Was Adam an historical figure?

Originally Posted by Aman777

Assyrian:>>No, I think of you as someone who rejects science because of your interpretation of scripture, just like the geocentrists 500 years ago. 500 years of scientific advancement just means the science you are rejecting is more modern and advanced than the science they rejected.

Dear Assyrian, You forget that I support my views Scientifically, Historically, and Scripturally. I realize that you have trouble understanding that, but to me, it's proof of God, the evidence of things not seen. I don't reject Science, just the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS of Evolism. ie. The Magical change by time and mutation which produced human intelligence in Apes. Now, that's a FALSE ASSUMPTION. Right?
Assyrian:>>In fact they had a stronger case than either you or six day creationists have for your interpretations of Genesis. There have always been different interpretations of Genesis in the church, showing it is a text that is easily understood in different ways, but until Copernicus there never were any other interpretations of geocentric passages than the plain geocentric meaning of the text.

BUT, their views did NOT agree Scientifically, did they? My understanding does. You don't seem to understand that. IF you truly understand God's Holy Word, then you will see that God's Truth agrees, in EVERY way, with EVERY true discovery of mankind.

Assyrian:>>However it doesn't matter if I can support the geocentric view, or if you agree with the arguments in favour of it, what matters is that they thought scripture was very plain that the sun went round the earth. Just as you think you think your interpretation is must be right. Now apart from the chronologiocal snobbery of thinking you are much smarter than them, do you have any basis for claiming your interpretation of scripture can disprove evolution science when their equally fervently held interpretation of scripture couldn't never have disproved heliocentrism?

For many years Evols of every kind have CLAIMED that they change the mistakes of Science when they are PROVEN wrong. In practice, it's just another LIE of those who worship at the Altar of Evolutionism, which goes BEYOND Science, by teaching their FALSE religious Beliefs to our children in Public Schools. I say FALSE religious beliefs since YOU nor any other Evol can support their views of the magical evolution of human intelligence from Mindless Nature. I've waited for 15 years and NONE of you have proven God wrong, YET.

God tells us man was made FIRST and Evols insist that man evolved from other living creatures. Which do you believe?

In Love,
Aman

Assyrian:>>How could the sun stop if it isn't moving?

Dear Assyrian, Now you argue for Scripture being Literal. I thought you preferred the metaphorical interpretation. I will tell you that the Son/LORD, who is brighter than the Noonday Sun, could easily accomplish this feat. To those standing by, it would look as if the Sun had stopped...and that is the perspective in which it is written.

Assyrian:>>Stopping the earth rotating a force acting on the earth to decelerate its rotation. Stopping the sun orbiting the earth, if it did orbit the earth, would require a force acting on the sun to decelerate it.

Nothing like that is necessary. It's the usual, let me make up whatever fits my view, theology. The SON, who provided the Light for 3 Days, before the SUN was made, and who will provide the Light of Heaven, is the answer. Jesus told us He was the Light of the world. Now, you can see that His Truth is Literal.

In Love,
Aman

Aman777 said:

Nothing like that is necessary. It's the usual, let me make up whatever fits my view, theology. The SON, who provided the Light for 3 Days, before the SUN was made, and who will provide the Light of Heaven, is the answer. Jesus told us He was the Light of the world. Now, you can see that His Truth is Literal.

Click to expand...

Right, God just had to provide light, just as he did at the beginning of creation. What I have in mind here is the 'Shekinah', glory of God (Strong's H7307 - ruwach רוּח&#1463:


Grace and peace,
Mark

Aman777 said:

BUT, their views did NOT agree Scientifically, did they? My understanding does. You don't seem to understand that. IF you truly understand God's Holy Word, then you will see that God's Truth agrees, in EVERY way, with EVERY true discovery of mankind.

Click to expand...

