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.
I didn't regard it as a meaningless web link. Furthermore, it looks like a great web site overall, so I shall be spending some more time looking at their articles to see how they support the historical narratives in the early part of the Bible, especially Genesis where God was creating everything out of nothing.Then why did you try to distract us with a meaningless web link? Why not just say this first?
I didn't regard it as a meaningless web link.
Furthermore, it looks like a great web site overall, so I shall be spending some more time looking at their articles to see how they support the historical narratives in the early part of the Bible, especially Genesis where God was creating everything out of nothing.
A genus.So, what's a "Kind" again?
A genus.
Having trouble recognizing them?A straight and sensible answer?
They're synonyms -- not an hypothesis.TLK Valentine said:One that can be tested and potentially falsified?
Having trouble recognizing them?
They're synonyms -- not an hypothesis.
Git'r done then.We can test that.
Git'r done then.
1. My Bible notes about the good Samaritan verse start, "The famous parable of the good Samaritan..." so it is a obviously a well-established opinion amongst scholars and you stated that you accept this view as well. ..........
1. My Bible notes ......I saw the film ...One of the commentaries on my electronic Bible adds ...... As my local pastor said ..........
2. "Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." It seems patently clear to me that there was no death (of creatures with "the breath of life") until after Adam and Eve sinned.
We covered that several posts ago, remember?Also, God described His original creation as "very good." Do you consider a world full of death and disease to be very good? ..
.
....Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death" s.
3. Adam obviously would have been a perfect human being. God had just created him. Why would he make him anything else but perfect. Sometimes it's not necessary to state the obvious.
.
4. It wasn't the fruit that opened their eyes but God saw it as rebellion against His wishes, simply because they were doing the one thing that He had told them they could do.
5. God told him so, "
Gen 2:17 "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die." It's not feasible that God would not have made sure that Adam knew exactly what He meant by that is it? If I had been Adam and God had said that to me and if I didn't already know what was meant by death, I would have said, "Lord, what do you mean, I will surely die? I don't understand." Adam knew God was giving him an important instruction and he would have made sure he knew what God was talking about.
6. How could there have been physical disease? Would you call a world in where such suffering was taking place, "Very good" as God did? I certainly wouldn't. As my local pastor said a couple of years ago, "This world is a dramatically-damaged place and it's fair to say that everyone in this room either has suffered, is suffering or will suffer - the only requirement is to live long enough" If there had been death before the fall, it would have been just as bad as now and also, if that were the case, what exactly was the effect of sin?
7. I'm not aware that I have deleted any of Jesus's words, at least not wilfully. Why would I do that, I believe everything He said? You are the one who is trying to distort the meaning of His words: for instance, when He clearly told us that he made man from the beginning of His creation, "
Jesus could not have made it any clearer that man was right there at the beginning,
We never have been related to monkeys in any way, shape or form. Yes, we share some common design, but that's because there is a common designer, so some similarities in God's creation are to be expected.
I have not deliberately changed any of scripture to fit man's own ideas, as a straightforward reading of the text would reveal.
I'm convinced that if you were to hand a copy of Genesis for instance to someone who had never read anything of the Bible and then subsequently asked them to summarise the first two chapters, there would be absolutely no mention of millions or billions of years (man's ideas).
Because you don't know that practically all experts have shown their statements to be false.I haven't seen any evidence that creationists are serial liars. They seem to be very sincere and knowledgeable people to me.
"your constant suggestion that symbolic or non-literal scripture is somehow of lesser value" you see, your doing it with me now - I never said or hinted anything of the kind. Quite the reverse is true in fact; you have decided that certain parts of the Bible are merely symbolic or myth,
We could go on like this ad infinitum and you still wouldn't accept what I say and I wouldn't accept what you are saying. It's clear to me that you are distorting the original meaning of the Biblical texts and my own words as well to try to fit in your evolutionary beliefs, for what reason I can't fathom. I would suggest that you get hold of a copy of Dr Henry Morris's excellent commentary of the book of Genesis and then come back here when you hear what he has to say and how your man-made interpretations of the Bible stack up against those of a real expert. You could obtain a copy here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Genesis-Rec...1435171957&sr=8-1&keywords=the+genesis+record or here http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Recor...1435172077&sr=8-1&keywords=the+genesis+record1. Not the point. You said that "Jesus said it was a parable". I've asked you many times to provide the verse for that. Do you?
