Originally posted by BroInChrist:Your link basically asks the same question the devil asked Eve, "Did God reeaaallly say 6 days?"
Six times God said "evening and morning, first day" etc etc. In Exodus 20 the seventh day rest was instituted because there were six days of creation and one day of rest. To say that this does not mean what it means is to insinuate that God cannot communicate simple truths. And old earth creationists should be honest enough to admit that the ONLY reason why they think God's Word does not mean what it says is because of what "science" says, yep, the fallible opinions of fallible men whom OEC have placed OVER and ABOVE the infallible Word of God.
http://creation.com/robert-mccabe-old-testament-scholar-genesis
BIC
Why god knew adam and eve will screw up, yet he still put the fruit near them for them to screw up?
Isn't it like me knowing my kids will kill each other with a fruit knife, yet i put the fruit knife near them?
"Your link basically asks the same question the devil asked Eve, "Did God reeaaallly say 6 days?""
Did you mean to say serpent if you were to be at least consistent with what Genesis portray literally?
"Six times God said "evening and morning, first day" etc etc. In Exodus 20 the seventh day rest was instituted because there were six days of creation and one day of rest. To say that this does not mean what it means is to insinuate that God cannot communicate simple truths. And old earth creationists should be honest enough to admit that the ONLY reason why they think God's Word does not mean what it says is because of what "science" says, yep, the fallible opinions of fallible men whom OEC have placed OVER and ABOVE the infallible Word of God."
False dichotomy. Invalid.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Why god knew adam and eve will screw up, yet he still put the fruit near them for them to screw up?
Isn't it like me knowing my kids will kill each other with a fruit knife, yet i put the fruit knife near them?
Wait, did you KNOW beforehand that your kids will kill each other with a fruit knife? How did you know that? How could you?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"Your link basically asks the same question the devil asked Eve, "Did God reeaaallly say 6 days?""
Did you mean to say serpent if you were to be at least consistent with what Genesis portray literally?
"Six times God said "evening and morning, first day" etc etc. In Exodus 20 the seventh day rest was instituted because there were six days of creation and one day of rest. To say that this does not mean what it means is to insinuate that God cannot communicate simple truths. And old earth creationists should be honest enough to admit that the ONLY reason why they think God's Word does not mean what it says is because of what "science" says, yep, the fallible opinions of fallible men whom OEC have placed OVER and ABOVE the infallible Word of God."
False dichotomy. Invalid.
Yes, in Genesis 3, the literal serpent was the literal form the literal devil literally assumed when he literally appeared to a literal Eve who was near a literal tree that a literal God planted in a literal Garden on a literal earth. You get the literal point? If you think none of that was literally real then you can kiss goodbye to your faith.
Where is the false dichotomy? Prove it before you allege it is invalid. Otherwise you are simply fallaciously pointing out fallacies when there is none.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Yes, in Genesis 3, the literal serpent was the literal form the literal devil literally assumed when he literally appeared to a literal Eve who was near a literal tree that a literal God planted in a literal Garden on a literal earth. You get the literal point? If you think none of that was literally real then you can kiss goodbye to your faith.
Where is the false dichotomy? Prove it before you allege it is invalid. Otherwise you are simply fallaciously pointing out fallacies when there is none.
"Yes, in Genesis 3, the literal serpent was the literal form the literal devil literally assumed when he literally appeared to a literal Eve who was near a literal tree that a literal God planted in a literal Garden on a literal earth. You get the literal point? If you think none of that was literally real then you can kiss goodbye to your faith."
Then you should have used "serpent" instead of "devil" to be consistently literal. Is there a literal word "devil" in genesis? Or are you taking it non literally?
"...And old earth creationists should be honest enough to admit that the ONLY reason why they think God's Word does not mean what it says is because of what "science" says, yep, the fallible opinions of fallible men whom OEC have placed OVER and ABOVE the infallible Word of God."
