Testing Out My Writing Please Have A Look

BCP1928 said:

Some Christians think so; most others do not. In any case, it is not essential Christian doctrine.

Click to expand...

The IbanezerScrooge said:

No, it's a counter point to the petty "he's an atheist" comment that has no bearing on the topic. There are loads of Christians who recognize that what is observed in reality and what is written in their holy book don't mesh well and they have chosen the path of accepting reality instead of dogmatic and often misapplied interpretations of their scriptures. THey are able to reconcile this with their beliefs and have no issue. Christians who don't accept the ToE and other scientific theories think they're special because they believe in what is essentially magic. That's it at its most basic. They are not. They do not possess special knowledge or wisdom because of their beliefs. They have no special insight, wisdom or authority to make the criticisms against science that they think they're entitled to make and have anyone listen to or consider those vapid opinions as were displayed in the OP valid.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

You asked for input on your writing. You did not specify what you wanted evaluated. I took the time to read the entire thread, think carefully about what you had written, and provide a carefully considered assessment of your content. I did this in an effort to be helpful to you. You chose to ignore 90% of my observations and instead tried to justify why you will ignore the criticism, criticism that you invited. Duly noted. I'll refrain from any further attempt to give you the benefit of many years of proof reading technical documents.

Click to expand...

BNR32FAN said:

That’s not an answer. It’s a yes or no question. Adam being the first man is not subjective, either he was or he wasn’t. You can’t have it both ways and there is no in between.

”So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.“
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭45‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

How can the Bible not teach this verse that I’ve just quoted?

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Who says it doesn't? However, it doesn't require a literal interpretation of Genesis. That is all by the way. If you want to proselytize for a particular theological point of view, this is not the place for it. We know what you believe about the Bible. Why you believe it and what you think of other Christians who disagree with you about it are decidedly off-topic and out of place in this forum.

Click to expand...

BNR32FAN said:

Fair enough, I understand that was a pretty tough question to answer.

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Not tough it all. That verse doesn't teach the literal inerrancy of Genesis. I can't even imagine why you think it does. But really, it's off topic for this forum.

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Some Christians think so;

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Not tough it all. That verse doesn't teach the literal inerrancy of Genesis. I can't even imagine why you think it does. But really, it's off topic for this forum.

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Not tough it all. That verse doesn't teach the literal inerrancy of Genesis. I can't even imagine why you think it does. But really, it's off topic for this forum.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

I believe that question was put to you.

Please employ your reading comprehension skills and answer it.

It's a good one.

Instead of telling us what other Christians think, and how wrong we are, how about we hear from you as to whether or not you agree with us that -- literally interpreted -- the Bible states that Adam was the first man.

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Not tough it all. That verse doesn't teach the literal inerrancy of Genesis. I can't even imagine why you think it does. But really, it's off topic for this forum.

Click to expand...

The IbanezerScrooge said:

Sure.

Click to expand...

The IbanezerScrooge said:

No, not explicitly.

Click to expand...

The IbanezerScrooge said:

That's an interpretation that was added to what is written.

Click to expand...

The IbanezerScrooge said:

A jot here. A tittle there...

Click to expand...

BNR32FAN said:

I thought it was obvious that 1 Corinthians 15:45 had nothing to do with the inerrancy of Genesis 1, it was completely about who the first man was. You seem angry or frustrated that the Bible says this.

Click to expand...

Estrid said:

If he'd care to start over,

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

I believe that question was put to you.

Please employ your reading comprehension skills and answer it.

It's a good one.

Instead of telling us what other Christians think, and how wrong we are, how about we hear from you as to whether or not you agree with us that -- literally interpreted -- the Bible states that Adam was the first man.

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

I can't think why I would be. Certainly I have no objection to Paul's teaching that verse. Why did you even bring it up if it has nothing to do with literal inerrancy?

Click to expand...

AG_BIC96 said:

Nope, is it not true? I don't really care you can highlight as much as you like but you attacked first and foremost and we have the comments to prove that. I see you are still commenting and must feel very strongly on the subject. Can you kindly leave as we discussed before?

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Who says it doesn't? However, it doesn't require a literal interpretation of Genesis. That is all by the way. If you want to proselytize for a particular theological point of view, this is not the place for it. We know what you believe about the Bible. Why you believe it and what you think of other Christians who disagree with you about it are decidedly off-topic and out of place in this forum.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

A simple check, using the resources this site gives us, would reveal that "he" is a "she."

Take your own advice and investigate before you communicate.

(Or can science take a hike?)

Click to expand...