Taking questions on the Creation.

[The Lady Kate]

It does seem odd that God would speak as a Triune Being in the creation account, but nowhere else in the Bible... even later on in Genesis itself, God refers to Himself in the singular, not plural.

Even His name means "I AM," not "WE ARE."

Thoughts?

 

[AV1611VET]

It does seem odd that God would speak as a Triune Being in the creation account, but nowhere else in the Bible...

QV Psalm 2, where the Members of the Godhead are speaking to each other.

even later on in Genesis itself, God refers to Himself in the singular, not plural.

The technical term for that is uniplural.

 

[CoderHead]

Indeed --- He even volunteered to be the Saviour.

Could you produce scripture to back that up, please? That's intriguing. Especially since Jesus prayed in the garden at Gethsemane to not have to go through with it.

QV Psalm 2, where the Members of the Godhead are speaking to each other.The technical term for that is uniplural.

You do realize that Psalms is a book of poetry, right? Or are you saying that Psalms is another "literal" book?

 

[AV1611VET]

Could you produce scripture to back that up, please?

Again:

Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

I = Jesus

That's intriguing. Especially since Jesus prayed in the garden at Gethsemane to not have to go through with it.

You may want to read that just a bit closer.

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Not only did Jesus say, 'If thou be willing,' He made it clear Whose will He wanted carried out.

You do realize that Psalms is a book of poetry, right?

Yes.

Or are you saying that Psalms is another "literal" book?

Psalms is Hebrew Poetry --- and this passage is called 'complimentary'.

In other words, a fact is being stated, then restated using alternate terminology.

 

[Tiberius]

AV, why is it that you believe that you have no dominion over wild animals, despite the Bible clearly stating that humanity does have such dominion?

 

[Assyrian]

AV says he isn't Homo sapiens.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, why is it that you believe that you have no dominion over wild animals, despite the Bible clearly stating that humanity does have such dominion?

God turned dominion of His creation over to Adam.

Adam turned it over to Satan.

Satan offered it to Jesus in the wilderness, and Jesus turned down his offer.

Jesus will soon return and take it by force --- then turn it back over to His Father.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV says he isn't Homo sapiens.

That's right --- and I said why too, didn't I?

 

[Assyrian]

That's right --- and I said why too, didn't I?

IIRC you wanted an excuse to reject anything other Homo sapiens say.

God turned dominion of His creation over to Adam.

Adam turned it over to Satan.

Satan offered it to Jesus in the wilderness, and Jesus turned down his offer.

Jesus will soon return and take it by force --- then turn it back over to His Father.

[FONT=&quot]Gen 1:28[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."[/FONT] I guess people aren't fruitful and multiply either.

 

[AV1611VET]

IIRC you wanted an excuse to reject anything other Homo sapiens say.

Assyrian, why do I say I'm not a Homo sapiens?

Can you answer that question --- or do you want me to do it again for you?

You want to quote me --- how about quoting all of me?

 

[Cabal]

Assyrian, why do I say I'm not a Homo sapiens?

Can you answer that question --- or do you want me to do it again for you?

You want to quote me --- how about quoting all of me?

It doesn't really matter if you restate your reasoning anyway, you "answer" enough points with that irrelevant and fallacious little aside of yours enough to make Assyrian right on the money.

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't really matter if you restate your reasoning anyway, you "answer" enough points with that irrelevant and fallacious little aside of yours enough to make Assyrian right on the money.

Assyrian is right on the money --- but I'm just wondering if he knows why he's right.

 

[Cabal]

Assyrian is right on the money --- but I'm just wondering if he knows why he's right.

Again, this is utterly pointless.

Everyone you accuse of being a homo sapiens (on the Christian side of things) has NEVER DENIED they had a sin nature, so your little slur is moot, and just makes you look (even more) like you can't answer the questions being raised.

Additionally, your basis for this is utterly ridiculous (the "genetic" argument), do you really expect lots of solidarity from fellow MEN on such a dodgy foundation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Everyone you accuse of being a homo sapiens (on the Christian side of things)...

Um --- when did I ever accuse someone of being a Homo sapiens?

In fact, I vaguely remember saying just the opposite.

...has NEVER DENIED they had a sin nature, so your little slur is moot, and just makes you look (even more) like you can't answer the questions being raised.

And what's my [excellent] comeback to those never-deniers, Cabal?

(Hint: it's a little catchphrase we use.)

 

[Cabal]

Um --- when did I ever accuse someone of being a Homo sapiens?

Hmm....let me think.

When you answer a point from an evolutionist talking about biological facts that apply to mankind by saying that you're not one.

When you responded to an article by Christian evolutionists by saying you got worried when a homo sapiens tries to tell you how to interpret the Bible (never mind that most people get worried when you try and do the same).

In fact, I vaguely remember saying just the opposite.And what's my [excellent] comeback to those never-deniers, Cabal?

(Hint: it's a little catchphrase we use.)

If you can't answer questions?

/thread, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can't answer questions?

/thread, isn't it?

Here --- let me help you guys out:

1. I am not a Homo sapiens --- I have a Sin Nature.
2. I am not a sinner because I sin; rather, I sin because I am a sinner.
   

 

[Cabal]

Here --- let me help you guys out:

1. I am not a Homo sapiens --- I have a Sin Nature.
2. I am not a sinner because I sin; rather, I sin because I am a sinner.
   

Wow.

And again, Christian evos have NEVER denied this (except for the blatantly false dichotomy of being a homo sapiens or a sinner, obviously), so again, the point is moot.

They just don't accept your "genetic" argument (and rightly so)....

 

[AV1611VET]

And again, Christian evos have NEVER denied this...

I'm not going to get into an argument with my brothers and sisters in Christ here --- that's just plain wrong.

But let me ask you this?

What is (in your opinion) the Original Sin?

 

[Cabal]

I'm not going to get into an argument with my brothers and sisters in Christ here --- that's just plain wrong.

But let me ask you this?

What is (in your opinion) the Original Sin?

I don't particularly believe in it.

But that has absolutely zero to do with my stance on evolution. I think I formed that opinion long before I got into the cre/evo debate.

There may even have been a time when I believed in Original Sin, but being the scientifically minded person that I was then as now I still considered myself homo sapien in a taxonomical sense also.

 

[AV1611VET]

... but being the scientifically minded person that I was then as now I still considered myself homo sapien in a taxonomical sense also.

Well, I don't.

And to be ridiculed for it is just plain wrong; and, in my opinion, shows a certain level of intolerance that the 'scientifically-minded' has toward us.