You are changing the subject again. We were talking about how solid their scriptural case for geocentrism was compared to the case your interpretation of Genesis. After all you think your interpretation of scripture disproves evolution. They thought their interpretation disproved heliocentrism. But the fact is throughout church history people have interpreted Genesis in a wide variety of ways, your interpretation is simply the latest in a long line of different understandings of the text. On the other hand the geocentric passages seemed perfectly straightforward, the plain meaning was obvious to everyone who read it until science came along and showed the sun didn't go round the earth. That gave them a much stronger case that their interpretation was the real meaning of the text than you personal conviction that your ideocentric interpretation must be the real meaning.

For many years Evols of every kind have CLAIMED that they change the mistakes of Science when they are PROVEN wrong. In practice, it's just another LIE of those who worship at the Altar of Evolutionism, which goes BEYOND Science, by teaching their FALSE religious Beliefs to our children in Public Schools. I say FALSE religious beliefs since YOU nor any other Evol can support their views of the magical evolution of human intelligence from Mindless Nature. I've waited for 15 years and NONE of you have proven God wrong, YET.

God tells us man was made FIRST and Evols insist that man evolved from other living creatures. Which do you believe?

In Love,
Aman

Click to expand...

You are changing the subject again. I asked you if you had any basis for claiming your interpretation of scripture can disprove evolution science when the geocentrists' equally fervently held interpretation of scripture couldn't never have disproved heliocentrism?

Aman777 said:

Dear Assyrian, Now you argue for Scripture being Literal. I thought you preferred the metaphorical interpretation.

Click to expand...

You really need to put more effort into understanding the ideas you are trying to argue against. God speaks to us in his word in literal texts as well as metaphor. I have no problem with scripture containing a wide variety of genres, the description of the long day miracle comes in the middle of the historical narrative of the conquest of Canaan.

I will tell you that the Son/LORD, who is brighter than the Noonday Sun, could easily accomplish this feat. To those standing by, it would look as if the Sun had stopped...and that is the perspective in which it is written.

Nothing like that is necessary. It's the usual, let me make up whatever fits my view, theology. The SON, who provided the Light for 3 Days, before the SUN was made, and who will provide the Light of Heaven, is the answer. Jesus told us He was the Light of the world. Now, you can see that His Truth is Literal.

In Love,
Aman

Click to expand...

God could have done it that way but the text says it was the sun that stood still, not the SON. From Joshua's prayer, he was clearly a geocentrist who assumed that the way to make the day longer was to stop the sun moving, which is what he commanded Joshua 10:12 "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon." The writer of Joshua was also a geocentrist because the narrative describe the sun standing still and then hurrying along after the miracle was over to set. Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. Without science to show us that the earth rotates instead of the sun going around us, there would be absolutely no reason not to take the text at its plain literal geocentric meaning.

Originally Posted by Aman777

Assyrian:>>You are changing the subject again. We were talking about how solid their scriptural case for geocentrism was compared to the case your interpretation of Genesis. After all you think your interpretation of scripture disproves evolution.

Dear Assyrian, It does. It also shows us of the Future. When you understand that the entire HISTORY of the creation of the perfect Heaven is contained in the FIRST chapter of Genesis, it opens up the entire Bible. It makes it a lot easier to understand, IF your interpretation of Genesis chapter one is correct.

Assyrian:>>They thought their interpretation disproved heliocentrism. But the fact is throughout church history people have interpreted Genesis in a wide variety of ways, your interpretation is simply the latest in a long line of different understandings of the text.

I agree. It's the way God works:

1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

I plead guilty to being a fundie and of the foolish and the weak, yet I am strong in the Faith that Jesus will make me better.


Assyrian:>>On the other hand the geocentric passages seemed perfectly straightforward, the plain meaning was obvious to everyone who read it until science came along and showed the sun didn't go round the earth. That gave them a much stronger case that their interpretation was the real meaning of the text than you personal conviction that your ideocentric interpretation must be the real meaning.

Gobbledegoop.
Originally Posted by Aman777

Assyrian:>>You really need to put more effort into understanding the ideas you are trying to argue against. God speaks to us in his word in literal texts as well as metaphor. I have no problem with scripture containing a wide variety of genres, the description of the long day miracle comes in the middle of the historical narrative of the conquest of Canaan.

