Genesis.

[nixie_SC]

Hi all, I am very interested in knowing more about how everyone interpret Genesis in the bible, because, I am thinking, if you cannot believe even the first chapter in a book, especially one as influential as the bible, then how can you read on and believe the rest of the book. That is why I have so many questions surrounding Genesis, and since I cannot do so in the other 2 threads on this topic anymore since it will go off topic and it has, I thought I start one, and hope that everyone will be courteous and come here to debate about Genesis.

I am using bible gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) as my resource of the bible, since it offers many version which one can cross reference easily including those translated into language other then English. It is also easily searchable with keywords and by chapters.

I like to start off this debate with the "Tree of Knowledge"

I have ask a question regarding the "Tree of Knowledge" in the garden of Eden which "God" has created and place Adam and Eve in.

The questions are:

1) Why is the tree of knowledge place in the garden of eden if "God" did not intend for Adam and Eve to eat from it.

2) Why did Genesis 1.2 this is the account of Adam and Eve, explain that Eve was created from Adam's Rib, when in Genesis 1.1 has another reference that says God created Adam and Eve, mala and female from the earth at the same time. My suspicion is why Create Eve as a companion/helper to Adam, why not leave it at Genesis 1.1 "they are both created at the same time" have the same "level" in all things.

[urisStar]

I find while studying this book that the stories run into each other with no separation of time/in time. It is like one person wrote the story and someone else came behind them and add or maybe also remove information without caring if it made any sense after they made their contribution to the stories. I believe that it is impossible to take any of the stories at face value because of the poor quality of information.

In studying the book you get a look into the nature of God that conflict with many of the stories that help you to understand what kind of people God was dealing with. The stories seem to be more about man’s history in conflict with God and their lack of understanding about God.

The trees are not actual trees nor is the fruit an actual fruit and it speaks to others in the garden besides Adam and Eve. As far as Adam and Eve, it seems like they were joined at the hip and they were both called Adam. When Eve who was Adam at the time was being tempted Adam was right there and what ever it was that she ate that Adam also ate is rather disturbing. I have come to understand why it was better to tell the story as fruit and threes.

I could also understand why Jesus saw the need for the Holy Spirit as a teacher and a guide to tell us about the things of God because men are horrible story tellers and lousy trees and fruits. :doh :lol:

[Reindeer911_SC]

Hi all, I am very interested in knowing more about how everyone interpret Genesis in the bible, because, I am thinking, if you cannot believe even the first chapter in a book, especially one as influential as the bible, then how can you read on and believe the rest of the book. That is why I have so many questions surrounding Genesis, and since I cannot do so in the other 2 threads on this topic anymore since it will go off topic and it has, I thought I start one, and hope that everyone will be courteous and come here to debate about Genesis.

I am using bible gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) as my resource of the bible, since it offers many version which one can cross reference easily including those translated into language other then English. It is also easily searchable with keywords and by chapters.

I like to start off this debate with the "Tree of Knowledge"

I have ask a question regarding the "Tree of Knowledge" in the garden of Eden which "God" has created and place Adam and Eve in.

The questions are:

1) Why is the tree of knowledge place in the garden of eden if "God" did not intend for Adam and Eve to eat from it.

2) Why did Genesis 1.2 this is the account of Adam and Eve, explain that Eve was created from Adam's Rib, when in Genesis 1.1 has another reference that says God created Adam and Eve, mala and female from the earth at the same time. My suspicion is why Create Eve as a companion/helper to Adam, why not leave it at Genesis 1.1 "they are both created at the same time" have the same "level" in all things.

For now I'll attempt to answer the second question. The simple explanation is that there is a school of thought amongst many biblical scholars that suggests the first five books of the Bible/Torah were not written by Moses, but is a fusion of four separate documents (JEPD) written at different times by different people. That would be one explanation the inconsistencies.

Another possible explanation is that if you notice, in Genesis 1 man was created on the 6th day. However, go on to Genesis 2, and you will notice that Adam wasn't created until the 7th day... if you follow the sequence of events, God rested on the 7th day, blessed it, then created Adam. That would of course suggest that Adam was not the first man.

[Ghost sdoj]

The tree of knowledge was planted to give humans a choice of whether or not to obey God. God knew the choice they would make, but if they were not allowed to make it, they would be nothing more than puppets. God wanted people, not puppets, so at the moment the tree was planted the plan was set into motion to set things up so the mistake could be fixed. God even gave them the opportunity to admit their own guilt then and there, but they didn't accept the opportunity.

Genesis 2 starts a whole new creation story beginning with verse 4. The bible is a faith history, not a scientific treatise. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two separate stories. They both have the main detail that "In the beginning, God created everything, including people." They are different when it comes to the details that humans were not really around for anyway. In Genesis 1, people were created on day 6. In Genesis 2, Adam was created the same day that the dry land appeared. The reason that Adam was considered the ancestor of all humanity was because every family but Noah's perished in the flood. And Noah was descended from Adam by way of Seth.

