Taking Questions on the Creation

[Nathan Poe]

Caduceus, don't make the mistake of using some copyrighted book to glean your Theology from, or you'll end up with the wrong perspective of the universe.

We certainly wouldn't want him to make your mistake -- you'd be unoriginal then.

I want you to notice something closely here, please:Now watch ---See something new in 2:1 that isn't in 1:1?

In 2:1, heaven has an ess on the end of it --- meaning it's plural; but in 1:1, Heaven is singular.

Making it more probable that we're talking about two separate stories here.

Note what Paul says here ---Notice how Paul is making it very clear that seed is singular, not plural?

Even adding an ess on to a word can lead to the wrong interpretation.

So why worship Paul's wrong interpretation?

 

[Nathan Poe]

ETA: Well, it does give 41 prophecies, but it hits on the ones that were documented as fulfilled by the Gospel writers.

When you're writing his story, you can have him fulfill as many prophecies as you want.

 

[AV1611VET]

A rainbow is a good analogy:

But in the case of mtEve, she is the end of the rainbow --- the last of the line --- a full human.

Look at it this way --- take infrared, it has a range of so many Angstroms, but then add 1 hertz to it, and you have the weakest shade of red. Add one hertz to that, and technically you have another color, etc. Eventually you hit the color RED --- just RED --- then add one hertz to that and you have a darker red, etc.

To make a long story short --- from the longest wavelength to the shortest, each hertz is a different color.

Eve is the last "color", and she would have to have mated with those who were just 1 hertz behind her.

And that smacks of beastiality.

 

[Cabal]

But in the case of mtEve, she is the end of the rainbow --- the last of the line --- a full human.

Look at it this way --- take infrared, it has a range of so many Angstroms, but then add 1 hertz to it, and you have the weakest shade of red. Add one hertz to that, and technically you have another color, etc. Eventually you hit the color RED --- just RED --- then add one hertz to that and you have a darker red, etc.

To make a long story short --- from the longest wavelength to the shortest, each hertz is a different color.

Eve is the last "color", and she would have to have mated with those who were just 1 hertz behind her.

And that smacks of beastiality.

You use an analogy of a continuum in order to make a black-and-white discretised point? Hmmm....

Bestiality for the evolution approach, incest for the creationist approach. Fun times!

 

[AV1611VET]

Bestiality for the evolution approach, incest for the creationist approach. Fun times!

However you cut it, it was either beastiality (if Eve's parents only gave birth to Eve), or incest (if Eve's parents gave birth to Adam and Eve).

In Genesis 1, they neither have parents, nor are related.

 

[Cabal]

However you cut it, it was either beastiality (if Eve's parents only gave birth to Eve), or incest (if Eve's parents gave birth to Adam and Eve).

In Genesis 1, they neither have parents, nor are related.

Regarding Genesis 1, I was referring to the slight niggle of starting the human race with only two humans. Got the whole "what do the kids do?" dilemma. One human or two, we've got problems.

 

[AV1611VET]

Regarding Genesis 1, I was referring to the slight niggle of starting the human race with only two humans. Got the whole "what do the kids do?" dilemma. One human or two, we've got problems.

Incest wasn't a crime back then.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Incest wasn't a crime back then.

Neither was murder, but God had no problem throwing the book at Cain for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither was murder, but God had no problem throwing the book at Cain for it.

Cain wasn't given the Death Penalty --- or put in prison.

 

[Cabal]

Incest wasn't a crime back then.

Crime...according to...Mosaic Law?

Not just Cain, God laid the smackdown on quite a few people before Mount Sinai. Although surely something not being "a crime" doesn't stop it from being a sin. Which still leaves us our little incest problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

[double post]

 

[AV1611VET]

Crime...according to...Mosaic Law?

No --- the Death Penalty was given long before the Law --- that's why it's still in effect today --- it was not instituted by the Mosaic Law.

The Mosaic Law doesn't come until Exodus 20 --- the Death Penalty is in Genesis 9.

 

[Cabal]

No --- the Death Penalty was given long before the Law --- that's why it's still in effect today --- it was not instituted by the Mosaic Law.

The Mosaic Law doesn't come until Exodus 20 --- the Death Penalty is in Genesis 9.

AV, this is all very interesting, but this still doesn't change the fact that certain actions are wrong regardless of whether there's a legal institution that takes them into account or not. Now, how exactly does the literal Genesis 1 creation model get around the issue of incest if only two human beings were created?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, this is all very interesting, but this still doesn't change the fact that certain actions are wrong regardless of whether there's a legal institution that takes them into account or not. Now, how exactly does the literal Genesis 1 creation model get around the issue of incest if only two human beings were created?

Have a good day, Cabal ---

 

[agentorange20]

The difference between a self-fulfilling prophecy and God's prophesy, is that God's prophecy cannot be prevented from happening, no matter how hard you try. Self-fulfilling prophecies are a dime-a-dozen, the trick is to prevent it from happening.

All the prophecies in the bible involve actions which humanity could take actions in affecting their outcome, thus why I said 'self fullfulling'. If there was for example a prophecy about something which man couldn't cause, prevent, avoid, for instance a major earthquake that would hit Los Angeles, CA @ 2:34am on 2083, then this might be worthy.

Of the 333 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, He fulfilled 109 of them at

Less than a third is what you deem a good success rate?

and will fulfill the other 224 at His second advent.

yeah.....any day now....any day now....right? Well, when those others do crop up, then you'll have my attention.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

And the evidence they were secular? Weren't they supposedly JEWS prior to be christened? Hmmm, them being Jewish would kinda negate them being un-godly or at the least non-religious.

 

[agentorange20]

I have made the point that, according to evolution, the first human woman would have had to have engaged in beastiality, since Adam supposedly didn't come along until thousands of years later.

Uh oh, spaghetti oooooos. There is a very easy explination for why we can date the female lineage (mtDNA) back further than the male (Y-Chromosome) side, here's a hint: Genetic drift and extinction.

To counter that, even if mtDNA and Y-chromosome DNA were traced back to the same year, that means Adam and Eve were brother and sister.

? No, it would just mean these are the frutherest back we can trace the species of homo sapiens based on genetics. If you want to go back further review the fossil evidence.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

 

[agentorange20]

Science is myopic, and God has made it clear that you will not find Him via scientific means -

I guess that goes the same for anything supernatural....santa, elves, goblins, gnomes, pixes, angels, etc. etc. This wouldn't really help to support your position.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess that goes the same for anything supernatural....santa, elves, goblins, gnomes, pixes, angels, etc. etc. This wouldn't really help to support your position.

No comment.

 

[agentorange20]

Unlike Atheistic Science, TEs wouldn't include spontaneous generation as a viable source of abiogenesis.

AV, scientists, atheistic or not, haven't been using the concept of spontaneous generation for nearly a century, as it has been refuted many times in the past. It's not longer among the competing theories for the origins of life.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, scientists, atheistic or not, haven't been using the concept of spontaneous generation for nearly a century, as it has been refuted many times in the past. It's not longer among the competing theories for the origins of life.

Okay --- thanks.