Hello, Fundies! :)

2

2003cobra

New member
George Affleck said:
How did I know you couldn't/wouldn't answer the question?

Stripe is right.
Mocking is best.
Click to expand...

I did answer your question, second paragraph of post 46.

You didn’t answer mine, first paragraph of post 46.

Such dishonesty is a bad testimony.

Mocking is never best, but it is a refuge of people without honor.

You can’t even admit you don’t think the Good Samaritan was a historical figure. How can your position be so weak that you can’t admit that?
 
George Affleck

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
2003cobra said:
I did answer your question, second paragraph of post 46.

You didn’t answer mine, first paragraph of post 46.
Click to expand...

You still didn't answer.
Such dishonesty is bad testimony.

But I will answer you anyway.
It is entirely possible that, being God, Jesus knew that there was such a historical figure and that things happened exactly the way He said they did. If it was simply a teaching tool, then there is also no problem.

The problem comes in when you emphatically state something that you do not know to be true.
Your credibility stinks because of it.

Will you admit that it is possible the Good Samaritan was a historical figure or not?
If not, please show the proof.
 
2

2003cobra

New member
George Affleck said:
He created grass, trees, herbs and shrubs, with the ability to propagate, outside of the garden, on Day 3.

He created Adam and Eve and caused edible, fruit-bearing trees to grow (tsamach - sprout, spring up, bud) in the garden on Day 6.
Click to expand...
The second creation story disagrees with you. It says man was formed when no plants had yet 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. 8
 
2

2003cobra

New member
George Affleck said:
He created grass, trees, herbs and shrubs, with the ability to propagate, outside of the garden, on Day 3.

He created Adam and Eve and caused edible, fruit-bearing trees to grow (tsamach - sprout, spring up, bud) in the garden on Day 6.
Click to expand...

And the first creation story disagrees with you:

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.
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
2003cobra said:
Did God create man before plants or plants before man?
Click to expand...
I pointed out to you the verses that say God created plants before man and man before there were any cultivated fields of plants and herbs.
You are ignoring the facts because they invalidate your claim that there are two creation accounts instead of a single one.

Here it is again:
genuineoriginal said:
2003cobra said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep, plants were created on the third day.

2003cobra said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
2003cobra said:
Did God create man before plants or plants before man?
Click to expand...
According to you, none of it is historical and actually happened.
So neither were created first because both stories (to you) were just teaching stories and not actual events.

So what's your story of the real historical event of the first man being created??????
 
2

2003cobra

New member
genuineoriginal said:
I pointed out to you the verses that say God created plants before man and man before there were any cultivated fields of plants and herbs.
You are ignoring the facts because they invalidate your claim that there are two creation accounts instead of a single one.

Here it is again:
Click to expand...

I encourage you to read the NET Bible translator notes from the second creation story. They are easy to find online.

The second creation story says man was formed, to quote the translator notes, “back before anything was growing.”

Your position explicitly contradicts the first creation story, which says:
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.


Plants yielding seed of every kind and trees of every kind bearing fruit were brought forth by the earth on Day 3. Your position contradicts that.
 
2

2003cobra

New member
Tambora said:
According to you, none of it is historical and actually happened.
So neither were created first because both stories (to you) were just teaching stories and not actual events.

So what's your story of the real historical event of the first man being created??????
Click to expand...

We don’t know the real story of man’s creation.

Why is it important to you? We are here. Jesus has proved Himself to be God with His signs and resurrection.

Do you add a belief in the literalness of the first or second creation story as a requirement for salvation? Do you reject anyone who does not take one or both of those stories as literal history as not being part of the body of Christ?
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Vulcan Logician said:
Yeah, I guess you have a point. I can see how some people might actually do that. Maybe I should have just pointed out that it isn't commonplace, nor is it realistic to expect it from anyone.
Click to expand...
We've been inundated by insincerity claiming 'sincere.' IF you are sincere, I can talk you out of atheism. It is untenable. Most atheists here on TOL will NOT listen. They don't WANT to listen. I know there is a God. NOT ONE has ever had the fortitude, sincerity, or honesty to ask. Why? Easy: They don't care and have NO intention of wanting to see if it is true or not.

Are you the exception to the rule? It'd be nice, but you have to realize we've been inundated by insincerity and casual indifference if not outright expressed disdain. Is there a 'point' to such conversation, bashing, debate? :think:

Whatever bed you make, that's the one you have to lie in at night. Welcome to TOL. I hope it is a profitable and worthwhile exchange. This is 'life' to me, no passing fancy. Vulcan's had a religion, oddly enough. :e4e:
 
2

2003cobra

New member
Lon said:
He doesn't. Worse? His liberalism has infected CLEAR thinking. He "thinks" Genesis is figurative AND that the parable of the Good Samaritan is literal :doh: :dizzy:
Click to expand...

You seem to be always posting falsehoods.

It makes me wonder how you came to such a combination of arrogance and delusion.

Of course the story of the Good Samaritan is a fictional story Jesus told to make an important point.

It is George that cannot being himself to say that the story of the Good Samaritan is not literal history. The fact that Jesus told it is literal history, while the events in the story are not. I wonder why George can’t acknowledge that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top