And I always heard that the story of Eve being created from Adam was to remind both sexes that they are two halves of a greater whole, and each has abilities that the other lacks.

I expect Charmaine will elaborate further. I'm just stealing some time on the computer while I have a chance today.

[davious]

The questions are:

1) Why is the tree of knowledge place in the garden of eden if "God" did not intend for Adam and Eve to eat from it.

2) Why did Genesis 1.2 this is the account of Adam and Eve, explain that Eve was created from Adam's Rib, when in Genesis 1.1 has another reference that says God created Adam and Eve, mala and female from the earth at the same time. My suspicion is why Create Eve as a companion/helper to Adam, why not leave it at Genesis 1.1 "they are both created at the same time" have the same "level" in all things.

1.Because God understood choice. He didn't create humans as robots, who were only capable of following God beause they were forced to. By giving them the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and telling them they can eat from all but this tree, it gives them a choice to either obey God, or to not obey God. He gave them free will, and the tree is an expression of that. If you don't have the option to disobey God, and are compelled to worship God, where is the choice, and what is the value of that worship?


2.What are your reference points? Genesis 1.1 and 1.2? Meaning Genesis chapter 1, verse 1 and chapter 1, verse 2? or are you doubling the chapters, and the first 1s are redundant, meaning Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2? But, either way, let me answer this...I suspect that the first 1s are unnecessary, as I think I found the verses you are referring to...Genesis 1:26, (New International Version, or NIV)

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

and this is most likely the verse that you are wanting to say contradicts the creation account in Chapter 2. However, its really just a simple story device. Chapter 1's account of human creation is the bare basic outline...Chapter 2 tells us in more detail how it actually happened. Chapter 2's account isn't an additional creation, its merely an attempt to explain verse 26 of Chapter 1 a little more clearly, thats all. Chapter 1 is a rough outline of the Creation story, Chapter 2 just explains part of Chapter 1 better. Its like if you had a blog, and you mentioned among a host of other things, you got a new job, without going into detail...then the next day, you come back, and write another blog, explaining the job, what it is, what your responsibilities are, etc...It wouldn't mean you got two jobs, because you wrote about it twice, it merely indicates that you didn't think just mentioning the new job was sufficient enough in the first blog, and decided to explain it a little better later.

I am having trouble finding the verse where it states that either Adam or Eve were created on the 7th day, while God was resting however...

and, this is to explain the ribs/side issue...Genesis Chapter 2, verse 21, 22 (again, NIV):

21.So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22.Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The Bible Gateway online site may not include the various footnotes a real Bible might...I am using a physical NIV Bible, not an online source...there are footnotes that explain a slight problem in the translation..in 21, the footnote indicates "or took part of the man's side" as a footnote to ribs, and in 22, it suggests "part" in place of rib. So, the following would also be a translation of those verses...

21.So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. 22.Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

very minor issue regarding the translation of the original Hebrew word, not a contradiction. Substituting the alternate suggestions changes the meaning of the two verses in no way whatsoever. Its just a minor linguistical nuance, that's all.

[nixie_SC]

What's the sense when you won't believe it anyway?

Dear Charmaine,

It is good to understand other's people believes, any believes, I would ask all sorts of questions if I can find a polite way to ask them, especially the bible, this is not something I do to try and belittle the Bible. The Bible if not anything else, Is a record of how people used to live in the past. By understanding why and how it come to be written the way it is written, you will know and understand a tiny bit more about the human civilization. (for me at least) that is why I am asking so many questions about the bible. and I am only at Genesis.

I understand why and how the people living in my same region pray at certain festival, thou I do not pray as they do now-a-days as a taoist, not for a long time, use to follow my parents and pray to "heaven"- sky actually, food were offered and incense and paper money, houses, cars etcetera were burnt. Now I know that is useless, why burnt stuffs to pollute the atmosphere, because it will make me safe? No is the answer, Incense are not cheap too, mind you and the whole process thou rich in cultural flavours will not lead me into doing the praying to the sky and dead people and burnt incense again. But I still respect it as my peoples' way of life and culture, when old people say I burnt the incense, i'd do it so they are happy. All these are not written like the bible, there's no records of it, none that I've seen anyway, we don't try to make people pray to our ancestors or spread the believes, unless I am mistaken, but I've never seen a taoist asking another person to become taoist before. It is not a big deal, plus I already know what it is about. rich cultural flavours you may savours but not believe in, from my current stand point.

However the bible is a written record of something that may or may not be true, and if you spread it to other people's country, you have to expect people to get interested, get curious, ask questions and wanting to know more. Isn't that the main purpose of spreading the word of "God"?

Let me get back to the rest of the posts, because it is getting very late and I have early morning tomorrow.

