together.
However, this directly conflicts with the HISTORICAL reasons humans spread all over the world. That is, as a result of population growth, resources within the area humans had lived for generations were becoming scarce, so groups of people had to leave, least they starved to death.
-_- boats existed well over 10 thousand years ago. Also, walking is a method of transportation. Plus, farming didn't start in all human inhabited areas 10 thousand years ago. New Guinea has agriculture starting more than 2 thousand years later than Syria, for example, and by your time scale for the flood, China's agriculture could predate Noah's arrival. I literally just looked up "history of agriculture" to find this out. It took me less than 5 minutes to know that history doesn't agree with your claim.
Again, the woman Cush had a child with is not named or labeled as a "prehistoric woman". Given how specific the bible tends to be on racial lineage, it's inexcusable to not mention that these people had to have children with an entirely different species.
Also, hence my point that your interpretation of the bible is conflicting with science. Science states that humanity couldn't have persisted via interbreeding with "prehistoric peoples". You claim that humanity could and did persist, regardless of the genetic studies that conflict with your idea. People from Africa don't even have traces of DNA from "prehistoric people" in their cells. Your claim demands that ALL modern humans have this DNA.
Currently, the estimate is between 99-148 thousand years ago. It is the most RECENT human female all modern humans share ancestry with. Y chromosome Adam, the most RECENT human male all modern humans share ancestry with lived between 200-300 thousand years ago. These are estimates derived from measuring human DNA in a multitude of regions, and utilizing the rate of human mutation to determine how long it would take for the built up deviations to occur. We don't actually have the DNA of these individuals. Furthermore, as groups of people die, the placement of either can change.
They frankly have no relevance to the bible other than the fact that they have the symbolic names of Adam and Eve.
-_- prehistoric is just a term for "before written history". A prehistoric human and a modern human are the same species. That's why I put "prehistoric peoples" in quotes.
As for the origin of human intelligence, we aren't special. Our brains work in the same basic way as a chimp, just larger and with certain parts more developed. There is nothing mystical or impossible to explain about human intelligence.
The oldest human DNA we have is 45,000 years old. Now, because you believe that Adam and all his descendants lived independent from our planet prior to the flood, you can't claim that this DNA came from there. It wasn't found anywhere near Ararat, so it couldn't be from a dead body that came out of "Adam's world". Even if you want to push that it did, this DNA already contained traces of Neanderthal DNA, and I know you don't believe that Neanderthals lived in "Adam's world" prior to the flood.
So, how do you explain recognizably human DNA from 45 thousand years ago that already had traces of Neanderthal DNA in it? This is the oldest DNA we could get a complete genome from, mind you, not bits and pieces.
Upvote
0
lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
If they are trying to purvey some unholy concoction of science and theology, they have already taken leave of both.
Upvote
0
↑
Aman:>>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 THIRDDay, the SAME Day the Adam's Earth was made according to Genesis 1:10
*** 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.
Then show us a Heaven which was made before the first heaven on the 2nd Day. Your confusion is probably because you have incorrectly called the dome sky. Huh?
*** 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.
False. Who is Lord God? What Day did the Lord God make other heavenS. Your confusion is growing.
*** 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.
Total confusion caused by trying to uphold ancient theology. There is ONLY one story of the creation but you seem to think there are two.
*** 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.
Did God just make the first Earth to be uninhabited? Of course not since the FIRST living thing He made was Adam. Gen 2:4-9 Adam was made BEFORE the plants, herbs, rain and Trees.
*** 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.
Aman:>>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
Click to expand...
*** 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 first Earth was made the 3rd Day. Gen 1:10 Also on that Day Lord God/Jesus made other Heavens to go with the FIRST Heaven made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8
*** Genesis 6 are some prehistoric people is here mere and baseless conjecture.
Then tell us WHO they are in your opinion.
*** 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.
The sons of God are prehistoric people who were created and brought forth from WATER on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Science agrees and so does the DNA inside today's Humans. Jesus told us Angels don't marry Mat 22:30 and are NOT made of flesh since they could not enter heaven. 1Co 15:50 Also, they are in chains under darkness until Judgment. Jde 1:6 Who did Cain AND Noah's grandsons marry? Read Gen 6:1-4
***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.
Correction: The Christians of the last days know because of the increased knowledge of Science which AGREES with God's Holy Word IF you have the proper interpretation.
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.
Aman:>>Then refute them IF you think you can.
***Already have, twice now in fact.
Where? When? Listing the ancient theology of men who God tells us could NOT understand Scripture is NOT a refute. Where is your Scriptural proof? I don't see anything but false judgment of someone who lists supporting Scripture which you CANNOT refute (prove wrong). Try again? God Bless you
Aman:>>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 THIRDDay, the SAME Day the Adam's Earth was made according to Genesis 1:10
*** 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.
Then show us a Heaven which was made before the first heaven on the 2nd Day. Your confusion is probably because you have incorrectly called the dome sky. Huh?
*** 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.
False. Who is Lord God? What Day did the Lord God make other heavenS. Your confusion is growing.
*** 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.
Total confusion caused by trying to uphold ancient theology. There is ONLY one story of the creation but you seem to think there are two.
*** 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.
Did God just make the first Earth to be uninhabited? Of course not since the FIRST living thing He made was Adam. Gen 2:4-9 Adam was made BEFORE the plants, herbs, rain and Trees.
*** 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.
Aman:>>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
Click to expand...
*** 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 first Earth was made the 3rd Day. Gen 1:10 Also on that Day Lord God/Jesus made other Heavens to go with the FIRST Heaven made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8
*** Genesis 6 are some prehistoric people is here mere and baseless conjecture.
Then tell us WHO they are in your opinion.
*** 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.
The sons of God are prehistoric people who were created and brought forth from WATER on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Science agrees and so does the DNA inside today's Humans. Jesus told us Angels don't marry Mat 22:30 and are NOT made of flesh since they could not enter heaven. 1Co 15:50 Also, they are in chains under darkness until Judgment. Jde 1:6 Who did Cain AND Noah's grandsons marry? Read Gen 6:1-4
***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.
Correction: The Christians of the last days know because of the increased knowledge of Science which AGREES with God's Holy Word IF you have the proper interpretation.
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.
Aman:>>Then refute them IF you think you can.
***Already have, twice now in fact.
Where? When? Listing the ancient theology of men who God tells us could NOT understand Scripture is NOT a refute. Where is your Scriptural proof? I don't see anything but false judgment of someone who lists supporting Scripture which you CANNOT refute (prove wrong). Try again? God Bless you
Upvote
0
Who else could they marry and have children with since there were NO other Humans for Noah's grandsons to marry when the Ark arrived? Like Cain, on Adam's Earth, they married and had children with the prehistoric people who descended from Water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Science AGREES and the bones of these people are found all over our Earth for Millions of years BEFORE the Ark arrived, 11,000 years ago...and they could have children with Humans (descendants of Adam). Gen 6:1-4
*** XD that there are bones in multiple places is not how we know they walked. Plenty of organisms that can't move have gametes that can or utilize organisms which can move to spread. Like those weeds that produce burrs that latch onto furry animals.
Also, what of animals that can't move? Their origin?
Every living creature on planet Earth came from L.U.C.A. or the Last universal common ancestor, which was created from Water exactly as Gen 1:21 states. It's proof of God since no man who lived 3k years ago could have gotten that one so scientifically correct.
*** This just means, from a Genesis standpoint, at the time the tower of Babel was built, all humans spoke the same language and lived relatively close together.
Noah's descendants were Humans and they did NOT want to be scattered among the prehistoric people all over the Earth...BUT...the Lord knew it was the correct way to produce the 7.4 Billion Humans alive today so:
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 (Noah's descendants) abroad upon the face of all the earth.
That is another proof of God since Human farming began all over the Earth about the SAME time. ONLY God had a transportation system which could accomplish this 10k years ago. He mixed Humans with prehistoric people. Gen 6:4
*** However, this directly conflicts with the HISTORICAL reasons humans spread all over the world. That is, as a result of population growth, resources within the area humans had lived for generations were becoming scarce, so groups of people had to leave, least they starved to death.
Sure, but it took them thousands of years whereas the Lord scattered Humanity all over the Earth, including Australia, at about the same time. After Noah's descendants mixed with prehistoric people, they learned to grow food and settle down. Adam farmed with NO evolution.
