Can I have both?

[Enoch07]

The Bible. Now its your turn to provide evidence that the claimed blooifline of A&E died out as you claimed. And that Adam was not the only human created in the biblical 6 days of creation.

"The Bible" is not a valid citation. You need cite specific scripture to prove your assertion that I am misrepresenting the bible.

P.S. I am not moving on to a secondary argument of bloodline extinction, whilst the primary argument of 6th day creations is still in contention. Lets deal with 1 argument at a time shall we.

 

[ChristineM]

"The Bible" is not a valid citation. You need cite specific scripture to prove your assertion that I am misrepresenting the bible.

P.S. I am not moving on to a secondary argument of bloodline extinction, whilst the primary argument of 6th day creations is still in contention. Lets deal with 1 argument at a time shall we.

The bible is not what? Really, what sort of faith are you in?



You started with bloodline, now it's secondary because what? You have no argument?

 

[Enoch07]

What?

You started with bloodline, now it's secondary because what? You have no argument?

It is a secondary argument because it hinges on the primary argument. The primary argument (6th day creations) is still in contention. So there is no point in engaging the secondary argument.

I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of your assertions that my primary argument is a misrepresentation of the bible. Until this is resolved there is no point in going forward.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

You know, Newton was a "math/science person." And he believed in a literal Genesis.

Can you offer some specifics?

Is it the creative days? A study of relevant texts indicates they weren't literal days.

Is it the order of what occurred during those time periods? They agree with the facts.

Is it genetics, that one couple became the parents of all living? Well, do you know anyone living today, whose genetics allow them to live over 900 years? But early in human history, i.e., the closest descendants of Adam and Eve, men are described as living for centuries!

Can science explain that?

We don't understand everything about genetics.

Just curious about what you find as inaccurate.

Take care.

EDIT: Just want to mention that Newton did not agree with Church teachings (he did not believe the Trinity or hellfire or geocentric philosophy), but he did believe the Bible was truth, i.e., the Word of God.

Two quotes, "I study the Bible daily."

His conclusion?

"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired.....
I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever."

— Sir Isaac Newton (Optics, 1704)

I would agree completely with Newton’s above statements.
And add:
God is attempting to communicate with humanity through the Word, but humanity struggles to understand. Is it too many worldly thoughts and human ideas blocking the flow of communication from God for many? I don’t know.

Though, I don’t see what you’re asking me about.
I don’t know what you found inaccurate.
And I don’t understand how genetics is involved.
Genetics is a rather new science. I’m sure there have been people who understood Genesis prior to people understanding genetics.
I must be missing something.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Creationism can only be true as allegory. In fact, the story of the Garden of Eden is an amazingly insightful allegory for man's acquisition of full self-awareness, which imparts to us our knowledge of good and evil. And the Devil is simply an allegory for our ability to choose between good and evil.

Thank you for some wisdom on the topic.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

The scripture you cite is only Adam naming Eve. Is this supposed to be your evidence of the bible claiming Adam and Eve as the first humans? That's rather nonsensical.

So, I will answer my own question for you since you are reluctant to participate. The answer is "It does not". That being said you have to allow for the possibility that both evolution as we currently understand it, and the creation of Adam and Eve could both be true.

Here is how.

Genesis 1:26-28

26 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.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

These "humans" created here eventually become us. Our evolutionary ancestors as we know them. The mitochondrial "Adam and Eve". These people, or us, are known as the 6th day creations.

Biblical Adam and Eve were not created until much much later. Here Adam is created after the 7th day when God rested.

Genesis 2:7

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Then later Eve in Genesis 2:21-22

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

You see Adam and Eve were created for a specific reason, but that reason was not to populate the Earth. It was already populated by the 6th day creations in Genesis 1.

Later on after Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. There is more evidence of the 6th day creations as Cain conceived a child with one of them.

Genesis 4:16 for Cain

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Here Adam and Eve had another child named Seth who also conceived a child with our ancestors to continue the bloodline you can follow the genealogy on your own from there.

Genesis 4:25

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

Anyways this is what the Bible actually claims.

I read the entire discussion between you and Christine.

I have a few questions.

It appears you’re taking the Genesis story literally and chronologically. So I ask, how to you account for Genesis 2:5?
This states there was no man to till the ground. Therefore in Genesis 2:7 God mad man, placed him in the garden in 2:8. This man is later identified as Adam in 2:19. From these verses and I could only conclude that no one existed prior to Adam. Just curious.

My second question: What is the purpose of the gold, bdellium and onyx in Genesis 2:12? Is it logical to think the first humans would require such items? They didn’t even need clothes at this stage, nor had their first meal. Just curious.

 

[Enoch07]

It appears you’re taking the Genesis story literally and chronologically. So I ask, how to you account for Genesis 2:5?

Genesis 2:5 is speaking of Eden. There was no man to till the ground in Eden. Which is true, because Adam had not been created yet. This is confirmed in Genesis 2:8

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

You answered your own question. LoLz you just read right over it and ignored it.

