Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A representative of any group (whether it's atheists or elected politicians) can't accurately represent everyone. But we can say, for example, "In general catholics believe what they state in their creed".
Why should I believe what you believe when you admit that even other christians generally don't accept your views?
It isn't a question of compromising to satisfy others. It's a question of using the criticisms of others to reexamine your own beliefs.
Again it does not matter what others believe, this is just your attempt to muddy the waters.
You said science and the creation account cannot be reconciled.
I asked you to back your statement up.
You inferred that it would be a waste of your time because religious people will just lie or deny the evidence.
I then showed how the scriptures and science are in align with each other and have yet to have any reply to it you then proceeded to say you cannot address each persons personal view, which is just another way to muddy the waters.
You are simply the one in denial phet, you have no answer to what I wrote so you keep muddling the water with all this other stuff so you do not have to address what I wrote.
And I am always examining my beliefs, for as I said I like to have my beliefs challenged as it will either strengthen them or I can see my error.
However just like here with you, once I put forth my belief and it challenges someone else belief, yours in this case, then the quit speaking with me or like you try and muddy the waters so they do not have to show me where I am wrong.
You say use others criticism of what I say to examine my own beliefs, yet you have yet to try and make an answer to what I wrote.
I get you do not like what I wrote as it shows you something you do not want to believe, but the evidence is there and your only doing that which you accuse the religious of doing, denying the evidence.
Again it does not matter what others believe, this is just your attempt to muddy the waters.
You said science and the creation account cannot be reconciled.
I asked you to back your statement up.
You inferred that it would be a waste of your time because religious people will just lie or deny the evidence.
I then showed how the scriptures and science are in align with each other and have yet to have any reply to it you then proceeded to say you cannot address each persons personal view, which is just another way to muddy the waters.
You are simply the one in denial phet, you have no answer to what I wrote so you keep muddling the water with all this other stuff so you do not have to address what I wrote.
And I am always examining my beliefs, for as I said I like to have my beliefs challenged as it will either strengthen them or I can see my error.
However just like here with you, once I put forth my belief and it challenges someone else belief, yours in this case, then the quit speaking with me or like you try and muddy the waters so they do not have to show me where I am wrong.
You say use others criticism of what I say to examine my own beliefs, yet you have yet to try and make an answer to what I wrote.
I get you do not like what I wrote as it shows you something you do not want to believe, but the evidence is there and your only doing that which you accuse the religious of doing, denying the evidence.
Then explain scientifically how Adam being created as a full blown adult and Eve being built out of one of his ribs or out of his side is compatible with the scientific theory of evolution. A theory in science not being a guess but rather, ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.'' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...n%20experiment.
Since you take the Genesis account to be a literal and historical event then you should be able to reconcile the Genesis account of Adam's and Eve's immediate creation with evolution. Now's your chance.
Then explain scientifically how Adam being created as a full blown adult and Eve being built out of one of his ribs or out of his side is compatible with the scientific theory of evolution. A theory in science not being a guess but rather, ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.'' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...n%20experiment.
Since you take the Genesis account to be a literal and historical event then you should be able to reconcile the Genesis account of Adam's and Eve's immediate creation with evolution. Now's your chance.
Even though this has nothing to do with what I wrote concerning the creation of the heaven and the earth and
I have explained it to you before mike I will endeavour to do so again.
Gen.1:26 & 27 says
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
This is yet to come to pass, it is God declaring the end from the beginning
Isa 46:9 - Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
46:10 - Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
How do we know Gen.1:26 & 27 is God declaring the end from the beginning?
Because Paul tells us in 1co.15.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Now it should be obvious that if the first man Adam is of the earth earthy and we as of right now bear that same image then it should also be obvious that we are not yet in the image and likeness of God. However we are promised that we shall bear the image of the heavenly or that of the second man.
Now scripture tells us that man/humanity is made in the image and likeness of God on the sixth day.
And as we are not yet in his image and likeness yet this would indicate we are living in the sixth day of creation.
Now then we come to Genesis 2.
It is not a second creation account, it is an explanation of how God will create humanity in his image and likeness as he had declared from the beginning.
Now most Christians know and believe that man/humanity can only be made in the image and likeness of God through Jesus Christ. And that is exactly what we see portrayed in Adam having a sleep and eve being formed out of him.
It is not the science that causes you all the problems mike it is your understanding of the scriptures that does.
I am not trying to be mean here or belittle you in any way mike I am trying to get you to look more closely at the scriptures and hopefully chew on what I have said in these posts for awhile and not just toss it all aside as garbage.
I fear the latter is what will happen but I hope for the former.
Again it does not matter what others believe, this is just your attempt to muddy the waters.
You said science and the creation account cannot be reconciled.
I asked you to back your statement up.
You inferred that it would be a waste of your time because religious people will just lie or deny the evidence.
I then showed how the scriptures and science are in align with each other and have yet to have any reply to it you then proceeded to say you cannot address each persons personal view, which is just another way to muddy the waters.
You are simply the one in denial phet, you have no answer to what I wrote so you keep muddling the water with all this other stuff so you do not have to address what I wrote.
And I am always examining my beliefs, for as I said I like to have my beliefs challenged as it will either strengthen them or I can see my error.
However just like here with you, once I put forth my belief and it challenges someone else belief, yours in this case, then the quit speaking with me or like you try and muddy the waters so they do not have to show me where I am wrong.
You say use others criticism of what I say to examine my own beliefs, yet you have yet to try and make an answer to what I wrote.
I get you do not like what I wrote as it shows you something you do not want to believe, but the evidence is there and your only doing that which you accuse the religious of doing, denying the evidence.
No you did not explain how science and the creationn account line up. You were able to reconcile science with creation by changing the meanings of words and terms and fudging things into place. Good for you as that is better than what most believers of that creation story do.
But it is not a convincing reconsilation to those of us who do not already believe that story. With sufficient force I could make a square peg fit a round hole.
Even though this has nothing to do with what I wrote concerning the creation of the heaven and the earth and
I have explained it to you before mike I will endeavour to do so again.
The creation of Adam and Eve is all a part of the Genesis creation account which you claim is compatible with science.
Quote:
Gen.1:26 & 27 says
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
This is yet to come to pass, it is God declaring the end from the beginning
Never mind the 'made in God's image' stuff. Explain how the physical creation of Adam and Eve as portrayed in Genesis is compatible with biological evolution and with science.
Quote:
Isa 46:9 - Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
46:10 - Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
How do we know Gen.1:26 & 27 is God declaring the end from the beginning?
Because Paul tells us in 1co.15.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Now it should be obvious that if the first man Adam is of the earth earthy and we as of right now bear that same image then it should also be obvious that we are not yet in the image and likeness of God. However we are promised that we shall bear the image of the heavenly or that of the second man.
Now scripture tells us that man/humanity is made in the image and likeness of God on the sixth day.
And as we are not yet in his image and likeness yet this would indicate we are living in the sixth day of creation.
Now then we come to Genesis 2.
It is not a second creation account, it is an explanation of how God will create humanity in his image and likeness as he had declared from the beginning.
Now most Christians know and believe that man/humanity can only be made in the image and likeness of God through Jesus Christ. And that is exactly what we see portrayed in Adam having a sleep and eve being formed out of him.
It is not the science that causes you all the problems mike it is your understanding of the scriptures that does.
I am not trying to be mean here or belittle you in any way mike I am trying to get you to look more closely at the scriptures and hopefully chew on what I have said in these posts for awhile and not just toss it all aside as garbage.
I fear the latter is what will happen but I hope for the former.
Genesis one and Genesis two are indeed two separate and contradictory creation accounts.
And you have not reconciled the Genesis creation account concerning Adam and Eve with the scientific theory of evolution as I asked you to. You made no mention of evolution or of science whatsoever.
No you did not explain how science and the creationn account line up. You were able to reconcile science with creation by changing the meanings of words and terms and fudging things into place. Good for you as that is better than what most believers of that creation story do.
But it is not a convincing reconsilation to those of us who do not already believe that story. With sufficient force I could make a square peg fit a round hole.
I did not fudge anything I just took you to the original languages, you don’t like what you see that is fine but to deny that I did not give evidence is to deny the evidence
The creation of Adam and Eve is all a part of the Genesis creation account which you claim is compatible with science.
.
Yes but not in the way you understand it, we are living in the sixth day of creation, humanity is still being made in the image and likeness of God.
Quote:
Never mind the 'made in God's image' stuff. Explain how the physical creation of Adam and Eve as portrayed in Genesis is compatible with biological evolution and with science.
Quote:
Genesis one and Genesis two are indeed two separate and contradictory creation accounts.
And you have not reconciled the Genesis creation account concerning Adam and Eve with the scientific theory of evolution as I asked you to. You made no mention of evolution or of science whatsoever
It is not a second creation account and I did show you evolution in progress, we evolve from a man of dust into a heavenly man.
that you were so quick to respond shows me you did not even try to understand what I was saying. Try chewing on what I said for awhile and then see if it makes some sense to you.
I did not fudge anything I just took you to the original languages, you don’t like what you see that is fine but to deny that I did not give evidence is to deny the evidence
Read what I said. I did not say you did not give evidence. I said you misrepresented terms and words to make things fit. Totally different
For example the ozone layer and a firmament. Is the ozone layer below the clouds? How does the ozone layer separate the waters or do anything mentioned about the firmament in the Bible?
But I di not wish to agrue the fine points rather the fact that you believe you provided evidence and we just ignore it or do hot wish to see it wheras I am saying that you found a way to.match science and your belief in your mind. And that does not mean it is evidence for anyone else.
Never mind the 'made in God's image' stuff. Explain how the physical creation of Adam and Eve as portrayed in Genesis is compatible with biological evolution and with science.
Huh I answered this part but for some reason it did not post weird,
The image and likeness of God stuff is a part of the creation story mike thus has to be taken into account. And I show via scripture that we are living in the sixth day of creation and that it is in and through Christ that we are created that way.
Read what I said. I did not say you did not give evidence. I said you misrepresented terms and words to make things fit. Totally different
For example the ozone layer and a firmament. Is the ozone layer below the clouds? How does the ozone layer separate the waters or do anything mentioned about the firmament in the Bible?
But I di not wish to agrue the fine points rather the fact that you believe you provided evidence and we just ignore it or do hot wish to see it wheras I am saying that you found a way to.match science and your belief in your mind. And that does not mean it is evidence for anyone else.
That was not the evidence I was speaking of, however I did say that the dome could be the ozone layer, which is a working hypothesis.
The evidence I am speaking of was what I replied to mens in post 142
And I did not misrepresent any terms or words I just took you to the original language and also used Rashi one of the great Hebrew scholars who backed up my understanding of his own language. So to say I am misrepresenting terms and word is to say Rashi is also
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