Aman:>>I will tell you that the Son/LORD, who is brighter than the Noonday Sun, could easily accomplish this feat. To those standing by, it would look as if the Sun had stopped...and that is the perspective in which it is written.

Nothing like that is necessary. It's the usual, let me make up whatever fits my view, theology. The SON, who provided the Light for 3 Days, before the SUN was made, and who will provide the Light of Heaven, is the answer. Jesus told us He was the Light of the world. Now, you can see that His Truth is Literal.

Assyrian:>>God could have done it that way but the text says it was the sun that stood still, not the SON. From Joshua's prayer, he was clearly a geocentrist who assumed that the way to make the day longer was to stop the sun moving, which is what he commanded Joshua 10:12 "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon." The writer of Joshua was also a geocentrist because the narrative describe the sun standing still and then hurrying along after the miracle was over to set. Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. Without science to show us that the earth rotates instead of the sun going around us, there would be absolutely no reason not to take the text at its plain literal geocentric meaning.
__________________

One of the best things about being a Christian is that we both will learn the Truth when Jesus comes. Whatever happened, it was definitely a Miracle, caused by Jesus. I just hope He videoed it. I can hardly wait to view it.

In Love,
Aman

Originally Posted by Aman777

Mark:>>Right, God just had to provide light, just as he did at the beginning of creation. What I have in mind here is the 'Shekinah', glory of God (Strong's H7307 - ruwach רוּח&#1463:

Dear Mark, Amen. Adam and Eve lost their Shekinah glory when they sinned. We will regain our Shekinah glory at the Rapture for we will know Him because we will be like Him...again.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.

We shall stand before Jesus who is brighter than the Sun, and then we will truly understand WHY every knee will bow before Him. Jesus is LORD. His Shekinah Glory is truly amazing.

In Love,
Aman

Aman777 said:

I agree. It's the way God works:

1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

I plead guilty to being a fundie and of the foolish and the weak, yet I am strong in the Faith that Jesus will make me better.

Click to expand...

And yet this realisation of your weakness doesn't stretch to the concept that your interpretation of Genesis might just be wrong, or learning from the mistakes of other Christians before you who thought their interpretation of scripture disproved geocentrism.

Gobbledegoop.

Click to expand...

So you are unable to look beyond your personal conviction that you must be right and compare the strength of the geocentrists' interpretation and yours.

It's easy to see that man was made on the 3rd Day, after the Earth was made, but BEFORE the plants, herbs, and trees which GREW on the 3rd Day. It's really hard to now believe that man was the last creature made, as Evolism preaches, when Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that MAN could NOT have evolved, since he was formed of the dust of the ground BEFORE any other living creature. Do you believe God's Holy Word? or the obviously UnScriptural position of an Evol Scoffer?

Click to expand...

If you think you interpretation was easy to see, though you are the only one who sees it that way, the geocentrists' interpretation must have been even easier when that is how everyone had always seen the passage.

It is clear by now you can't answer the question I have been asking you: Do you had any basis for claiming your interpretation of scripture can disprove evolution science when the geocentrists' equally fervently held interpretation of scripture couldn't never have disproved heliocentrism?

One of the best things about being a Christian is that we both will learn the Truth when Jesus comes. Whatever happened, it was definitely a Miracle, caused by Jesus. I just hope He videoed it. I can hardly wait to view it.

In Love,
Aman

Click to expand...

Must say there are a few videos I'd like to see. Just hope God doesn't use Betamax.

Assyrian said:

And yet this realisation of your weakness doesn't stretch to the concept that your interpretation of Genesis might just be wrong, or learning from the mistakes of other Christians before you who thought their interpretation of scripture disproved geocentrism.

Click to expand...

Well you would have to include the vast majority of astronomers who believed in geocentrism right up until the development of the telescope. I get a little tired of seeing the historical narratives of Scripture equivocated with a couple of isolated verses out of context. It's bogus.