My second question: What is the purpose of the gold, bdellium and onyx in Genesis 2:12? Is it logical to think the first humans would require such items? They didn’t even need clothes at this stage, nor had their first meal. Just curious.

Because gold and onyx are pleasing to the eye. Bdellium - Wikipedia is pleasant to the nose. Simple as that. There was no need for these, but they were put there because they are pleasant.

 

[Deeje]

Actually it's you putting science up there. Science does not put facts forwards it puts observation forward. If you are to uneducated to comprehend that, then perhaps that's where your problems with arise.

Evolutionary science is based on many verified observations and evidence that has not been falsified. If you can falsify any... ANY... aspect of evolutionary science the whole theory will collapse. After 200 years of literally billions of people like you making claims of its invalidity, each has failed to disprove it.

Yes that's about what i said regarding the ages, your point is what?

Again, what i said, what i did say is the mother of us all and nothing about the only living female, again your point is what precisely?

Right and then you go into guesswork mode, the very sin you acute science of... Interesting.

How do evolutionists speak? They offer the observations, measurements etc, is this what you object to?

Actually i don't think that is honest because evolutionary theory is shown to be accurate in every way, sure it can be modified if new evidence is shown. Evolution is now so confident that any modifications will be minute in detail.

Belief is not relevant, only evidence matters

It would help if you broke up your responses to address the section you want to comment on.....just highlight the part you want to respond to and hit the quote option. It will list them and then you just "insert quotes" and they all magically appear so you can address them individually.

I cannot reply to that because it makes no sense the way you have written it. Sorry.

 

[ChristineM]

It is a secondary argument because it hinges on the primary argument. The primary argument (6th day creations) is still in contention. So there is no point in engaging the secondary argument.

I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of your assertions that my primary argument is a misrepresentation of the bible. Until this is resolved there is no point in going forward.

Yet its the argument you started with. No, point? Please be honest, you have no evidence for such a claim.

The wording of the bible is not on contention, your interpretation is.

You make the assertions, a case of Russell's teapot i think

 

[ChristineM]

It would help if you broke up your responses to address the section you want to comment on.....just highlight the part you want to respond to and hit the quote option. It will list them and then you just "insert quotes" and they all magically appear so you can address them individually.

I cannot reply to that because it makes no sense the way you have written it. Sorry.

I am me, i am not you. I responded to your post as i always respond to posts and have had no complaints. I can only assume your disinclination has a deeper aspect

 

[sandy whitelinger]

1. I believe in evolution and I believe the earth is billions of years old. This is what I was taught and the
evidence is overwhelming to accept it.
2. I also believe the 7 day creation story from Genesis. It’s a beautiful story filled with incredible information.

My mind’s understanding of these things is in harmonious peace.

Does anyone else feel the same?
If not, do you think you could get there?

Since I've accepted the Biblical world by faith and the natural world by my senses I've certainly had the same experience you have. It even has a name, non-overlapping magisteria.

 

[Enoch07]

Yet its the argument you started with. No, point? Please be honest, you have no evidence for such a claim.

The wording of the bible is not on contention, your interpretation is.

You make the assertions, a case of Russell's teapot i think

Post #71 has citations for my argument

I am still waiting for yours.

Thank you

 

[ChristineM]

Post #71 has citations for my argument

I am still waiting for yours.

Thank you

No, post #71 has bible verses followed by your interpretation. The verses say nothing of Cain's wife's heritage.

And i have provided Genesis 1:24,31 to which you also provided interpretation not mentioner in the text

 

[Enoch07]

No, post #71 has bible verses followed by your interpretation. The verses say nothing of Cain's wife's heritage.

And i have provided Genesis 1:24,31 to which you also provided interpretation not mentioner in the text

Cain and Seth's wives are part of the 6th day creations. This is covered in #71.

You need to provide evidence to counter this argument. If that is indeed what you wish to do.

 

[ChristineM]

Cain and Seth's wives are part of the 6th day creations. This is covered in #71.

You need to provide evidence to counter this argument. If that is indeed what you wish to do.

Your opinion of your interpretation is not actually what is written in the bible and you know it.

No matter how many times you stomp your foot, the fact remain that i have have provided my evidence, you have rejected it, therefore you reject the Bible.

In see n point in going over and over and over and over the same old stuff. I have provided my evidence, genesis 1:24-31, you repeatedly asking me to provide my evidence bores me and shows you up.

 

[Deeje]

I am me, i am not you. I responded to your post as i always respond to posts and have had no complaints.

The quote system on this site is designed to avoid the way you responded to my post. If you read it as written, you are responding to points that you did not specifically quote. It makes no sense because you speak to points that are not obvious. The reason why you have had no complaints thus far could be because you usually respond in short sentences.

You are correct....I am me and you are you. I include a lot of detail in my posts because the important things require details IMO. To explain the reasons why something is the truth is more important to me than merely stating the belief itself.