Of course it's a parable - we all agree on that. The point is that parables and symbolic speech are not always (not even usually) explicitly called that. So you, yourself, have used your own judgement to decided this is symbolic speech - just as so many other Christians have done with Genesis.
Even worse - you seem to again be relying on the words of men. The notes in Bibles were made and put there by people, just like you citing a film. I've repeatedly shown scholars agreeing that Genesis is poetic speech, and need not be taken literally.
Paul is obviously talking about spiritual death, since Adam didn't die when he ate the fruit, and because (as has been pointed out to you by others) - animals can't sin. Sin required an awareness of right and wrong, which animals don't have. So if death is the wages of sin, then animals wouldn't earn those wages, and hence wouldn't die. But animals do die, showing that your human idea is wrong. Humans are offered the remedy to spiritual death - that remedy is spiritual life through Christ. Obviously, we are talking about spiritual life, because I know many Atheists, and last I checked, they weren't physically dead, only spiritually dead.
We covered that several posts ago, remember?
Right. Spiritual death. So now you agree with me? Look, it even uses the same verse from Paul you used above. Do you see now that the verse from Paul "the wages of sin is death" is talking about spiritual death, using your own reference?
Adam was clearly not perfect, because he was made susceptable to being led astray. Just because something seems true to you doesn't mean you can write it into scripture. The scripture doesn't say he was perfect - that's your human idea. After all, didn't God make Lucifer too? Is Satan perfect? Since you think Satan is a perfect deity, should we worship Satan? That seems to be the conclusion your suggestion leads to.
Right. Which is exactly my point - that this isn't about some magical fruit, it's about rebellion against God. As such, there may or may not have been any actual fruit involved. You, by insisting on taking poetic language literally, have to insist that this is about magical fruit - since the literal reading doesn't say that their eyes were opened by anything other than the fruit (heck, in the literal story, God didn't even know about it yet). So again, do you still insist on interpreting the story literally, which requires magical fruit?
The scripture doesn't include God explaining what death was. So if death didn't already exist, Adam could not have known about it. You are, again, adding to scripture. In fact, the story makes it clear that everyone involved already knowns full well what death is, before the fall (Adam, Eve, God, the serpent). Obviously, physical death was normal and understood.
As your own source pointed out earlier, Paul answered "what exactly was the effect of sin?". The wages of sin are (spiritual) death.
Remember, you started with the quote from Mark:
Mar 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' post #1
Then I pointed out that this very verse shows that Jesus knows to interpret Genesis figuratively, since "male and female" humans were made at the end of creation, not the beginning. post #2
You then disagreed, citing the same verse from Mark above as "in the beginning God made them make and female", taking out the "of creation". post #4
I called you on that removal (post #5)- hence our discussion now. So now you agree that Jesus says "at the beginning of creation" - showing that Gensis is to be interpreted non-literally?
Anti-scriptural. Genesis 1 shows humans made at the end of creation, not at the beginning of creation.
You are the one who is trying to change the meaning of Jesus's and hence God's words to mean something that He clearly didn't mean to say.
I'm the one recognizing the symbolic speech (just like Jesus's other symbolic speech), so we all can see what God clearly intended.
Creationist propaganda, unsupported by scripture. In fact, scripture itself makes it clear that we are animals.
Sure you did. I gave a long list of examples where you did exactly that in post #12.
Maybe, maybe not. More to the point - what about if you give someone the parable of the good samaritan, and ask them to summarize what happened? Does that prove that the Good Samaritan actually happened?