Hope you can see the bolded words. Conclusion: invalid argument.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Wait, did you KNOW beforehand that your kids will kill each other with a fruit knife? How did you know that? How could you?
BIC
Ya God knows. Isn't he allknowing? I am just using an analogy. Why he knew yet he place the fruit near them to let them mess up?
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Ya God knows. Isn't he allknowing? I am just using an analogy. Why he knew yet he place the fruit near them to let them mess up?
the common answer is the freedom of choice i tink
im surprised that tcmc and aneslayer is still discussing here.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:im surprised that tcmc and aneslayer is still discussing here.
Time well spent waiting for lunch... :p
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"Yes, in Genesis 3, the literal serpent was the literal form the literal devil literally assumed when he literally appeared to a literal Eve who was near a literal tree that a literal God planted in a literal Garden on a literal earth. You get the literal point? If you think none of that was literally real then you can kiss goodbye to your faith."
Then you should have used "serpent" instead of "devil" to be consistently literal. Is there a literal word "devil" in genesis? Or are you taking it non literally?
"...And old earth creationists should be honest enough to admit that the ONLY reason why they think God's Word does not mean what it says is because of what "science" says, yep, the fallible opinions of fallible men whom OEC have placed OVER and ABOVE the infallible Word of God."
Hope you can see the bolded words. Conclusion: invalid argument.
It is obvious that you are literally playing daft and trying to be funny.
Rev 12:9, Rev 20:2, Scripture interprets Scripture. In any case, you FAILED to show that I was wrong to say that the serpent in the Garden who spoke to Eve was the devil.
I stand by my bold claim. Now you tell me that it isn't so. Why do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Because the Bible tells you so?
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Ya God knows. Isn't he allknowing? I am just using an analogy. Why he knew yet he place the fruit near them to let them mess up?
Well, your analogy FAILS.
Precisely because God is ALL knowing and you are not, that you should humbly acknowledge that there are things God knows. God did not tell us, and neither is He obliged to tell us, why this or why that, to everything that happens. God sees the beginning to the end, you don't. Yet you would arrogantly indict God while you see only with limited knowledge?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:It is obvious that you are literally playing daft and trying to be funny.
Rev 12:9, Rev 20:2, Scripture interprets Scripture. In any case, you FAILED to show that I was wrong to say that the serpent in the Garden who spoke to Eve was the devil.
I stand by my bold claim. Now you tell me that it isn't so. Why do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Because the Bible tells you so?
God removed the serpent's legs and made to crawl for the rest of its life in Genesis. How did you interprete that the dragon were crawling without legs?
I don't believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, because the bible does not say so.
@Tcmc,
The things BIC just said can be used toward himself... God knows.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:God removed the serpent's legs and made to crawl for the rest of its life in Genesis. How did you interprete that the dragon were crawling without legs?
I don't believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, because the bible does not say so.
@Tcmc,
The things BIC just said can be used toward himself... God knows.
Changing the subject now? Do you agree that the serpent in Genesis 3 was the devil? Just answer the question.
As usual, always giving the I-don't-believe-this ambiguous answers. Never have the decency to tell people what you actually believe. Afraid to expose your own beliefs for fear of nonbelievers questioning you, or fear of believers questioning you?
The Bible DOES say that God created in 6 days, each day defined as evening and morning with a number. You believe that?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Changing the subject now? Do you agree that the serpent in Genesis 3 was the devil? Just answer the question.
As usual, always giving the I-don't-believe-this ambiguous answers. Never have the decency to tell people what you actually believe. Afraid to expose your own beliefs for fear of nonbelievers questioning you, or fear of believers questioning you?
The Bible DOES say that God created in 6 days, each day defined as evening and morning with a number. You believe that?
Its you who brought the devil in the discussion and referenced the (belly crawling)dragon in Revelations as the serpent in Genesis. Genesis has to be taken literally, do you agree? Where is the literal devil?
