:darwinsm:
Except you go on to explain how he would have lived forever. You've made this mistake before. Is it deliberate, or can you honestly not remember?
:mock: Blablaman.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
:darwinsm:
Except you go on to explain how he would have lived forever. You've made this mistake before. Is it deliberate, or can you honestly not remember?
:mock: Blablaman.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Barbarian observes:
Adam was never immortal. Indeed, God expresses concern in Genesis that Adam might become so:
Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever”—
Your modern revision of scripture assumes things manifestly denied by God.
God says that Adam, if he had eaten from the tree of life, would have become immortal. As you now see, Adam was never immortal. It appears that you're having trouble with English language again.
Adam was never immortal. Indeed, God expresses concern in Genesis that Adam might become so:
Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever”—
Your modern revision of scripture assumes things manifestly denied by God.
God says that Adam, if he had eaten from the tree of life, would have become immortal. As you now see, Adam was never immortal. It appears that you're having trouble with English language again.
Barbarian observes:
You have a very superficial acquaintance with scripture. You're clearly surprised to learn about it. So when it says:
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
You're telling us it means He did it all in one day, not six?
As it is with all cafeteria Christians, you're copying the parts you like, and deleting the parts you don't like. The text itself says your new interpretation is wrong. This is why you should spend a little time learning about the Bible before you just accept what some man tells you about it. Read everything in context and learn what He has to say to you.
You just happen to prefer to revise the part that says "6 days" and ignore the part that says it happened in one day.
It says
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
But for some reason, you prefer to revise the parable of six days to the parable of one day. So being a good cafeteria Christian, you take the part you like and ignore the part you don't like.
Could you rephrase that in English? You're missing a comma or a conjuction or something...
Your reaction tells me that St. Augustine's analysis certainly confused a lesser thinker.
See above. Try to write it in grammatical form and we'll take another look.
As I see it, you've got two choices:
1. Re-interpret the story to be a literal history, and show that "six days" also means "one day", since both of those were indicated as the time it took to create our world, in a literal revision.
2. Accept what it plainly says and recognize that it's not a literal history.
You have a very superficial acquaintance with scripture. You're clearly surprised to learn about it. So when it says:
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
You're telling us it means He did it all in one day, not six?
As it is with all cafeteria Christians, you're copying the parts you like, and deleting the parts you don't like. The text itself says your new interpretation is wrong. This is why you should spend a little time learning about the Bible before you just accept what some man tells you about it. Read everything in context and learn what He has to say to you.
You just happen to prefer to revise the part that says "6 days" and ignore the part that says it happened in one day.
It says
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
But for some reason, you prefer to revise the parable of six days to the parable of one day. So being a good cafeteria Christian, you take the part you like and ignore the part you don't like.
Could you rephrase that in English? You're missing a comma or a conjuction or something...
Your reaction tells me that St. Augustine's analysis certainly confused a lesser thinker.
See above. Try to write it in grammatical form and we'll take another look.
As I see it, you've got two choices:
1. Re-interpret the story to be a literal history, and show that "six days" also means "one day", since both of those were indicated as the time it took to create our world, in a literal revision.
2. Accept what it plainly says and recognize that it's not a literal history.
Of course, the Bible doesn't use your "modern revision." :chuckle:
This has all been explained to you before. Did you really just forget, or are you being obtuse.
Except you go on to explain how he would have lived forever in Eden. It appears that you're having trouble with English language again. :chuckle:
Sure. :thumb:
It's pretty stupid to insist that "in the day" means that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.
If you think the phrase "in the day" overrides a description of a six-day event, you need to go to remedial English.
Barbarian observes:
Adam was never immortal. Indeed, God expresses concern in Genesis that Adam might become so:
Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever”—
Your modern revision of scripture assumes things manifestly denied by God. And now, Stipe has abandoned any attempt to put together an argument. That's where you stop being entertaining, and start getting boring, Stipe.
So you get the last denial, and it's over.
Adam was never immortal. Indeed, God expresses concern in Genesis that Adam might become so:
Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever”—
Your modern revision of scripture assumes things manifestly denied by God. And now, Stipe has abandoned any attempt to put together an argument. That's where you stop being entertaining, and start getting boring, Stipe.
So you get the last denial, and it's over.
It's a pity he doesn't think.
Except you just got finished explaining how he would have lived forever had he not rejected God. You do realize that to "live forever" is the same concept as being "immortal," right?
Your modern revision of scripture assumes things manifestly denied by God.
It seems that you've abandoned any attempt to put together an argument. That's where you stop being rational and start getting boring.
BYE! :wave2: :wave2: :wave2: :wave2: :wave2: :wave2: :wave2: :wave2:
:banana:
So if in one place in Genesis says it was 6 days, and in another place in Genesis it says it was one day, then 6 days wins. Six to one, um?
Maybe you shouldn't be trying to set God against Himself.
You're trying to set "in the day" to mean the same as "six days". The context of "in the day" indicates it's not referring to a single 24 hour period, but an unspecified period of time.So if in one place in Genesis says it was 6 days, and in another place in Genesis it says it was one day, then 6 days wins. Six to one, um?
Maybe you shouldn't be trying to set God against Himself.
The context of "six days" indicates it is referring to 6 24-hour periods.
Making straw man arguments against our position, while it might make you feel better about your rejection of the plain reading of scripture, does nothing to advance your argument.
The onus remains on you to show why "six days" does not mean 6 24-hour periods, and why "in the day" would mean a single 24-hour period.
No. The two different times are obviously different. What you're trying to do, is explain away the difference.
Nice try, but that's not what it says.
The context is talking about mornings and evenings with no sun to have them, indicating it's not about literal days.
Making straw man arguments against scripture, taking what you like, while rejecting the part of His word you do't like, while it might make you feel better about your rejection of the plain reading of scripture, does nothing to advance your argument.
Nice try.
Nope. The Bible says there was light. If we assume a rotating Earth, there would be "evening and morning."
It's your modern revision that demands the sun be around.
Bible says "six days." You say "billions of years."
It's not even a debate over which is correct. We can't get there until you learn to read. :chuckle:
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Nope. The Bible says there was light. If we assume a rotating Earth, there would be "evening and morning."
It's your modern revision that demands the sun be around.
Bible says "six days." You say "billions of years."
It's not even a debate over which is correct. We can't get there until you learn to read. :chuckle:
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Barbarian observes:
The context is talking about mornings and evenings with no sun to have them, indicating it's not about literal days.
But of course, morning doesn't mean "light in the sky." Morning and evening are when the sun appears and disappears. If you have to re-define words to fit your new doctrine, that's a pretty good sign that it's wrong.
Christians over 1500 years ago knew that mornings and evenings required a sun. You're so tied to your new religion that you'll re-define words to make it work for you.
Or one day, depending on which passage you want to change to a literal history. As a cafeteria Christian, you take the part you like and discard the rest of scripture. Your way requires ignoring the plain meaning of scripture and the plain meaning of words.
Why not just let it be God's way?
The context is talking about mornings and evenings with no sun to have them, indicating it's not about literal days.
But of course, morning doesn't mean "light in the sky." Morning and evening are when the sun appears and disappears. If you have to re-define words to fit your new doctrine, that's a pretty good sign that it's wrong.
Christians over 1500 years ago knew that mornings and evenings required a sun. You're so tied to your new religion that you'll re-define words to make it work for you.
Or one day, depending on which passage you want to change to a literal history. As a cafeteria Christian, you take the part you like and discard the rest of scripture. Your way requires ignoring the plain meaning of scripture and the plain meaning of words.
Why not just let it be God's way?
Only according to your modern revision. The Bible says that there were evenings and mornings before the sun was around.
God 6,000 years ago said there were evenings and mornings without the sun. You're so tied to your new religion that you'll redefine words and appeal to your take on the opinions of dead people to make it work for you.
As a cafeteria Christian, you take the part you like and discard the rest of scripture. Your way requires ignoring the plain meaning of scripture and the plain meaning of words.
Why not just let it be God's way?
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
(Barbarian gives Stipe the last word)
Stipe feels left out and jumps into a discussion between Barbarian and another member.
Barbarian chuckles:
We know you have no integrity.
Stipe feels left out and jumps into a discussion between Barbarian and another member.
Barbarian chuckles:
We know you have no integrity.
Nope. You decided to keep posting. :idunno:
It's a free world. Just don't pretend you offer anything of value.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Barbarian chuckles:
We know you have no integrity.
We know you have no integrity.
It's easy to tell when Blablaman is flustered. He'll start umming soon.
Your anger is energy better spent on more study.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
It's a pity he doesn't think.
Your anger is energy better spent on more study.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk