My Genesis Challenge

Eightcrackers said:
But didn't Adam live - physically - for another nine hundred years?
Click to expand...
That was the Second Adam. The First Adam died, along with his Wife Ishshah.

Here is a quick summary:
  • The First Adam was created on the Third Day.
  • Then Ishshah was created from the First Adam's rib.
  • The Couple died after partaking of the Forbidden Fruit.
  • The Second Adam was created on the Sixth Day along with Eve.
The Key to understanding Gen 1,2 and 3 is to understand that God RE-CREATED Adam and Ishshah, the original Couple that had died, on the Sixth Day...

Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Fun Facts:
  • The First Adam and his Wife Ishshah had no Reproductive Organs.
  • The Forbidden Fruit was a Zygote
  • The story is about Incarnation into a different body
Christians do not understand that the phrase 'eyes were opened' is referring to the Resurrection of Damnation...

Genesis 3:7
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

That is what it means to have One's 'eyes opened'. It means to experience physical death and resurrection. To be like the 'Gods'. Yes, the Serpent told a half/truth.

Another thing Christians do not understand is that the phrase 'Surely Die' means SECOND DEATH. That is what Adam and Ishshah experienced. All the Christian needs to do is replace 'Spiritual Death' with 'Second Death' and they will become enlightened.

BTW...

The 'Skins' God clothed Adam and Eve with is the Skin and Flesh we have now...

Job 10:11
"Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews.

God literally re-created them to have the Skin and Flesh inherited from the Forbidden Fruit Zygote they incarnated into.

Reproductive Organs were supposed to be for the Beasts only. Adam and Eve tried to 'cover' their new body parts out of shock and embarrassment. Reproductive Organs were the 'gift' that was given by the Serpent Seed which fertilized the Ovum Fruit on the Tree of Knowledge Ovary.
 
AV1611VET said:
Here's the thing, Komodo.

People are interpreting God as saying:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, it will kill you.

Either that, or:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, I will kill you.

Then, when Adam & Eve are still alive the next day, people then play the CONTRADICTION CARD, or the LIAR CARD.

And that's not how it works.
Click to expand...

It's not at all self-evident that "that's not how it works." If somebody says, "if you do X, Y will follow," they do X, and Y doesn't follow, either that someone has made a failed prediction or has failed to follow through on a threat. You can make a case that the Y that was predicted/threatened wasn't the obvious Y1, it was Y3, and Y3 did happen, but that's hardly indisputable.

Was there any particular point I made which you are disputing here? For example, I said:

Any apparent contradiction in any text -- or anything in any text which seems absurd or immoral -- can be handled this way; if you look hard enough for another meaning, you will certainly find it. And it will never be possible to demonstrate with geometric logic that the reading you produce is false or impossible. But if a book constantly has to be read in such a strained and counter-intuitive way, in order to avoid conceding that it's fallible, then the book can't be relied on. Any passage might in fact turn out to have the opposite meaning to the one which seemed obvious, if you look long enough at the possibility that it was using a play on words, or hyperbole, or accommodation to the times, or....
Click to expand...

Do you disagree?
 
AV1611VET said:
And now I understand better what goes through your mind, when you read that.
Click to expand...
If you realised that my point was that when you get to add words as you like to Bible verses then you can pretend it says whatever you want, then you are right.

I get the feeling that is not the case. But I am sure others will get it.

Thank you for the clarification.

Of course, I'm assuming that's what you truly believe.
Click to expand...
So my point went straight over your head.

Now I have a choice to make, don't I?

I can either believe it your way and drop any accusations against that verse I made in the past, or I can handwave your addition away.

The choice is mine, isn't it?
Click to expand...
We can all choose to add words to Bible verses to change their meaning as and when convenient.

Or we can choose to believe the original author meant to say what he actually said, rather than what we want him to have meant.

You choose the former. That works for you. But you are not going to convince any non-christian of the validity of Christian when you freely twist and distort Christianity's sacred text.
 
Lion IRC said:
I cant see any contraction at all. *shrug*

Why can't satan say to David...go and do that thing God instructed you to do ?
Click to expand...
Can you say how those two passages would have to be written such that it would actually be a contradiction?

ETA: Specifically how would those two passages have to be written such that God told David in one and Satan told David in the other without any other context (such as Satan merely reminding David to do what God had already told him to do) such that the two passages would be contradictory?

I suspect that it's impossible: no matter how those passages would be written, one could interpret them such that the contradiction goes away. I'm interested in attempts, though.
 
The Pixie said:
You choose the former. That works for you. But you are not going to convince any non-christian of the validity of Christian when you freely twist and distort Christianity's sacred text.
Click to expand...
Now I'm adding to the Scriptures, now I'm twisting the Scriptures, now I'm distorting the Scriptures ... what's next?

