Where Did Humans Come From?

[JAL]

Since you failed to show that fire that God uses directly is essentially different than the fire He uses for other things, I figured you'd be finishing the argument for us. So that's it? You just believe it's different?

Let me get this straight. Your assumption is that all those instances of Fire were exactly the same kind of natural fire employed by men? I personally would tend to think that the Fire outpoured on Pentecost was the promised outpouring of the Third Person.

Why didn't it burn them up on Pentecost, if it was just natural fire?

It's a moot point. I've given other examples of non-straightforward language in literal texts. Here's another. The Bible says that "Christ died for us".

That's not straightforward at all. Contrary to popular belief, Christ's death is NOT what atoned for my sins. Think about it. What atoned for my sins was all His suffering UP TILL THAT MOMENT. The moment of death was the easy part - the merciful part - it was the CESSATION of suffering. By that time, death is probably what He LONGED FOR MOST (I certainly would have).

And more examples could be provided.

 

[JAL]

@The Barbarian.

Come to think of it, the Fire is NOT a moot point. You DO need to explain why the fire did not burn them up. This will force you to posit a miraculous intervention of God. And this would make you look hypocritical because earlier you basically said, "If one must posit a miracle to explain things, it's not a literal text."

So Acts is figurative text? The Pentecost outpouring never happened?

 

[The Barbarian]

And this would make you look hypocritical because earlier you basically said, "If one must posit a miracle to explain things, it's not a literal text."

Well, at least this time you admitted that the quote wasn't me. Appreciate the effort, even if that's not what I said.

And Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were in real, natural fire, and God protected them from harm. So I fail to see why that wouldn't happen again. How do you figure that?

 

[JAL]

Well, at least this time you admitted that the quote wasn't me. Appreciate the effort, even if that's not what I said.

And Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were in real, natural fire, and God protected them from harm. So I fail to see why that wouldn't happen again. How do you figure that?

Two points.
...(1) No indication this was fire from heaven. We are led to believe it WAS natural fire.
...(2) Miraculous intervention isn't a problem for me.

So it looks like you've only deflected my question. Why didn't the Fire on Pentecost burn them up? Is Acts 2 a figurative chapter?

 

[The Barbarian]

So Acts is figurative text? The Pentecost outpouring never happened?

You're thinking of the Pentacost, where the Paraclete came to the assembled apostles;

Acts 2:3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them:

"As it were of fire" so a metaphor for something quite different.

 

[JAL]

You're thinking of the Pentacost, where the Paraclete came to the assembled apostles;

Acts 2:3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them:

"As it were of fire" so a metaphor for something quite different.

It's not a metaphor. At best you can argue that the language here underscores the difference between natural fire and divine Fire - it was something LIKE natural fire. Divine Fire, in other word, RESEMBLES natural fire. No problem there.

Proof it wasn't a metaphor:

Mat 3:11:

"He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

That's a standard English translation. It's not a perfect translation in my opinion but the "fire" part is accurate enough.

 

[JAL]

@The Barbarian,


"He breathed on them, and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'" (John 20:22).

Does Jesus exhale material air? Or the Holy Spirit? Can you explain how this literal text is perfectly straightforward?

 

[JAL]

And Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were in real, natural fire, and God protected them from harm. So I fail to see why that wouldn't happen again. How do you figure that?

Miraculous intervention? In a literal text? I'm confused. Don't you deny literalism of Genesis 1 whenever we postulate miracles?

 

[JAL]

@The Barbarian,

I think we can move off this topic. I think anyone monitoring this thread has, by now, realized there's at least a smidgen of plausibility for both sides of the debate.

 

[FaithT]

I invite you all to participate on the Christian History subforum titled Quirinius, Luke

 

[BobRyan]

Here is what God actually said about it --

Gen 2:
And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

7 the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living person. 8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.


Ex 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Could you show us that if the text somewhere repeats a figurative text, that converts it to a literal text? How do you figure that?

Well the obvious ---

In Gen 1 --
day is day.
evening is evening
morning is morning

"six days you shall work... for in six days the lord Made"... Ex 20

This is just not that hard.

You might make this a bit faster if you can show us the part you find to exclude the literal timeline in what is quoted at the top of this post.

 

[BobRyan]

Since we've found abiotic protein sequences in the interior of meterorites and we have evidence of abiotic synthesis of nucleotides,

What you "need" is the right set of amino acids as "a very basic start" and you don't have it in abiogenetic nature. That is simply chemistry... no zillions of years needed to come up with a few acids with a chemistry set.

You "need" proteins composed of L-amino Acids exclusively in your supposed "synthesis" if you want an actual viable prokaryote or eukaryote. The you need a place to put those proteins into a functioning cell.

 

[BobRyan]

I invite you all to participate on the Christian History subforum titled Quirinius, Luke

Do you have a link?

 

[BobRyan]

But "morning" and "evening" are quite specific in Hebrew. And defined by a sun.

Because All those Hebrews lived in a condition where there is a sun --- but in Genesis Moses is being shown the genesis of the Sun, moon and all life on Earth so in THAT context all that is needed is a rotating planet and a light source on one side of Earth rather than on all sides.. At least for the first 3 days... and that alone gets you a 24 hour day and evening and morning.

Unless you know of some restriction on God that would prevent Him from creating such an effect if the exact science of that effect were not first fully explained to the observer "Moses" in this case.

 

[FaithT]

Do you have a link?

I don’t know how to link to a subforum.

 

[JAL]

I think this link is intended:

Quirinius, Luke | Christian Forums

 

[BobRyan]

I don’t know how to link to a subforum.

Look at the browser address bar at the top of this page. That long line of text that starts with https: is the link. All you have to do is go to any forum where you want others to join - and copy that address line... then paste it here.

 

[JAL]

"six days you shall work... for in six days the lord Made"... Ex 20

So Bob, why do you think the Lord mentioned His own six days in this verse? Why not just keep the passage short - simply command them to work six days?

 

[FaithT]

I think this link is intended:

Quirinius, Luke | Christian Forums

That’s it. Thanks!

 

[BobRyan]

Great argument that the text seems to indicate six literal days. But to be fair, in my view six literal days does indeed allow for an old earth, as explained here.

Actually I would go so far as to opine that the text INSISTS on an old earth, but I'm not sure I want to go into detail here.

Ex 20 makes the case the the Gen 2:1-3 (Gen 1:2 - 2:3) days are the same as the Ex 20:8-11 days of the week. To insert bazzillions of days into each day of Gen 1 and then apply some sort of sliding scale to get to Ex 20 days looks like a lot of "insert". And remember Moses is speaking to an audience of newly freed slaves out of Egypt in both Gen 1 and in Ex 20. So complexifying it does not help with the case we have historically.