How is "I don't believe" being ambiguous? I made a choice, I don't believe in the earth is 4.5million years old. I did post what I believe but it was brushed away by a whatever. No more casting pearls to swines.
Taken literally, yes. Evening and morning makes a day.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Time well spent waiting for lunch... :p
if the discussion is good then its time well spent la... but this, no difference from wasting time mah.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
if the discussion is good then its time well spent la... but this, no difference from wasting time mah.
Its good... and getting better. However, BIC seems not making any effort to do so anymore...
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Its you who brought the devil in the discussion and referenced the (belly crawling)dragon in Revelations as the serpent in Genesis. Genesis has to be taken literally, do you agree? Where is the literal devil?
How is "I don't believe" being ambiguous? I made a choice, I don't believe in the earth is 4.5million years old. I did post what I believe but it was brushed away by a whatever. No more casting pearls to swines.
Taken literally, yes. Evening and morning makes a day.
The point is WHO is the serpent in Genesis? Revelation answers that. But you disgressed into asking serpent anatomy. The point is that Genesis has to be taken as REAL history, as against the view that it is mere allegory and metaphor.
So exactly how old do you believe the earth to be then? I don't recall you ever stating it.
Still wanting to play semantic games? Just say plainly what the days in Genesis means.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:The point is WHO is the serpent in Genesis? Revelation answers that. But you disgressed into asking serpent anatomy. The point is that Genesis has to be taken as REAL history, as against the view that it is mere allegory and metaphor.
So exactly how old do you believe the earth to be then? I don't recall you ever stating it.
Still wanting to play semantic games? Just say plainly what the days in Genesis means.
"The point is WHO is the serpent in Genesis? Revelation answers that. But you disgressed into asking serpent anatomy. The point is that Genesis has to be taken as REAL history, as against the view that it is mere allegory and metaphor."
Well... Genesis has to be taken literally as context. How can you interprete it as devil when it meant serpent lterally? Gods says the serpent will crawl on its belly for as long as it lives. If you say that the dragon in Revelation is refering to the serpent, than that dragon must be crawling on its belly as well.
"So exactly how old do you believe the earth to be then? I don't recall you ever stating it."
I really don't know how old the earth be.
"Still wanting to play semantic games? Just say plainly what the days in Genesis means."
Evening and morning makes a day.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Its good... and getting better. However, BIC seems not making any effort to do so anymore...
Err...who's the one simply dropping weblinks?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"The point is WHO is the serpent in Genesis? Revelation answers that. But you disgressed into asking serpent anatomy. The point is that Genesis has to be taken as REAL history, as against the view that it is mere allegory and metaphor."
Well... Genesis has to be taken literally as context. How can you interprete it as devil when it meant serpent lterally? Gods says the serpent will crawl on its belly for as long as it lives. If you say that the dragon in Revelation is refering to the serpent, than that dragon must be crawling on its belly as well.
"So exactly how old do you believe the earth to be then? I don't recall you ever stating it."
I really don't know how old the earth be.
"Still wanting to play semantic games? Just say plainly what the days in Genesis means."
Evening and morning makes a day.
So you are saying that the serpent in Genesis 3 was NOT the devil? Answer directly.
Then how you know it cannot be 6000 years old? Why can't the genealogies in the Bible be worked out to derive the age as I have shown? What's the basis for your disagreement?
Evening and morning makes a day, a day as in 24 hours day?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Err...who's the one simply dropping weblinks?
Yup... proven by this^ quote... You are not even trying to discuss the topics at hand...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:So you are saying that the serpent in Genesis 3 was NOT the devil? Answer directly.
Then how you know it cannot be 6000 years old? Why can't the genealogies in the Bible be worked out to derive the age as I have shown? What's the basis for your disagreement?
Evening and morning makes a day, a day as in 24 hours day?
"So you are saying that the serpent in Genesis 3 was NOT the devil? Answer directly."
You said it was the devil... not me. I'm just taking it literally. And you have not explained how a literal serpent can be taken for the devil...
