Genesis 2

[outhouse]

The information given in Gen.1+2 is still correct.

.

Scientifically, it is factually not correct.

And there are billions of people who attest to this belief.

No there is not billions of people who follow YEC

There are 2 billion Christians, of which many help advance the facts of evolution in biology.




Your a fundamentalist, who's beliefs are being replaced by the new sharper minds in America.

 

[Thief]

No, because it's finally not a story about individual faith; it's a story about communal metaphysics.

I wasn't referring to faith....or metaphysics.

Someone had to be first....when walking with God.

That would be Adam.

Now if you prefer someone else.....who would that be?

 

[Thief]

First to walk with god. ??????

I think someone is stuck on a perverted literal interpretation.

People often ruin the beauty of such epic pieces of Israelite pseudohistory taking it out of context to meet their person belief.

You have no credibility here.

You would someone stubbornly perverted to history books.

 

[sojourner]

I wasn't referring to faith....or metaphysics.

Someone had to be first....when walking with God.

That would be Adam.

Now if you prefer someone else.....who would that be?

Did someone have to be first?

 

[Thief]

Did someone have to be first?

In the scheme of regression....yes.

At some 'point'.....God made a choice who to speak to.

 

[sojourner]

In the scheme of regression....yes.

At some 'point'.....God made a choice who to speak to.

Maybe it was a mass, cultural realization.

 

[Thief]

Maybe it was a mass, cultural realization.

Not according to Genesis.

 

[sojourner]

Not according to Genesis.

Yes. It does. The Hebrew term "adam" translates as a collective noun: "humanity."

 

[Thief]

Yes. It does. The Hebrew term "adam" translates as a collective noun: "humanity."

hmmmmmm........

Have heard of such things.....( Adam as a term for Man)....

But Genesis does seem to focus on relationship of a particular person.
That person was cloned.
Eve would be Adam's twin sister.....without a navel.

Looks too much like a focused event.

 

[sojourner]

hmmmmmm........

Have heard of such things.....( Adam as a term for Man)....

But Genesis does seem to focus on relationship of a particular person.
That person was cloned.
Eve would be Adam's twin sister.....without a navel.

Looks too much like a focused event.

Of course it does! It's a literary device. It's far easier for an audience to hear things in terms of stories about individuals than it is to absorb very large movements in human paradigms. The story of this movement in humanity is represented by a story of individuals. the clue is the play on words making a noun in a collective sense (a-dam') into a proper name (Adam).

 

[gnostic]

But Genesis does seem to focus on relationship of a particular person.
That person was cloned.

You still can't seem to wrap your head around what "clone" is.

A clone is a copy.

If you are going to "clone" Adam, then you are going to make another copy of Adam, so that you will have two "man", not "one man and one woman". The clone would have the same gender as the original Adam.

What happened in Genesis 2 is not cloning.

Does that make sense now, thief?

 

[gnostic]

Yes, we are. They(Adam and Eve)were our "common ancestor". They were Created about 2100-2200 years before there was an Israelite.
A collage of skulls and skeletons does NOT prove your point. There is a word for the deformation of the Skull---phagiocephaly---And that practice has a history of 4000 years; and even to today.

Comparative anatomy doesn't prove a "common ancestor" for the specimen of today.

The people 6000 years ago are exactly the same as today, anatomically.

But the people living 30,000 years ago were also the same - anatomically - to us humans living today.

 

[Ouroboros]

"What is sadder is that you have neither shown by Scripture that Genesis is a myth"

Pay no attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men - Tit 1:14
Don't give heed to fables and endless genealogies - 1 Tim 1:4

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
The information given in Gen.1+2 is still correct.

Scientifically, it is factually not correct.

Scripturally, it is still correct. and there are many "Scientist" who believe those Scriptures.

No there is not billions of people who follow YEC

There are 2 billion Christians, of which many help advance the facts of evolution in biology.

You are forgetting those who believe the Quran which states(54:49), "
Verily, all things have We created in proportion and measure."

Your a fundamentalist, who's beliefs are being replaced by the new sharper minds in America.

Yes, a deceived multitude was predicted to occur. Those first "sharper minds" lost their lives in a flood. These last ones will perish in the "Brightest of HIS Coming----just as the Scriptures have stated.

It will not be "labeled persons"/sects/denominations etc., BUT "truth believers" who will make up the "Redeemed".

 

[sincerly]

The people 6000 years ago are exactly the same as today, anatomically.

But the people living 30,000 years ago were also the same - anatomically - to us humans living today.

True, The human race/genus has since GOD Created Humans continued to get/produce the anatomically structured same Kind---as have all living organism. But the Scriptures do not attest to older than about 6000 years of any living organic species----or the minerals from which GOD made them.

 

[sincerly]

"What is sadder is that you have neither shown by Scripture that Genesis is a myth"

Pay no attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men - Tit 1:14
Don't give heed to fables and endless genealogies - 1 Tim 1:4

OB, those verses are correct, but your usage is faulty.
Nor do they show that the Genesis account concerning the Creation didn't happen and is a myth.

 

[Thief]

You still can't seem to wrap your head around what "clone" is.

A clone is a copy.

If you are going to "clone" Adam, then you are going to make another copy of Adam, so that you will have two "man", not "one man and one woman". The clone would have the same gender as the original Adam.

What happened in Genesis 2 is not cloning.

Does that make sense now, thief?

You still can't get your head around genetic manipulation.

The clone doesn't have to be identical to the original.
It is simply not born.

Eve had no navel....not born of woman.

 

[outhouse]

Scripturally, it is still correct. and there are many "Scientist" who believe those Scriptures.

Learn how to use the quote feature, your ignorance is appalling.


Not one of those scientist hold any credible position in science, or they would be fired for incompetence.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Scripturally, it is still correct. and there are many "Scientist" who believe those Scriptures.

Learn how to use the quote feature, your ignorance is appalling.


Not one of those scientist hold any credible position in science, or they would be fired for incompetence.

I see you rather attack me than acknowledge those "scientist" who are credible by you and who attest to the fact of "many precise details" being missing. That is incompetence---connecting dots in a "theory" without doing the "proving work".
But, it is easy to believe a lie than to admit to a wrong "Theory".

Just as Gen. 1+2 state, GOD did it, and it is still IS as "seen"/was Created.

 

[outhouse]

Learn how to use the quote feature, your ignorance is appalling.