Lines of Evidence

[EternalDragon]

What's funny about this is that this isn't even a consistent argument for you. I distinctly remember you arguing that Adam that Adam must have been about twenty because that's the age of adulthood for the Hebrews or something like that. This parrallel is a completely new thing that you've never mentioned before.

Nevermind that I can't find a single scholar on the subject that agrees with your reasoning. This is a question that's come up a lot, and most of the theologians I'm aware of agree there's no way to really know. But you seem so sure on it, I'm sure you've read the Bible better than they have. You get these amazing insights. People have been reading the Bible for centuries and never came to that conclusion, but here you are, boldly proclaiming. It would be one thing if you were just admitting this was only an idea of yours, but no, you talk about it like ti's so obvious and easy to see.

Does the bible say Jesus is the second (last) Adam? Does it say he
was around 30 years old when he received the holy ghost and started
his ministry?

Yes or no?

When is a man in his prime? Around 30 years of age? Yes or no?

Common sense and logic need to prevail here in light of what the
scriptures say.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Do you think that the Bible and/or reality must adjust itself to what you find appropriate?

Huh? You were the one who said, 'Reading Gen 1 and 2, I see no passage that shows that Adam couldn't have been created as a baby and then lived 30 years before he got married.'

I didn't disagree with you, I merely stated, 'That's perhaps a bit too liberal, even for my palette.' and searched the Scripture to see if one might extrapolate such a view.

Now to your commentary, of the 1st passage:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. NASB

And this equates to adults? How so? And surely, the level of PHYSICAL development can't be said to be in the image of God. After all, I don't see God as having gone through puberty, or having to shave his beard, or having to wash his hair.

Let's have a little context too:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam

It does seem like a more general account, of the creation of mankind -- or am I missing something? There is no deliberate emphasis on the exact age when they began to exist, or for that matter whether they were babies or not. My guess is this is a very general statement, from which one cannot extrapolate either or claims. Perhaps one of the other passages might support your idea better. I dunno, I'm not the expert exegetic.

Sidebar:
'....Medieval theologians strongly distinguished “image” and “likeness,” with “image” viewed as a reference to natural reason, and “likeness” as a reference to the original righteousness lost in the Fall. More recent scholarship notes that the two Hebrew terms are used synonymously in Scripture (v. 27; 5:1, 3; 9:6).' (from The Reformation Study Bible)

 

[Gracchus]

When is a man in his prime? Around 30 years of age? Yes or no?

That isn't a "yes or no" question. (Jesus had some things to say about lawyers.) A man is in his prime morally at about three. (Never trust anyone over 4.) He is in his prime sexually at about 16. He is in his prime physically at about 25. He is in his prime intellectually, if he is careful, industrious and lucky, at 70 or above.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Does the bible say Jesus is the second (last) Adam? Does it say he
was around 30 years old when he received the holy ghost and started
his ministry?

Yes or no?

When is a man in his prime? Around 30 years of age? Yes or no?

Common sense and logic need to prevail here in light of what the
scriptures say.

'....In a survey of adults, ages 25 to 74, participants were asked a wide variety of questions dealing with many aspects of life. The results show that those in midlife have a generally youthful outlook and a high level of happiness. ....'

New Studies Middle Age Is The Prime of Life - NY TIMES (1999) : New Study Finds Middle Age Is Prime of Life - NYTimes.com

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Lines of Evidence : Homologies : Anatomy (Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87_shPJxdns

'Hoatzin chicks have claws on their wings, as do some chickens and ostriches. This reflects the fact that bird ancestors had clawed hands.'

"ALRIGHTY THEN!" It's time to move on, with the next exciting part of our journey into Understanding Evolution, Baby!

Lines of Evidence: Homologies : Comparative Anatomy

'....Whales and hummingbirds have tetrapod skeletons inherited from a common ancestor. Their bodies have been modified and parts have been lost through natural selection, resulting in adaptation to their respective lifestyles over millions of years. On the surface, these animals look very different, but the relationship between them is easy to demonstrate. ....'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCx-nwkj8fU
Evolution : Giant Whales : BBC Science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5GfXnqcZE8
The Diversity and Evolution of Hummingbirds by Joseph Morlan

 

[bhsmte]

That is Mr. Strawberry's and your opinion, based however on the opinion of certain very liberal scholars. Anyhow. As impossible as it is to prove that any extant 'sacred' manuscripts (which we do not have) were the product of any deity (no matter how that was done), so too is it equally impossible to prove the existence of any such deities.
What prompts you to be so sure that (a) Deities exist, and (b) that the sacred writings of any such deities can be shown to be authoritative?

You really need to read better.

I stated the authors of the gospels are ANONYMOUS.

If you have studied the work of scholars and historians, you will know this is a widely accepted conclusion, even by many conservative scholars.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Common sense and logic need to prevail here in light of what the scriptures say.

If you can stick an age of Adam into the bible, why can't you stick an age of the earth (say a few billion years) into the bible?

Common sense, logic, and evidence need to prevail here.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

You really need to read better.

I stated the authors of the gospels are ANONYMOUS.