So you are unable to look beyond your personal conviction that you must be right and compare the strength of the geocentrists' interpretation and yours.

Click to expand...

That's not unreasonable if you compare your views with the Aristotelean scholasticism of that day. Darwinism makes a much more worthy basis of comparison and you seem to forget all too easy, that was the overwhelming view of medieval astronomers as well.

If you think you interpretation was easy to see, though you are the only one who sees it that way, the geocentrists' interpretation must have been even easier when that is how everyone had always seen the passage.

Click to expand...

You point is invalid and as usual your trying to make this about someone else's flawed interpretation. Why don't you stop and think about the fact that Genesis is written as an historical narrative. Then maybe you can explain why the book of Genesis could be a testimony regarding redemptive history covering better then 2,000 years but the opening passage has to be a parable or some such. Only modernists do this and that's only because they can never admit a miracle, especially with regards to essential Christian doctrine.

It is clear by now you can't answer the question I have been asking you: Do you had any basis for claiming your interpretation of scripture can disprove evolution science when the geocentrists' equally fervently held interpretation of scripture couldn't never have disproved heliocentrism?

Click to expand...

The big difference is that heliocentrism is not directly linked to essential doctrine, Adam is.

Have a nice day
Mark

Aman777 said:

Originally Posted by Aman777

Nothing like that is necessary. It's the usual, let me make up whatever fits my view, theology. The SON, who provided the Light for 3 Days, before the SUN was made, and who will provide the Light of Heaven, is the answer. Jesus told us He was the Light of the world. Now, you can see that His Truth is Literal.​

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Aman777

Aman:>>I plead guilty to being a fundie and of the foolish and the weak, yet I am strong in the Faith that Jesus will make me better.

Assyrian:>>And yet this realisation of your weakness doesn't stretch to the concept that your interpretation of Genesis might just be wrong, or learning from the mistakes of other Christians before you who thought their interpretation of scripture disproved geocentrism.

Aman:>>Gobbledegoop.

Assyrian:>>So you are unable to look beyond your personal conviction that you must be right and compare the strength of the geocentrists' interpretation and yours.

Dear Assyrian, It's possible that I have some details wrong, but my basic understanding of Genesis One is True scripturally, scientifically, and historically. I await a correction of my position from every Christian possible, and that's WHY I'm here. So go ahead and correct me with ANY other way to interpret Genesis one.

I must warn you that the traditional, prescientific, thoughts of ancient men of 3k years ago will NOT stand when measured against what Genesis actually says.
Assyrian:>>If you think you interpretation was easy to see, though you are the only one who sees it that way, the geocentrists' interpretation must have been even easier when that is how everyone had always seen the passage.

Absolutely. The geocentrists interpretation was wrong, but the world accepted it. Mine is correct. I have God's Word on it, and yet religionists of all kinds, refuse to believe it since it goes against their religion, no matter what Scripture says.

Luk 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

In Love,
Aman

Calminian said:

Nor did the early fathers nor the early jews. They believe in literal days (most of them, anyway), but also believe they had allegorical meanings as well.

Click to expand...

There is a brief reference to this belief in the wikipedia article on Jewish eschatology:

According to the Talmud,[9] the Midrash,[10] and the Kabbalistic work, the Zohar,[11] the 'deadline' by which the Messiah must appear is 6000 years from creation. A majority of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews believe that the Hebrew calendar dates back to the time of creation; the year 2009-2010 (the Hebrew New Year begins during September or October) of the Gregorian calendar corresponds to the Hebrew year 5770.

There is a kabbalistic tradition[12] that maintains that the seven days of creation in Genesis 1 correspond to seven millennia of the existence of natural creation. The tradition teaches that the seventh day of the week, Shabbat or the day of rest, corresponds to the seventh millennium (Hebrew years 6000 - 7000), the age of universal 'rest' - the Messianic Era.

Click to expand...

emphasis added
Jewish eschatology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, that's just a fancy way of saying you don't take them literally.

Click to expand...

No, it's a straightforward way of saying I don't take them historically. "Literally" has a different meaning than "historically".

