The Barbarian Posted February 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2020 31 minutes ago, dad2 said: The verse says "shall" which is future tense. It specifically applied to Adam and Eve; hence present tense. No way to dodge that, either. "Mother" and "father" had no meaning then for Adam or Eve. It's an anachronism, only if you force a literal interpretation of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted February 6, 2020 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2020 2 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Clearly you are. If God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree, and Adam lives on physically for many years thereafter,there are only two choices; either God does not tell the truth, or the death God spoke of was not physical. Instead of trying to dodge this fact, accept it and go on. The death was spiritual. They died that day. Their bodies died centuries later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted February 6, 2020 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Barbarian said: It specifically applied to Adam and Eve; hence present tense. No way to dodge that, either. "Mother" and "father" had no meaning then for Adam or Eve. It's an anachronism, only if you force a literal interpretation of it. Yes, Eve was the mother of all living. Their future children would be mothers and fathers. Shall refers to the future. Obviously it applied to their kids. Then the shall deals with future. For Eve Adam mentioned shew was 'now' bone of his bones. Another confirmation she was created by the way, just the way God said. Also, it was not about Adam only obviously, because not only do we have the future tense but it specifies 'therefore, shall A MAN' Man in general from now on in other words. Trying to use this to support your unbelief in a real Eve and Adam that was created by God, and not evolved from pond scum is nothing short of wicked. Edited February 6, 2020 by dad2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted February 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2020 14 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said: It indicates that all things were created by His spoken word. As I mentioned previously, the language of Genesis also indicates that the substance of the universe was created out of nothing. But living things appear through a different mechanism, particularly in Genesis 1:24. Quote Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. According to His will and His word, I would say yes. Was it ex nihilo? I would say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted February 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2020 10 minutes ago, charisenexcelsis said: I accept that you make that choice. The Koine Greek reading in Hebrews would support a broad creation out of nothing. Yes, broadly speaking, the substance of the universe came from nothing, just as Hebrews indicates. Think of the creation of living things as a subcategory that happens to not be ex nihilo, if you wish. Ultimately, everything came from nothing, but specific creation acts used material already present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted February 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2020 1 minute ago, charisenexcelsis said: By broad, I would contend normative. Just know that your hermeneutics are very speculative. Please hermeneutically respond to Genesis 1:24. I am not a scholar of Biblical languages, but the English in many translations says the same thing and I can’t see how the conclusion can be avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted February 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2020 4 minutes ago, charisenexcelsis said: The creation of man becomes even more difficult to interpret Yes, it is difficult, but one thing we can safely say is that it was not ex nihilo. Yes, ultimately all things in the universe came from material that was not already present. So it can be correctly argued that all creation is ultimately ex nihilo. But obviously, certain creation acts were not. I really am having a hard time understanding why you are arguing this point. Maybe you could shed some light on why this issue is important enough to you to disregard the language used in Genesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2020 5 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said: What I assert is that man did not evolve from another animal. That is a fact. We are animals. But we are not merely animals; in addition to being created naturally like the other animals, God directly gives us an immortal soul. And that makes all the difference. 5 hours ago, one.opinion said: Think of the creation of living things as a subcategory that happens to not be ex nihilo, if you wish. More precisely, it's what God willed. He says so in Genesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said: Hermeneutics does not interpret scripture in isolation. Genesis 1:24 is your strongest support, but only toward plants. Actually, God says that animals were brought forth by earth and air. So that's also not a debatable point, if one trusts God. 5 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said: The creation of animals "after their kind" is much more difficult to correlate with evolution, as macro-evolution theory supports the change of species identity. That's the problem creationists have; they are willing to agree that God created each kind, but they disapprove of the way He did it. 5 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said: The creation of man becomes even more difficult to interpret, as He creates them after His image, difficult to correlate with evolution. Shouldn't be a problem for a Christian. Remember God is a spirit being eternal and unchanging, which means He does not have parts as He would if He had a body. So the "image" is in our minds and spirits, not our bodies. 5 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said: The Bible is largely monochotomous, not making as strong of a distinction between the body of man and the spirit. It clearly indicates that the body and the soul were created in two different ways. Edited February 6, 2020 by The Barbarian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2020 5 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said: If you believe that the leap occurred from inert molecules to living matter without a divine hand, then you are engaged in atheistic science. God says that the Earth did it. Hence, naturally, not supernaturally. He created the universe so that it would bring forth life. Divine providence was in making the universe to fulfill His will. This is orthodox Christian belief, not atheistic anything. God said the earth brought forth living things. 5 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said: There is no scientific evidence of that occurring because it has never been observed, even in a laboratory. We have God's word for it, and yes, the evidence is increasingly in support of a natural origin of life, as God said. Would you like to learn about some of it? 6 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said: In order for evidence to be scientific, it must be observable and repeatable. Since it has neither been observed nor repeated, then any assertion is not based upon scientific method. You've been misled badly on that. Repeated investigations show that the molecules that form living things readily appear naturally. If God said that He created life suddenly and miraculously, I'd believe it. Darwin, for example, thought so. It doesn't in any way contradict evolutionary theory, which assumes life began somehow, after which it changed by evolutionary processes. That's what we observe. 6 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said: I understand that you do not believe that it happened without a divine hand. In doing so, and this is not a criticism, you engage in "theistic science" because you believe in an occurrence in science only supported by your faith. No. Since both God and science indicate that life began naturally, those two happen to agree. Faith, however, is not required. No theistic assumptions are necessary for biology thereby. Since philosophers do not agree on the necessity of a creator to make the universe, it's even a matter of debate as to whether or not cosmology must assume a creator. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts