TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
Do you believe in a literal adam and eve?
As in, that at some point there were only 2 homo sapiens (without ancestors)?
Just wondering.
Upvote
0
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.
Adam and Eve were perfect and their descendants were intended to inherit that perfection of both body and mind.
We already know that you believe it to be drivel.Do you believe in a literal adam and eve?
As in, that at some point there were only 2 homo sapiens (without ancestors)?
Just wondering.
We already know that you believe it to be drivel.
They disobeyed perfectly, it's how they were made.Yes, that's a bit of a "hole" in that theory, isn't it... They were supposedly created "perfect" yet they disobeyed... I did think of that, just didn't mention it right then...
I believe at one point they were literal, but a different literal, that they were literal in a heaven/paradise reality with bodies that were much like Jesus resurrected body, and in that sense were in a literal physical form, just different from what we know, but not any less literal, as God defines literal in a paradise or heaven like environment...Do you believe in a literal adam and eve?
As in, that at some point there were only 2 homo sapiens (without ancestors)?
Just wondering.
I believe at one point they were literal, but a different literal, that they were literal in a heaven/paradise reality with bodies that were much like Jesus resurrected body, and in that sense were in a literal physical form, just different from what we know, but not any less literal, as God defines literal in a paradise or heaven like environment...
God Bless!
I do remember that God punished the snake by saying it would crawl on its belly for the rest of its days, which must have had the snake scratching its head.
You are obviously unaware that there is fossil evidence of snakes with legs.
Four-legged snake discovered
Awesome.
So, do you think the limbless snake evolved, or do you believe that god cursed its legs away overnight?
While on the subject, what are your beliefs concerning adam and eve?
Real or metaphorical?
If real, did they have human ancestors?
Was there a time when they were the only 2 homo sapiens in existance?
How long ago did they live?
Just wondering.
The literal snake had no ability of speech at all. It was merely a puppet cunningly employed by an invisible entity who had chosen rebellion. The loss of its legs and crawling represented the debasement that this being had undergone. The crushing of its head as prophesied in Genesis 3:15 symbolizes this being's ultimate destruction.
Whether the loss of its legs was instant or gradual the text doesn't say. I suppose it does allow for a gradually diminution until the legs were completely lost.
I consider Genesis to be an actual historical account describing the origin of the human race from two people. Jesus, whom I consider my Lord and Savior, considered it an historical account so contradicting him would be to accuse him of being either a malicious liar or else sincerely deluded- neither of which I am willing to do.
What makes you think so? Evolution predicts that snakes evolved from creatures with legs, like many legless lizards; some contemporary snakes have vestigial internal leg buds, and fossil snakes have been found with hind legs, so we would expect to find fossil snakes with four external legs, so that fossil could well be an early snake - although the jury is still out; to quote National Geographic:You are obviously unaware that there is fossil evidence of snakes with legs.
Four-legged snake discovered
Not at all - if verified, it will be embraced as yet another confirmation of a prediction of evolution.Of course such a discovery would be immediately challenged and discredited by atheist scientists lest the Bible gain credibility.
What makes you think so? Evolution predicts that snakes evolved from creatures with legs, like many legless lizards; some contemporary snakes have vestigial internal leg buds, and fossil snakes have been found with hind legs, so we would expect to find fossil snakes with four external legs, so that fossil could well be an early snake - although the jury is still out; to quote National Geographic:
"It’s certainly possible that Tetrapodophis could be something else. In the squamates alone, a snake-like body has independently evolved at least 26 times, producing a wide menagerie of legless lizards. These include the slow worm of Europe, and the bizarre worm-lizard Bipes, which has lost its hind legs but has kept the stubby front pair. True snakes represent just one of these many forays into leglessness."But supposing it is a snake - is the suggestion that this fossil is an example of snakes before God cursed them to crawl on their bellies? If so, we should be able to put an earliest date on the biblical story; and what about the fossils of snakes with only hind legs - did God get bored halfway through?
Or are they all just another example of evolution in action?
Not at all - if verified, it will be embraced as yet another confirmation of a prediction of evolution.
Oh, that was just taken from Ricky Gervais's 'Genesis' talk from his 'Animals' tour (btw it's comedy, if you're sensitive about such things).Your mockery of the biblical account concerning the pronouncement on the snake made me think so.
It was quoted to represent your attitude towards the subject. Nice try but no cigar!Oh, that was just taken from Ricky Gervais's 'Genesis' talk from his 'Animals' tour (btw it's comedy, if you're sensitive about such things).
If you mean I can't take 'Genesis' seriously, you're right. That shouldn't come as a surprise.It was quoted to represent your attitude towards the subject. Nice try but no cigar!
If you mean I can't take 'Genesis' seriously, you're right. That shouldn't come as a surprise.
Didn't someone recently say, "You cannot get a handle in any conversation with people having “deficient sense of humor syndrome”" ?
What evasive maneuvers?If indeed it was humor why the evasive maneuvers?
Because it was obvious - even you got it. Does every humorous aside have to be identified as such?Why not simply identify it as humor from the outset as I immediately did?
Well, defending it as non-humorous initially doesn't help your case.What evasive maneuvers?
Because it was obvious - even you got it. Does every humorous aside have to be identified as such?
What 'case'? Where did I 'defend' it at all? You seem to have become confused - quote me and I'll explain what it means.Well, defending it as non-humorous initially doesn't help your case.
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?