You tend to use "literally" when you really mean "I think this is actual history." The correct term for that would be "historical" not "literal".

"Literally" means a word, phrase, etc. should be understood in its plainest, most common meaning.

So if you understand "day" to refer to an age of a thousand years or to geological eras, or even to the lifetime of a single person (e.g. "back in my grandfather's day..."), that is not a literal meaning as the most common meaning of "day" is a single cycle of day+night.

That seems to me to be clearly the meaning intended by the author of Genesis 1, especially given the repeated phrase "there was evening, there ways morning, one (or third, fifth, etc.) day"

However, if, as I also believe, the author is framing a story about creation rather than recounting the actual history of the making of the universe, this literal meaning of "day" which makes perfectly good sense within the framework of the story, need not refer to any actual, historical time.

But there's no reason to do this, save to appease scientific naturalists. I would just trust God, even when the revelations sounds utterly incredible. God will bless you for doing it.

Click to expand...

I do trust God and God's revelation. But I trust ALL of God's revelation which includes the creation itself (a fact to which scripture also bears witness). I do not believe the revelation via creation (commonly called the "general revelation") and the testimony of scripture (commonly called the "special revelation") can be contradictory.

There is nothing wrong with naturalism if you believe nature is God's creation and testifies to itself truly.

If anything, the belief that all of God's acts must be miraculous is a denial of the doctrine of creation and of God's many acts of providence within the natural world. It smacks of the seeking of signs for which Jesus reproved the Pharisees.

Miracles, as the word itself attests, are intended to be signs of wonder, distinguished from the everyday. God, however, is just as much to be found by those who choose to see, in the everyday unfolding of natural events--and to this also the scripture often speaks.

We need to be praising God for both his special works of wonder--often linked to redemption--and for his daily works of natural providence, which are no less amazing in their own way.

Absolutely false. You've been completely mislead on this. As I mentioned above, virtually all of them, with very few exceptions believe the days were literal.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know how widespread the belief was, but it certainly existed. The belief in the early church that we were living in the last century or so prior to the 6,000th year from creation and the beginning of the millennial kingdom was the inspiration for chiliastic or millennial movements almost every century until the Church began treating millenialism as a heresy.

But they believed them to be allegorical about the future as well, representing 1000 year periods in the future. This of course has been completely twisted by old earth compromisers as meaning them did not take the days literally. The truth is, they all viewed genesis as historical narrative, and yet saw symbolic allegory in the text as well, usually pertaining to future events.

Click to expand...

See, there again, you are confusing "literal" with "historical narrative". A fictional narrative can be just as literal (basically using the common meanings of words) as a historical narrative. And a historical narrative can be conveyed in terms that are not literal. So the idea that something is "historical" should not be confused with the idea that a text is intentionally "literal".

Granted, the two concepts often apply to the same texts, for a history may be recounted in literal terms and often is. Still they are different concepts and do not always occur together. Just as "historical" and "narrative" do not always occur together.

So I would agree that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both narratives. I would agree that the days of Genesis 1 are literal. I don't agree that the narratives are history. I do agree that ancient peoples probably thought they were history, even as they recognized (possibly better than we do) the figurative allusions.

As an aside, we should also note that "narrative" and "poetry" are also terms that are not mutually exclusive. Very often one comes across narratives that are preserved in poetry. Including historical narratives.

Clarifying these terms and not assuming unnecessary correlations between them helps focus in on what the actual issue of interpretation is.

The reason for this may be due to the hebrew language, just to speculate a bit. The verbs in hebrew can sometimes be ambiguous and therefore can be both present and literal as well as prophetic. That's just a small theory I'm looking into.

Click to expand...

I doubt that Hebrew is unique in this respect. Most any language can be used in multiple ways. The main thing I question is the fairly recent tendency in some Protestant churches to treat a literal meaning as superior to other meanings and always to be preferred to alternatives, wherever possible. When this is further compounded by correlating "literal" with "historical" as if the first implied the second, one has a recipe for many assumptions about the meaning of the text with no significant hermeneutic basis.