"Then how you know it cannot be 6000 years old? Why can't the genealogies in the Bible be worked out to derive the age as I have shown? What's the basis for your disagreement?"
It could be... I just don't believe it. Btw you have not provided the chronogenealogy from Abraham to Jesus...
"Evening and morning makes a day, a day as in 24 hours day? "
According to Genesis, evening and morning makes a day. Time is purely a human concept.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"So you are saying that the serpent in Genesis 3 was NOT the devil? Answer directly."
You said it was the devil... not me. I'm just taking it literally. And you have not explained how a literal serpent can be taken for the devil...
"Then how you know it cannot be 6000 years old? Why can't the genealogies in the Bible be worked out to derive the age as I have shown? What's the basis for your disagreement?"
It could be... I just don't believe it. Btw you have not provided the chronogenealogy from Abraham to Jesus...
"Evening and morning makes a day, a day as in 24 hours day? "
According to Genesis, evening and morning makes a day. Time is purely a human concept.
Still being evasive and refusing to answer the question? Surely your answer does not depend on whether I can explain it or not, right?
Why don't you believe it then? The genealogies of Jesus in Luke and Matthew, taken with Genesis 5, 1 Chron 1 can established such an age. This has already been done. I have already provided the necessary links to demonstrate the time between Abraham and Jesus. If you think that is wrong, then tell me what you believe.
Why play games still? Trying to avoid the conclusion? Red herring thrown in? Do you or do you not take the days in Genesis as literal days, ordinary days of 24 hours each? Yes or No? YECs say yes. OECs who subscribe to the evolutionary age of the earth says no. What about you?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Its good... and getting better. However, BIC seems not making any effort to do so anymore...
Oh well....i dont see much constructive discussion here...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Still being evasive and refusing to answer the question? Surely your answer does not depend on whether I can explain it or not, right?
Why don't you believe it then? The genealogies of Jesus in Luke and Matthew, taken with Genesis 5, 1 Chron 1 can established such an age. This has already been done. I have already provided the necessary links to demonstrate the time between Abraham and Jesus. If you think that is wrong, then tell me what you believe.
Why play games still? Trying to avoid the conclusion? Red herring thrown in? Do you or do you not take the days in Genesis as literal days, ordinary days of 24 hours each? Yes or No? YECs say yes. OECs who subscribe to the evolutionary age of the earth says no. What about you?
I believe, taking Genesis literally, the serpent is literally the serpent, nothing else. Unless you can show me otherwise. You were adding to the literal meaning of the serpent when you said "...asks the same question the devil asked Eve..." which I corrected but you fail to accept but insist on the story that the literal serpent is the devil, by referencing to the dragon in Revelations, as the literal serpent in Genesis where the dragon had legs... textually incorrect story I say.
You did not show the chronogenealogy from Abraham to Jesus. I have shown you why I did not believe as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
Since the 1970s, efforts to reconstruct a patriarchal age for Israel's past have come to an end as most historians of ancient Israel have abandoned the conclusions of earlier scholarship,[10] as there is nothing specific in the Genesis stories that can be definitively linked to known history in or around Canaan in the early second millennium BCE. There is no solid evidence for any date during that period, as none of the kings mentioned are known, neither the anonymous Pharaoh who enlists Joseph into his services. Some scholars argue that historical inaccuracies exist, such as: the reference to Abimelech "King of the Philistines", when the Phlistines had not settled in Palestine until the later end of the millennium. Abraham coming from "Ur of the Chaldeans", when the Babylonians were not known as Chaldeans until a much later time. Laban identified as an Aramean, when Arameans did not become a known political entity before the 12th century BCE.[11]
I do not believe in humans concepts like time as much as I believe in Genesis, in the literal sense. Conclusion: Evening and morning makes a day. No more no less. Unless you care to show otherwise.
I have made my believe and disbelieve quite clearly(see bold) now. What do you want me to believe?