Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hello, Fundies! :)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    How do you know this?
    You think there was?

    I read the gospels and see how Jesus spoke. He answered questions with stories that confounded His opponents and provided wisdom to His followers.

    But if you want to imagine the stories Jesus told when asked questions were literal recountings of historical events, you are welcome to double down on the “it’s literal or it’s a lie” method of interpretation.

    The problem with imagining Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history is that the two stories have chronologies and methods of creation that are literally incompatible.

    So, you are free to declare the story of the prodigal son, and Good Samaritan, and so many other illustrations Jesus gave are literal history. No one can prove you wrong. The two creation stories are somewhat different, as man could not have been created after the plants and animals AND before the plants and animals. Of course, you could twist your position into some multiple creation scenario, which introduces different inconsistencies.

    Fundamentalists cling to a literal reading of Genesis 1 and a blatant denial of Genesis 2, and this is very helpful to the forces of darkness seeking to make Christian look like a myth and seeking to turn people away from the gospel.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
      In your reading of the text, the summary says man was created after the plants and the animals while the detailed account says man was formed before any plants or animals.

      That is better called a misreading or a denial of the text.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
        In your reading of the text, the summary says man was created after the plants and the animals while the detailed account says man was formed before any plants or animals.

        That is better called a misreading or a denial of the text.
        Yes, your conclusion is a misreading or a denial of the text.

        The text says God created food trees on the third day, created man on the sixth day, and planted a garden with food trees in Gan Eden after creating man.
        God had created birds on the fifth day and animals on the sixth day before creating man, and after creating man God made individual representatives of the birds and beasts of the field (not every kind of animal) and brought those individual animals to man for naming.
        Learn to read what is written.

        _____
        The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
        ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
          The two creation stories are somewhat different, as man could not have been created after the plants and animals AND before the plants and animals. Of course, you could twist your position into some multiple creation scenario, which introduces different inconsistencies.

          Fundamentalists cling to a literal reading of Genesis 1 and a blatant denial of Genesis 2, and this is very helpful to the forces of darkness seeking to make Christian look like a myth and seeking to turn people away from the gospel.
          The person that thought up that argument seems to have a reading comprehension problem, since a literal reading of Genesis 2 dovetails nicely into the account from Genesis 1 with no conflict.
          I know you did not think up that argument since I saw it years ago on some atheistic apologetic websites.
          Learn to read what is written.

          _____
          The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
          ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

          Comment


          • #50
            Genuine original wrote:
            The text says God created food trees on the third day...

            As I wrote: A denial of the text.

            Genesis 1:11-13 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

            11 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.


            Yet the second creation story story says man was formed before any plants had sprung up:

            In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
              ...
              I know you did not think up that argument since I saw it years ago on some atheistic apologetic websites.
              I saw the two creation stories as I studied the Bible on my own. Anyone reading the text without a bias will see it — Christian or atheist.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                Genuine original wrote:
                The text says God created food trees on the third day...

                As I wrote: A denial of the text.

                Genesis 1:11-13 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

                11 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
                Yep, plants were created on the third day.

                Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                Yet the second creation story story says man was formed before any plants had sprung up:

                In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
                Yep, these verses state that there are no cultivated fields of plants and herbs when man was made.
                There is no conflict between the two passages.

                Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                I saw the two creation stories as I studied the Bible on my own. Anyone reading the text without a bias will see it — Christian or atheist.
                It appears most of us can read better than you can.
                Learn to read what is written.

                _____
                The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                  You think there was?

                  I read the gospels and see how Jesus spoke. He answered questions with stories that confounded His opponents and provided wisdom to His followers.

                  But if you want to imagine the stories Jesus told when asked questions were literal recountings of historical events, you are welcome to double down on the “it’s literal or it’s a lie” method of interpretation.

                  The problem with imagining Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history is that the two stories have chronologies and methods of creation that are literally incompatible.

                  So, you are free to declare the story of the prodigal son, and Good Samaritan, and so many other illustrations Jesus gave are literal history. No one can prove you wrong. The two creation stories are somewhat different, as man could not have been created after the plants and animals AND before the plants and animals. Of course, you could twist your position into some multiple creation scenario, which introduces different inconsistencies.

                  Fundamentalists cling to a literal reading of Genesis 1 and a blatant denial of Genesis 2, and this is very helpful to the forces of darkness seeking to make Christian look like a myth and seeking to turn people away from the gospel.
                  Blah, blah, blah...

                  Let's try this again and see if you can answer a simple question. You made the bald assertion, without proof:
                  "There was not a literal good Samaritan who travelled the road to Jericho and rescued the beaten man."

                  I want to know what proof you have that allows you to make a statement as if it was fact. Or is it just your opinion and you have decided to present your opinion as fact?

                  So let's try it again.
                  "There was not a literal good Samaritan who travelled the road to Jericho and rescued the beaten man."
                  How do you know this?

                  Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

                  It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                    Fundamentalists cling to a literal reading of Genesis 1 and a blatant denial of Genesis 2, and this is very helpful to the forces of darkness seeking to make Christian look like a myth and seeking to turn people away from the gospel.
                    You are still here and about?

                    Who knew?
                    Who cared?

                    Looks like someone has already turned away from the teachings contained in Holy Writ.

                    AMR
                    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                    Do you confess?
                    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                    AMR's Randomata Blog
                    Learn Reformed Doctrine
                    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                    The best TOL Social Group: here.
                    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                    Why?


                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
                      Blah, blah, blah...

                      Let's try this again and see if you can answer a simple question. You made the bald assertion, without proof:
                      "There was not a literal good Samaritan who travelled the road to Jericho and rescued the beaten man."

                      I want to know what proof you have that allows you to make a statement as if it was fact. Or is it just your opinion and you have decided to present your opinion as fact?

                      So let's try it again.
                      "There was not a literal good Samaritan who travelled the road to Jericho and rescued the beaten man."
                      How do you know this?

                      Already answered.

                      But you did not answer my question:
                      You think there was?


                      I doubt you think there was. So we agree on the facts and you just want to argue.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                        You are still here and about?

                        Who knew?
                        Who cared?

                        Looks like someone has already turned away from the teachings contained in Holy Writ.

                        AMR
                        I travel a lot and drop back in on occasion. Just returned from a tour of Greece. It was very nice.

                        Thanks for the gracious welcome.

                        Actually, the Holy Writ make it clear that we are not to take the two creation stories literally. If we were to take them literally, they would not have different orders and methods of creation.

                        So you have turned a blind eye to what the scriptures actually say.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                          You made up a falsehood about me, misstating my position, because I made a truthful statement?

                          You should reconsider such actions.
                          Were the two different men that you say were created in Gen 1 and Gen 2 real living breathing fellas, or not?????

                          We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
                          They already know monsters exist.
                          We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                            Already answered.

                            But you did not answer my question:
                            You think there was?


                            I doubt you think there was. So we agree on the facts and you just want to argue.
                            How did I know you couldn't/wouldn't answer the question?

                            Stripe is right.
                            Mocking is best.
                            Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

                            It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Tambora View Post
                              Were the two different men that you say were created in Gen 1 and Gen 2 real living breathing fellas, or not?????
                              don't bother Tam.

                              He can't answer simple questions.
                              Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

                              It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Tambora View Post
                                Were the two different men that you say were created in Gen 1 and Gen 2 real living breathing fellas, or not?????
                                Neither story is literal history.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X