And IMO, it turns a blind eye to the full richness of a text with multiple layers of meaning. One ends up quarreling about insignificant things, like how many hours did it take for the universe as we know it to come into existence, instead of deepening our understanding of the important matters: that God is One, the Creator of all that is and much, much more.

Of Genesis, yes. I realize you change your hermeneutic for other portions of scripture, and trust the gospels to be literal,

Click to expand...

Well, no I don't. I suppose you really mean "historical" again. I certainly think that as we move through the biblical narratives there are increasing indications of historical persons, places and events, but there is never in any part of scripture, including the gospels, anything resembling what a person of our time means by "history" in terms of documented, verifiable, factual accounts. One has to ferret out kernels of "history" from mostly anonymous writings which also include elements of mysticism, symbolism, theological overlay, etc. The bible is simply not an easy book to read or understand.

but when it comes to Genesis, yes, I do believe you're trusting secular naturalistic theories of God's word.

Click to expand...

I don't think there are secular naturalistic theories of God's Word. Perhaps you mean I am trusting scientific descriptions of natural history? Sure, where they make sense of nature. When science is accurate about nature, it is being accurate about the creation, and who would not want to trust what creation--God's own handiwork--tells us? After all, nature was brought into being by the Word of God as scripture was brought into being by the Spirit of God. I think human interpretations, whether of nature or of scripture, always need to be interrogated and we must not be wedded to our favorite interpretations when that puts nature and scripture in contradiction. Better to trust in God who gave us both than in human interpreters of either.

I don't feel you have experience the blessing of believing and defending God's word in Genesis. You've certainly experienced other blessings, but not this one.

Click to expand...

Oh, I most certainly have. Isn't it fortunate that I don't need to depend on what you feel to experience that blessing?

gluadys said:

....No, it's a straightforward way of saying I don't take them historically. "Literally" has a different meaning than "historically".

Click to expand...

I think you're getting into semantics here. you should just be straightforward that you don't believe Genesis.

gluadys said:

I do trust God and God's revelation.

Click to expand...

I wish this were true.

gluadys said:

If anything, the belief that all of God's acts must be miraculous is a denial of the doctrine of creation and of God's many acts of providence within the natural world. It smacks of the seeking of signs for which Jesus reproved the Pharisees.

Click to expand...

LOL, so now I'm a pharisee for believe in the 6 day creation? you've devolved in your ability to debate this issue.

gluadys said:

We need to be praising God for both his special works of wonder--often linked to redemption--and for his daily works of natural providence, which are no less amazing in their own way.

Click to expand...

But only creationists can do both. You have rejected the special acts of God in creation and opted to view everything through scientific naturalism. Thus you've rejected the straightforward literal historical reading of Genesis. But the creationist who doesn't deny God's miraculous role in creation can appreciate both God's creative power as well as his upholding power.

gluadys said:

See, there again, you are confusing "literal" with "historical narrative".

Click to expand...

you keep accusing me of this, yet your argument is not logical. Genesis when read literally, is a historical narrative. The only one confused about this is you, as you try to defend your own unbelief in the narrative.

gluadys said:

Granted, the two concepts often apply to the same texts, ....

Click to expand...

Bingo, you just undermined your own accusation.

You're trying way to hard to hide your unbelief in the straightforward historical narrative literal reading of book of Genesis. Just be upfront, and stop trying to make it sound so technical.

Aman777 said:

Originally Posted by Aman777

Originally Posted by Aman777

Nothing like that is necessary. It's the usual, let me make up whatever fits my view, theology. The SON, who provided the Light for 3 Days, before the SUN was made, and who will provide the Light of Heaven, is the answer. Jesus told us He was the Light of the world. Now, you can see that His Truth is Literal.​

Click to expand...

Mark:>>The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence, purpose and nature. They are still individual persons. The Trinity can be tricky, I advise caution.