*** -_- boats existed well over 10 thousand years ago. Also, walking is a method of transportation. Plus, farming didn't start in all human inhabited areas 10 thousand years ago. New Guinea has agriculture starting more than 2 thousand years later than Syria, for example, and by your time scale for the flood, China's agriculture could predate Noah's arrival. I literally just looked up "history of agriculture" to find this out. It took me less than 5 minutes to know that history doesn't agree with your claim.
History calls the area SW of Lake Van, Turkey, the Cradle of Civilization on this Earth. Farming, city building and EVERY other trait of modern Humans came from the Fertile Crescent which began in Northern Mesopotamia, the land between the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Others CLAIM to be first but the consensus AGREES with Genesis.
***Again, the woman Cush had a child with is not named or labeled as a "prehistoric woman". Given how specific the bible tends to be on racial lineage, it's inexcusable to not mention that these people had to have children with an entirely different species.
Not so, since they were made for each other. His kinds (Jesus) and Their kinds (Trinity) CAN have children together as Gen 6:1-4 states. Another scientific proof of the Literal God.
*** Also, hence my point that your interpretation of the bible is conflicting with science. Science states that humanity couldn't have persisted via interbreeding with "prehistoric peoples". You claim that humanity could and did persist, regardless of the genetic studies that conflict with your idea. People from Africa don't even have traces of DNA from "prehistoric people" in their cells. Your claim demands that ALL modern humans have this DNA.
Some falsely accuse me of being a racist unless I agree that ALL people on planet Earth today are Humans (descendants of Adam). I know of NO prehistoric people alive on planet Earth today, so I agree. ALL Humans today are a combination of His Jesus kinds (Humans) and Their kinds (prehistoric people) who came from Water.
*** Currently, the estimate is between 99-148 thousand years ago. It is the most RECENT human female all modern humans share ancestry with. Y chromosome Adam, the most RECENT human male all modern humans share ancestry with lived between 200-300 thousand years ago. These are estimates derived from measuring human DNA in a multitude of regions, and utilizing the rate of human mutation to determine how long it would take for the built up deviations to occur. We don't actually have the DNA of these individuals. Furthermore, as groups of people die, the placement of either can change.
They frankly have no relevance to the bible other than the fact that they have the symbolic names of Adam and Eve.
I know and the sons of God (prehistoric people) are falsely classified as Humans which is totally false since NO prehistoric person descended from Adam.
***-_- prehistoric is just a term for "before written history". A prehistoric human and a modern human are the same species. That's why I put "prehistoric peoples" in quotes.
The sons of God (prehistoric people) did not have the superior intelligence Adam was made with UNTIL they married and had children with Humans (descendants of Adam). It's HOW God produced the 7.4 Billion Humans alive today.
*** As for the origin of human intelligence, we aren't special. Our brains work in the same basic way as a chimp, just larger and with certain parts more developed. There is nothing mystical or impossible to explain about human intelligence.
Not so, since NO other living creature posts since they don't have the required superior intelligence of Adam, who was made with an intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22
***The oldest human DNA we have is 45,000 years old. Now, because you believe that Adam and all his descendants lived independent from our planet prior to the flood, you can't claim that this DNA came from there. It wasn't found anywhere near Ararat, so it couldn't be from a dead body that came out of "Adam's world". Even if you want to push that it did, this DNA already contained traces of Neanderthal DNA, and I know you don't believe that Neanderthals lived in "Adam's world" prior to the flood.
So, how do you explain recognizably human DNA from 45 thousand years ago that already had traces of Neanderthal DNA in it? This is the oldest DNA we could get a complete genome from, mind you, not bits and pieces.
There were NO Humans (descendants of Adam) on this Earth until some 11k years ago, according to History AND they appeared suddenly in the mountains of Ararat exactly as God told us. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE Science, History and Scripture AGREE. God Bless you
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Sorry aman, but I really have no idea what you are saying.
Your comment strikes me as downright bizar.
I have no idea what you are talking about and I especially have no idea how it relates to the post you are responding to....
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Then it would not change the date of the rock.
It seems that you do no realize that what is measured is the amount of decay after the rock has solidified. What happens before then is not what is being discussed right now.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