I'm sure you have, elsewhere.

If you have studied the work of scholars and historians, you will know this is a widely accepted conclusion, even by many conservative scholars.

Of course, but that is not what you wrote here.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sure you have, elsewhere.



Of course, but that is not what you wrote here.

What did I write?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

If you can stick an age of Adam into the bible, why can't you stick an age of the earth (say a few billion years) into the bible?

Common sense, logic, and evidence need to prevail here.

That'd be 4004 BC. (said with a Bob Newhart accent and wink)

Though the NT book titled 'John' is dated Anno Domini 26, the context of the opening section from verse 1 to verse 18 -- might well not only be the place for such, but even a date that cannot be written. i.e. In the beginning was the Word.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

What did I write?

I don't know, trying using the back-link on your posts 'and see how deep the rabbit hole goes'
It's good to know that we're on the same page, with regard to certain of the books of the NT.

Applying the same, how do you rate the letters of St. Paul -- say for example the book of 'Galatians'? Authorship, age etc. ?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know, trying using the back-link on your posts 'and see how deep the rabbit hole goes'
It's good to know that we're on the same page, with regard to certain of the books of the NT.

Applying the same, how do you rate the letters of St. Paul -- say for example the book of 'Galatians'? Authorship, age etc. ?

If you don't know what I wrote, why would you claim; "that isn't what you wrote"?

As to your other question, that was asked and answered some time ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

Removing science from the classroom would be catastrophic. How would we educate chemists, engineers of all types, biologists, doctors etc.... all of which MUST believe in the TOE to be applicable????

Biologists apply the theory of evolution every day. New biological research would be impossible without it.

Every time you try to belittle science you only prove our point.

In the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, in Canada, evolution and creation was taught side by side as the theories they are. The student was then given the opportunity to believe the one they thought was the truth. It was not jammed down their throte that we all came from apes and if you don't believe that then you need some of Gracchus's drugs. Why does this scare the evolutionist camp so much?

How many Canadian biologists are publishing original research in the biological sciences based on creationism? We can widen it to the whole world, if you want. Show me biologists who are doing research at this moment based on creationism.

And we built great things, great planes, fought a war against the genocide of the Jewish people. Great structures, and great scholars...... Wow and all coming from an education system that didn't teach just creation or just evolution. IT taught both and it thrived.

None of those things are based on creationism.

Look at the US. Removed God from the schools and now is destined to collapse under the weight of it's unbearable debt, crime, corruption and the cost of protecting itself from nations all around the globe.

Did someone show up and lead God out of schools in handcuffs? Is God so powerless that puny humans can remove him from buildings? Have creationists really elevated themselves to the level of God?

The middle east is an extension of what you are trying to protect. ONE LESSON, ONE TRUTH. OUR WAY.

The middle east teaches creationism in schools and does not teach evolution. It is a model of what you want.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because I have stated it before. Jesus is the second Adam and he
started his ministry at the age of 30. Received the holy ghost at
that time as well.

God breathed life into the first Adam. He had language and intelligence
from the start and was obviously of marrying age.

All logic points to Adam having the appearance of 30 years old when
he was 1 minute old.

In order for Adam to be in his prime, does it require zircons to have a Uranium to Lead ratio consistent with billions of years of decay? Why would life on Earth need specific ratios of rare isotopes in rocks in order for it to survive?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

If you don't know what I wrote, why would you claim; "that isn't what you wrote"?

As to your other question, that was asked and answered some time ago.

You obviously don't recognize sarcasm.
No harm.

 

[bhsmte]

You obviously don't recognize sarcasm.
No harm.

Back peddling?

Please point out the sarcasm in post 368#

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Back peddling?

Please point out the sarcasm in post 368#

Not at all.
You know what you wrote and what you didn't write, and if you want to delude yourself - no problem.
Now you getting the idea. It helps to read and remember what you wrote, or else you'll drown in a localized flood of self-pity.

G O O D B Y E

 

[bhsmte]

Not at all.
You know what you wrote and what you didn't write, and if you want to delude yourself - no problem.
Now you getting the idea. It helps to read and remember what you wrote, or else you'll drown in a localized flood of self-pity.

G O O D B Y E

You are claiming I am deluding myself?

Go ahead and prove your point then, if you desire to place another label on another person. You have done this before and when asked to substantiate your label, you begin posting cartoons in response and substantiated nothing.

This seems to be a pattern with you and does little for credibility.

 

[[serious]]

Not at all.
You know what you wrote and what you didn't write, and if you want to delude yourself - no problem.
Now you getting the idea. It helps to read and remember what you wrote, or else you'll drown in a localized flood of self-pity.

G O O D B Y E

Are you sure you didn't just misread what he wrote? Looking back at it, it looks like you thought he was arguing for biblical literalism due to direct divine authorship, but that isn't his position at all nor have I seen any trace of him ever saying anything like that. If you misread, it's not a big deal, we all do that sometimes.

To be honest, your reaction here is just confusing.

 

[Split Rock]

Common sense and logic need to prevail here in light of what the
scriptures say.

I would love to see creationists here apply this concept to the scriptures.