Because you don't know that practically all experts have shown their statements to be false.
There, in you just did it again. You referred to them as "merely symbolic". "Merely" is a derogatory term. It means, right there, that you consider them of lesser value. Case closed. Most of Jesus' teaching are done with symbolic language. It's not "merely" anything.
in Christ-
Papias
(Note if you will, the proportion of positive reviews v. negative reviews).
The Bible would indicate that it's a group of creatures or plants that are able to have similar offspring (in the case of non-plants it suggests fertile offspring, so that there can be continuing generations):-Obviously. But that doesn't mean it isn't one.
Adorable.
So, what's a "Kind" again?
Well, it's an indication that people who have purchased the book, regard it as being a worthwhile purchase. Here's some samples from the reviews:-What's that got to do with anything?
Well, it's an indication that people who have purchased the book, regard it as being a worthwhile purchase.
I have some questions for Christians who have accepted the theory of evolution as being the truth, rather than a straightforward reading of the biblical account of creation...
Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
- If the Genesis account of creation isn’t true, what do you make of the following part of the ten commandments?
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labour and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
- When did sin come into God’s creation and how does that relate to death and suffering in the world?
- If death came before sin then it wasn’t the penalty for sin. So, if there wasn’t a literal Adam who brought sin and death to God’s creation, then what was the purpose of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross?
- In Mark 10:6, Jesus says this, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” So here we have God incarnate telling us directly that mankind was right there at the beginning of creation. How do you reconcile that with the evolutionary idea of billions of years?
- The evolutionists have various hypotheses for the ultimate fate of the universe. Which one do you accept as the most likely, or is the second coming of Jesus a part of the Bible that you still accept as being the truth?
So basically, reviews are of no value to you at all. I wonder how you decide to buy anything if you dismiss everything others have to say. There's only one thing for it then isn't there - go buy the book and judge for yourself.That just means people who bought it liked it. That tells us nothing about the actual quality of the book. People give bad books good reviews all the time.
I think Satan is using several ways to attack God's word. He's sowing discord amongst the world's population in general and Christians in particular ("Did God really say...?"); he's responsible for monstrous crimes against humanity and as you say, he's probably trying to keep us distracted from keeping our eyes on the unfolding of the revelation (Revelation is one of the Bible's books that I keep promising to myself to read from beginning to end). I think the main point regarding beginnings is that if Satan can promote the idea that parts of the Bible are not what they seem or can't be trusted then we might as well throw out the rest. He must be laughing over the fact that we are arguing over what exactly the Bible is trying to tell us.Just a general thought, don't you think it makes sense that during the end times(now), satan would want us focusing on how everything began, rather than how everything is going to end? I suggest you stop focusing on the beginning and start focusing on the end. God created this universe and only He knows exactly how he did it. He doesn't want us focusing on something that's already done, He wants us focusing on what He's currently trying to do and that is to show us that satan is still at work in this world and that we need to understand him so we can avoid falling for his tricks.
If you have a good understanding of the Bible then now is the time to figure out why Revelation still has so many people confused. Where does confusion come from? Evil. Let's listen to what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us in these end times.
Revelation 2:29
"Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches"
The Bible would indicate that it's a group of creatures or plants that are able to have similar offspring (in the case of non-plants it suggests fertile offspring, so that there can be continuing generations):-
I think Satan is using several ways to attack God's word. He's sowing discord amongst the world's population in general and Christians in particular ("Did God really say...?"); he's responsible for monstrous crimes against humanity and as you say, he's probably trying to keep us distracted from keeping our eyes on the unfolding of the revelation (Revelation is one of the Bible's books that I keep promising to myself to read from beginning to end). I think the main point regarding beginnings is that if Satan can promote the idea that parts of the Bible are not what they seem or can't be trusted then we might as well throw out the rest. He must be laughing over the fact that we are arguing over what exactly the Bible is trying to tell us.
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?