c7ityi_ said:
Are you serious about all of this rampant, ummm... interpretation of genesis?
THEORY of gravity
- Thread starter a_ht
- Start date
Are you serious about all of this rampant, ummm... interpretation of genesis?
superluminal said:
Ha-ha! He just makes us stuff as he goes along. It's all nonsense. Since I don't bother with any of his meaningless meanderings anymore, I'd never have seen it if you hadn't quoted it in your post. (I always read all of yours - unlike several others that I ignore completely.)
The Devil Inside said:
1) I was going on memory about the sum of money. But (implicitly) you do admit there was a payoff by the Jewish pharisees. That was the original point being made but you got yourself hung up on a petty little nit. I can see that we are not communicating.
2) Pilate had him crucified to prevent a riot, instigated by the pharisees, and Barrabus was released and Jesus was punished instead according to a Jewish custom, not a roman custom.
3) I've never seen "The Passion of the Christ," so you are in error to just assume this, just like you were in error about the Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine concerning hell/sheol by assumption. I rarely watch movies anymore.
You say I admitted I am a new christian and again this is in error.
I became a christian when I was 28 and now I am 53 -- that's 25 years. I've been an adult christian about as long as you have been alive. Your adult life is pretty short compared to mine.
As far as other religious folks that are regulars on this board -- who are you talking about, I didn't know there were any?
I'm waiting to hear you say something that is true instead of false. Are you able to do that? Seriously. If you know as much as you say, then demonstrate it by answering the questions I have already asked you. I have answered yours, when are you going to answer mine? This is one-sided.
When you say I am an idiot, what am I supposed to think about you? You leave an impression of a terrible communicator. Whether you talk to me or anyone else this way I get the same impression. Ask yourself: Isn't there a better way of saying what you just said? Surely an intelligent person can do better.
If you don't want to associate with me then fine .. now where were we with the original discussion before this distraction came along?
Last edited:
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
THE BIBLE IS NOT A BAD SOURSE....
its just that men.... make bad interpretations of it.
my interpretation is science based.... and low and behold.. Genesis isnt so bad.
-MT
its just that men.... make bad interpretations of it.
my interpretation is science based.... and low and behold.. Genesis isnt so bad.
-MT
C
charles cure
Guest
all of this debate over the bible's compatability with science is about as useful as trying to figure out how the world was created by analysing passages from the Great Gatsby. its all fiction. the bible is a fantasy.
Mosheh Thezion said:THE BIBLE IS NOT A BAD SOURSE....
its just that men.... make bad interpretations of it.
my interpretation is science based.... and low and behold.. Genesis isnt so bad.
-MT
You have a picture of a whale amongst the fishes.
LOL! What do you expect? He has 'man' on a different line than other primates. What is that behind man? An insect? hehe And the wild claim that "man didn't evolve up from apes...," this is evidence of the megalomaniacal need to distance man from the rest of nature as if we were somehow more special because of divine favor.
The remainder of the cartoon likewise shows evidence of a lack of education with the whale before the dinosaurs and not at least drawn to be near the elephant (hippos to be precise). The inclusion of the anthropomorphic alien is as superstitious as the inclusion of the anthropomorphic deity.
Still, if it were drawn by a 6 year-old trying to make heads or tales of the world after being forced to endure 6 years of propaganda from his parents, I'd say bravo. I suspect, however, this originates from a somewhat older individual.
The remainder of the cartoon likewise shows evidence of a lack of education with the whale before the dinosaurs and not at least drawn to be near the elephant (hippos to be precise). The inclusion of the anthropomorphic alien is as superstitious as the inclusion of the anthropomorphic deity.
Still, if it were drawn by a 6 year-old trying to make heads or tales of the world after being forced to endure 6 years of propaganda from his parents, I'd say bravo. I suspect, however, this originates from a somewhat older individual.
Hmmm,. send that guy a dictionary. It's 'mammal'.
S/M: What do you think about all moving animals evolving from the ocean?
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Then there's a statement about the atmosphere of the early earth (Gen 2:5&6):
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Was the earth's atmosphere different in this way: i.e., a lot more water vapor in the air, and a thick layer of atmospheric insulation.
I don't see a verse that says: thou shalt not believe the theory of evolution.
Somebody needs to show me a verse in the bible that disagrees with the theory of evolution.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Then there's a statement about the atmosphere of the early earth (Gen 2:5&6):
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Was the earth's atmosphere different in this way: i.e., a lot more water vapor in the air, and a thick layer of atmospheric insulation.
I don't see a verse that says: thou shalt not believe the theory of evolution.
Somebody needs to show me a verse in the bible that disagrees with the theory of evolution.
Last edited:
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Woody,
I thought it was obvious.
"So God created man..."
The modern theory of evolution by natural selection states that all beings have evolved from some original instance or instances of life (how life got started is a subject for molecular biologists). So, saying that "God created man" or "God created whales", is in direct contradiction to evolutionary theory.
If the bible said "And God created the first self replicating molecules such that they might evolve, thus giving rise to more complex creatures..." I might feel differently about it.
I thought it was obvious.
"So God created man..."
The modern theory of evolution by natural selection states that all beings have evolved from some original instance or instances of life (how life got started is a subject for molecular biologists). So, saying that "God created man" or "God created whales", is in direct contradiction to evolutionary theory.
If the bible said "And God created the first self replicating molecules such that they might evolve, thus giving rise to more complex creatures..." I might feel differently about it.
The theory of evolution states that natural processes created the diversity of life as we know it and not god.
Could that be the point?
-----
oops...posted too late.
Could that be the point?
-----
oops...posted too late.
Better late than never! 
"So God created man..."
It doesn't say how God created man except from the dust of the earth. It also doesn't say that Adam was the only man God created. There are two accounts of man's creation, one of them in genesis 1 the other in genesis 2.
Then there were the people in the land of Nod that Adam's children married. Nothing says those people could not have evolved, but they were there, contemporaneouswith Adam. This would indeed explain a mistery that's perplexed theologians for centuries. Perhaps Adam was different from the rest because he had a living soul, but this is not stated. Also his longevity was much greater than modern man's but could have been bred out over time.
AS for the "whales" evolving from the ocean, the hebrew word for whale means "large sea creature." They didn't know the difference between whales and fish in their day.
It doesn't say how God created man except from the dust of the earth. It also doesn't say that Adam was the only man God created. There are two accounts of man's creation, one of them in genesis 1 the other in genesis 2.
Then there were the people in the land of Nod that Adam's children married. Nothing says those people could not have evolved, but they were there, contemporaneouswith Adam. This would indeed explain a mistery that's perplexed theologians for centuries. Perhaps Adam was different from the rest because he had a living soul, but this is not stated. Also his longevity was much greater than modern man's but could have been bred out over time.
AS for the "whales" evolving from the ocean, the hebrew word for whale means "large sea creature." They didn't know the difference between whales and fish in their day.
Last edited:
The theory of evolution does explicity state that man was created by means of a natural process It doesn't matter that there are conflicting stories in the bible.