If you respond to a point, at least quote it (highlight, copy, paste) so the person you are responding to (and other readers) can decipher what you mean.

I can only assume your disinclination has a deeper aspect

You can think that if you like, but the reasons I believe are obvious to anyone trying to understand what you wrote. It's no deeper than a muddy puddle.

 

[ChristineM]

The quote system on this site is designed to avoid the way you responded to my post. If you read it as written, you are responding to points that you did not specifically quote. It makes no sense because you speak to points that are not obvious. The reason why you have had no complaints thus far could be because you usually respond in short sentences.

You are correct....I am me and you are you. I include a lot of detail in my posts because the important things require details IMO. To explain the reasons why something is the truth is more important to me than merely stating the belief itself.

If you respond to a point, at least quote it (highlight, copy, paste) so the person you are responding to (and other readers) can decipher what you mean.



You can think that if you like, but the reasons I believe are obvious to anyone trying to understand what you wrote. It's no deeper than a muddy puddle.

I don't care what the quote system is designed for, it is not designed for dyslexics working on a tablet.
i responded to your rather long and convoluted post, you don't like long replies then please be brief in your posting.
And i respond in short or long sentences, or paragraphs as required. The reason i have had no complaints is because most people have little difficulty reading.

Yes your opinion of what you include and why you include it is noted. Fair enough?

Considering i replied to you responding to my post and none of the points you are advocating were visible in your post can i suggest you are being quite hypocritical?

So in future do not respond to my posts and you will not be dumbfounded and speechless for a reply and so need to divert the thread to hide your inability.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Deeje]

I don't care what the quote system is designed for, it is not designed for dyslexics working on a tablet.

Sorry, I was not aware of you reading difficulty. My husband and grandson both battled dyslexia. It does present its challenges, but it does not prevent you from quoting the relevant points to which you are responding. You don't seem to have any difficulty with your responses otherwise.

i responded to your rather long and convoluted post, you don't like long replies then please be brief in your posting.

If you quote each point separately, there is no confusion. I explain everything I post so that misunderstandings are minimised. People can read so much into what you don't say.

And i respond in short or long sentences, or paragraphs as required. The reason i have had no complaints is because most people have little difficulty reading.

I have no difficulty reading at all....what I have difficulty with is people responding to a point that is not quoted or obvious in amongst other responses that are also replying to what is not obvious. For the sake of clarity, I believe this is necessary....you may not.

But you actually quoted something Enoch said and responded to it, so I know you can do it.

Yes your opinion of what you include and why you include it is noted. Fair enough?

Thank you.

Considering i replied to you responding to my post and none of the points you are advocating were visible in your post can i suggest you are being quite hypocritical?

I addressed your points and added additional information as I do in most of my posts. I'm sorry if that was too much information for you. It was all relevant.

So in future do not respond to my posts and you will not be dumbfounded and speechless for a reply and so need to divert the thread to hide your inability.

Thanks for your input.

If you prefer that I do not respond to your posts in future that is fine, just please don't make up excuses for the confusion that was obvious in your reply.

I am rarely dumbfounded or speechless.

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, I was not aware of you reading difficulty. My husband and grandson both battled dyslexia. It does present its challenges, but it does not prevent you from quoting the relevant points to which you are responding. You don't seem to have any difficulty with your responses otherwise.



If you quote each point separately, there is no confusion. I explain everything I post so that misunderstandings are minimised. People can read so much into what you don't say.



I have no difficulty reading at all....what I have difficulty with is people responding to a point that is not quoted or obvious in amongst other responses that are also replying to what is not obvious. For the sake of clarity, I believe this is necessary....you may not.

But you actually quoted something Enoch said and responded to it, so I know you can do it.



Thank you.



I addressed your points and added additional information as I do in most of my posts. I'm sorry if that was too much information for you. It was all relevant.



If you prefer that I do not respond to your posts in future that is fine, just please don't make up excuses for the confusion the was obvious in your reply.

I am rarely dumbfounded or speechless.

Sorry you don't agree with my style.

I have quoted you above, as i did in the original post you are griping about. No, i am not going to go back and forth separating your long winded posts, if you don't want to have to look at the top of a post to see what the answer is in relation then don't. Up to you.

 

[Deeje]

Sorry you don't agree with my style.

Its not a "style" though, is it? It is you excusing the fact that your post was difficult to follow because you avoided the need to quote. That works with short posts, but not with multiple points which need separating IMO.

I have quoted you above, as i did in the original post you are griping about. No, i am not going to go back and forth separating your long winded posts, if you don't want to have to look at the top of a post to see what the answer is in relation then don't. Up to you.

It isn't difficult to separate the points as you read, which is what I do. When I find a point I want to comment on, I highlight it and add it to my quote list. Its not that difficult. It isn't a matter of not wanting to look at the top of a post.....living in different time zones, I often come in after many hours and a reply could be buried under a number of other posts on a different page. To keep it simple, just quote the point you are referencing....OK? I am not asking for anything that you haven't already done.