Dear Mark, The Trinity is one Spiritually too...with mankind. Death was brought about when God created matter apart from Himself. The ONLY way to avoid darkness or death is to be "in God" Spiritually, Eternally. The ONLY way to be in God is to be in Christ, Spiritually since only God is immortal. 1 - - Bible Gateway Timothy+6:16&version=KJV

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

You must be born again, Spiritually, in order to inherit immortality. That creates you anew "in God", destined for eternal life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ IS the power of God unto Salvation, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

I realize that you know these things but I just wanted to share with you that your brothers and sisters do too. Sometimes, especially on these boards, it can seem as if everyone is against you. I'm not.

In Love,
Aman

Aman777 said:

Aman:>>The Father is the Spirit of Love, to me. It's the best way I can understand an invisible Spirit. Jesus is the physical Image of that Holy Spirit, and we are connected to the Father and the Son, by the Holy Spirit who also lives within us, thanks to Jesus. God is ONE, Spiritually.
​

Mark:>>The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence, purpose and nature. They are still individual persons. The Trinity can be tricky, I advise caution.

Dear Mark, The Trinity is one Spiritually too...with mankind. Death was brought about when God created matter apart from Himself. The ONLY way to avoid darkness or death is to be "in God" Spiritually, Eternally. The ONLY way to be in God is to be in Christ, Spiritually since only God is immortal. 1 - - Bible Gateway Timothy+6:16&version=KJV

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

You must be born again, Spiritually, in order to inherit immortality. That creates you anew "in God", destined for eternal life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ IS the power of God unto Salvation, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

I realize that you know these things but I just wanted to share with you that your brothers and sisters do too. Sometimes, especially on these boards, it can seem as if everyone is against you. I'm not.

In Love,
Aman

Click to expand...

I just wanted you to be careful about statements concerning the Trinity, it can be a sticky doctrinal issue. Christians; Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox will shun you if you come off as Sabellian or Arian.

I think you are trying to emphasis the bond of perfection:


That's why I advised caution, I think your making a good point here. I really never thought you were denying the Trinity but unless your careful you can come off that way. Just a word to the wise.


Notice how distinct the unity as well as the individuality of the members of the Godhead are maintained. The Creation/Evolution thing is an apologetic exercise, a defense of the Christian faith. One of the first thing Christian apologists will emphasis is the deity of Christ which is inextricably linked to the doctrine of the Trinity. Historically the Church has made the Trinity one of it's primary apologetic doctrines, defending it rigorously our entire history. Just be careful brother, I know you mean well and you trying hard but you don't want to be careless about this doctrine. That's all I'm saying, my previous post was not meant to be an apologetic defense, just a word of caution.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy said:

Well you would have to include the vast majority of astronomers who believed in geocentrism right up until the development of the telescope.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with that, it was a perfect reasonable conclusion from the evidence just like everybody who ever went outside and saw the sun appear to move across the sky every day, assumed that the sun was really moving across the sky. The real mistake Christians made was in arguing against science because it contradicted their interpretation of scripture. The problem Aman has is that he doesn't realise he has fallen into the same trap and thinks that his understanding of Adam being created on the third day 'proves' evolution is wrong when no matter how convinced the geocentrists were their interpretation was correct, the emerging evidence for heliocentrism showed it was simply wrong.

I get a little tired of seeing the historical narratives of Scripture equivocated with a couple of isolated verses out of context. It's bogus.

Click to expand...

The geocentric description of Joshua's miracle is in the middle of the historic narrative of the conquest of Canaan.

That's not unreasonable if you compare your views with the Aristotelean scholasticism of that day. Darwinism makes a much more worthy basis of comparison and you seem to forget all too easy, that was the overwhelming view of medieval astronomers as well.

Click to expand...

Aristotelian physics was prevailing science before Copernicus and Galileo because it was the best science of the day. When Copernican and Galileo's new mechanics came along they displaced Aristotle because they were much better science. If the new scientific discoveries contradict your understanding of the bible you can go with the science and find a better way to understand scripture, or you can say your interpretation of scripture disproves the new science. That is what the geocentrists who fought against Copernicus and Galileo did, and it is what Aman is doing with his third day interpretation. You see you can be in the minority because you are in the vanguard of a new science, or you can be in the minority because you are clinging to a world view science has past by.

But none of that deals with creationists inability to understand why geocentrists interpreted scripture the way they did, or how obviously the interpretation seemed plain meaning of the text to them.

You point is invalid and as usual your trying to make this about someone else's flawed interpretation. Why don't you stop and think about the fact that Genesis is written as an historical narrative. Then maybe you can explain why the book of Genesis could be a testimony regarding redemptive history covering better then 2,000 years but the opening passage has to be a parable or some such.

Click to expand...

If their fervently held interpretation could be wrong, why couldn't creationist interpretations be flawed too? It doesn't matter the supports you muster for your interpretation, they had their arguments for their interpretation of the geocentric passages too. There was never consensus in the church that Genesis 1 was written as literal history, there was consensus in interpreting the book of Joshua as a historical narrative and interpreting Joshua's miracle as halting the geocentric motion of the sun around the earth. The case for their geocentric interpretation was much stronger than the creationist case. We should learn from the mistakes of those who went before us.

Only modernists do this and that's only because they can never admit a miracle, especially with regards to essential Christian doctrine.

Click to expand...

Augustine and Aquinas were modernists?

The big difference is that heliocentrism is not directly linked to essential doctrine, Adam is.

Have a nice day
Mark

Click to expand...

What doctrine based on Adam being moulded by God from clay?

Assyrian:>>What doctrine based on Adam being moulded by God from clay?

Dear Assyrian, It's the doctrine that separates modernists and religionists from Christians. In order to become a Christian God must give you enough Faith to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ....ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES.

Genesis 2:4-7 tell us that man was formed (squeezed into shape as a Potter molds the clay) by the Hands of YHWH/Jesus from the dust of the ground. Do you believe Scripture or do you wish to try and allegorize God's Truth? Or do you claim that Magical Evolution produced man? from Nothing? Get real.

In Love,
Aman

Assyrian:>>The problem Aman has is that he doesn't realise he has fallen into the same trap and thinks that his understanding of Adam being created on the third day 'proves' evolution is wrong when no matter how convinced the geocentrists were their interpretation was correct, the emerging evidence for heliocentrism showed it was simply wrong.

Dear Assyrian, I suppose that's WHY I have been online so long begging "so called" Evolutionists to refute my views. All they have to do is explain WHY human civilization came so SUDDENLY in less than 1% of the time since our ancestors first walked upright. Oh, and please tell us How and When mindless Nature produced human intelligence in Apes, and list a single human city built BEFORE Noah arrived and brought the Human intelligence of Adam to this Planet of evolved Apes.

IOW, God's Holy Word explains all these things and goes beyond by telling us How and When we SUDDENLY became Humans, began to farm, build cities, develop writing and math and travel to the Moon and Back in less than 1% of the time since we diverged from the Chimps.

It's a real problem getting Evols to do anything but run and hide from God's Truth. I am so happy to find one who will stand up and have his precious theory of evolution destroyed by God's Holy Word. I await your insight. I've been looking for a sensible answer to my questions for more than a decade, now.

In Love,
Aman

Assyrian said:

... If the new scientific discoveries contradict your understanding of the bible you can go with the science and find a better way to understand scripture, or you can say your interpretation of scripture disproves the new science. ....

Click to expand...

Yeah, but Assyrian you're acting like the entire scientific community immediately switched to the copernicus/galileo model. That's not what happened. It was the scientific community that challenged galileo and apparently drove him into seclusion from what I've read. It took time for this new model to prevail in the scientific community. But in Galileo's day, it was geocentrism that was the majority science.

Now you ask why some theologians interpreted geocentrism into scripture and that answer is quite simple. They were much like theologians of today, always looking to harmonize scriptures with science. It's an age old practice. You're among those who practice this very thing. There's no question in my mind you would have sided with the majority science of Galileo's day, and used scripture to justify it.