And do you really think I'm going to "convince any non-christian of the validity of Christian [looks like a word left out here]," by agreeing with people that God lied to Adam & Eve?

Or that Genesis 1 & 2 are contradictory?

That's academia's job -- and we can see how it's working out, can't we?

People are doing just the opposite.

They are leaving Christianity because of the lies of academia.

But for the record, Adam & Eve died spiritually that day, not physically.

Their physical deaths came later.
 
The Pixie said:
But Genesis 2:5 says there were no plants, not none in the Garden.
Click to expand...
The verse is transitional....from when no plant had been made, say the beginning of day 3....no man to work it as that happened on day 6. God then formed man...then God planted the garden which included the tree of life and the tree of good an evil.
 
The Pixie said:
But Genesis 2:5 says there were no plants, not none in the Garden.
Click to expand...

How many times does Genesis 2 say God placed Adam into the Garden?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

How do you resolve this problem? third author? it's not a problem? mistake? contradiction? lie? parenthetical? what?

I say it's parenthetical.
 
e v e said:
scripture never used the te omniscient.


that said… yes God can change is mind…

which doesn’t mean doubleminded…

it means God is not a robot.
Click to expand...
If you have foreseen that you will choose X, and you are all-knowing, how can you choose not-X?
 
AV1611VET said:
Now I'm adding to the Scriptures, now I'm twisting the Scriptures, now I'm distorting the Scriptures ... what's next?
Click to expand...
Isn't it funny how bible haters such as The Pixie, Eightcrackers....are suddenly experts?

Sheeze, these questions have been answered centuries ago.....and they present them as fresh.
 
CrowCross said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
The ancient cosmologists (not just pagan but biblical as well) thought like you do, and they were wrong.... that is that the source of light for the earth came from beyond the sun as some supernatural source - but separated in night and day intervals as we experience to this day, and that the sun was just something that adorned the daylight as a demi-god... an overseer of day while the moon was demi-god overseer of night. We now know that the sun was always the source of light for our planet, there is/was no other source, and it was the requirement for all plant and terrain life.

Conclusion - the bible is not a book of God's hand or inspired authorship. It's the same genre of pagan supernatural literature as all the rest were in that day.
 
CrowCross said:
Isn't it funny how bible haters such as The Pixie, Eightcrackers....are suddenly experts?

Sheeze, these questions have been answered centuries ago.....and they present them as fresh.
Click to expand...

I can't count how many times atheists have told us they know the Bible better than Christians do; only to turn around and show how much they don't know It.
 
AV1611VET said:
Now I'm adding to the Scriptures, now I'm twisting the Scriptures, now I'm distorting the Scriptures ... what's next?
Click to expand...
You tell me. You seem to think it is okay to add, twist and distort the scriptures to get the meaning you want, regardless of what it says. What next? Just make it up?

I see no difference between what you did and what I did with respect to the commandment against adultery.

Further, I see nothing here that even addresses that.

And do you really think I'm going to "convince any non-christian of the validity of Christian [looks like a word left out here]," by agreeing with people that God lied to Adam & Eve?
Click to expand...
Does that somehow make it okay to twist scripture however you like?

You tell me, AV1611VET. I really would like to know how you justify this to yourself.

They are leaving Christianity because of the lies of academia.
Click to expand...
Maybe they are leaving because they see how Christians distort their own holy text.

Why would anyone believe the Bible is true when we can see Christians do not? And we know Christians do not believe it is true because they feel obliged to twist the text to say something else.

But for the record, Adam & Eve died spiritually that day, not physically.
Click to expand...
Sure, and adultery is wrong unless she's hot.

See, you cannot have one without the other. Either we get to pretend the text says what we want it to say, or we believe what it actually says.

Clearly, you do not believe what it actually says. No wonder people are leaving Christianity.
 
AV1611VET said:
Post 128
Click to expand...
Obviously you cannot tell us the deeper meaning. We are supposed to just imagine there is one.

I am not falling for it. as far as I can see, you failed our own challenge. You can only explain the text by pretending it says something it does not, and when queried you fall back on "oh it has a deeper meaning but I cannot be bothered to say what that is."

This is why people are leaving Christianity - Christianity is spouting nonsense like this. And in the internet age, Christians are getting called on it again and again, and failing to address it again and again.
 
5wize said:
The ancient cosmologists (not just pagan but biblical as well) thought like you do, and they were wrong.... that is that the source of light for the earth came from beyond the sun as some supernatural source - but separated in night and day intervals as we experience to this day, and that the sun was just something that adorned the daylight as a demi-god... an overseer of day while the moon was demi-god overseer of night. We now know that the sun was always the source of light for our planet, there is/was no other source, and it was the requirement for all plant and terrain life.

Conclusion - the bible is not a book of God's hand or inspired authorship. It's the same genre of pagan supernatural literature as all the rest were in that day.
Click to expand...
If you say so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top