[Charmaine06]

Thanks Davious! Well "said." I have a Zondervan (http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US) NIV Study Bible and I bought it to get a better understanding of the Bible instead of a King James' version. Everything you stated is correct and it's good to have another true believer involved.

Dear Charmaine,

It is good to understand other's people believes, any believes, I would ask all sorts of questions if I can find a polite way to ask them, especially the bible, this is not something I do to try and belittle the Bible. The Bible if not anything else, Is a record of how people used to live in the past. By understanding why and how it come to be written the way it is written, you will know and understand a tiny bit more about the human civilization. (for me at least) that is why I am asking so many questions about the bible. and I am only at Genesis.

I understand why and how the people living in my same region pray at certain festival, thou I do not pray as they do now-a-days as a taoist, not for a long time, use to follow my parents and pray to "heaven"- sky actually, food were offered and incense and paper money, houses, cars etcetera were burnt. Now I know that is useless, why burnt stuffs to pollute the atmosphere, because it will make me safe? No is the answer, Incense are not cheap too, mind you and the whole process thou rich in cultural flavours will not lead me into doing the praying to the sky and dead people and burnt incense again. But I still respect it as my peoples' way of life and culture, when old people say I burnt the incense, i'd do it so they are happy. All these are not written like the bible, there's no records of it, none that I've seen anyway, we don't try to make people pray to our ancestors or spread the believes, unless I am mistaken, but I've never seen a taoist asking another person to become taoist before. It is not a big deal, plus I already know what it is about. rich cultural flavours you may savours but not believe in, from my current stand point.

However the bible is a written record of something that may or may not be true, and if you spread it to other people's country, you have to expect people to get interested, get curious, ask questions and wanting to know more. Isn't that the main purpose of spreading the word of "God"?

Let me get back to the rest of the posts, because it is getting very late and I have early morning tomorrow.
Maybe it is good to get an understanding of other people's beliefs, but I'm not concerned with other people's beliefs. That's not going to get me saved. I don't believe in evolution, so why would I start a thread asking others about it? I'm not concerned about it and no one will ever get me to change my mind, "facts" or not. Humans don't know everything and weren't there at the "beginning of time." If you don't believe the Bible, then why be so concerned about what it contains? How is knowing about other people's beliefs going to enrich your life in anyway if you don't accept their beliefs as true? I'm not a Satan-worshiper, so I could care less about what "Satanists" believe. My only concern would be their salvation (which only Jesus can give by grace). I can give you plenty of information about Genesis, but you still won't accept it as true, so what is the true purpose of your interest? You want to know just so you will have that information? If so, what are you going to do with it? Tell me and other believers that you still don't believe it? That it's just a "bunch of nothing"?

[urisStar]

Disclaimer: I have no need to be right and given the choice to be right or to be kind, I would/will chose kind every time.

Anything I post on this subject and or any works pertaining to the bible, is not a christian point of view of the bible as I am not a christian; however, I am a Believer “without labels” and seek and search out Truth for my own growth and understanding as not to be ignorant about the things of God.

In a nut shell, I have no interest in/to follow after Christianity but to follow after God, if in my travels I come across information shared and understood the same as Christians that we agree with/on, so be it, as God gets the glory. If in the case our understanding differ, so be it, let us just agree to disagree, as God still gets the glory. That being said and out of the way:

Unlike Christians I do want to learn about other’s belief and have no issue exposing myself in that way as my own belief is not fragile and God don’t need protecting nor I as He is Protection. God can be found in everything and in everyone as He is all things and in all things. He has many, many names and the bible is not the only place you can learn of Him as He is not limited, the whole World is His. :D Knowledge (all) is good! :einstein

[ToxicBritneyfan]

[QUOTE=nixie]1) Why is the tree of knowledge place in the garden of eden if "God" did not intend for Adam and Eve to eat from it.
[QUOTE]

He did that so he would know if they ould tell right from wrong. He told them not to eat from it, but they did

[Reindeer911_SC]

Genesis 2 starts a whole new creation story beginning with verse 4. The bible is a faith history, not a scientific treatise. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two separate stories. They both have the main detail that "In the beginning, God created everything, including people." They are different when it comes to the details that humans were not really around for anyway. In Genesis 1, people were created on day 6. In Genesis 2, Adam was created the same day that the dry land appeared. The reason that Adam was considered the ancestor of all humanity was because every family but Noah's perished in the flood. And Noah was descended from Adam by way of Seth.

I agree that the Bible isn't a scientific treatise, but at the same token scientific knowledge trumps faith whenever the two conflict. Here's an example... if the Bible is to be interpreted literally, the heavens and the Earth were created in 7 days. That would date the universe at about ~8000 years. Even if we were to accept that "a day to God is like 1000 years to man", that would place the age of the universe at somewhere between 14k and 15k years. Now with our current level of understanding of astronomy, we know that can't possibly be true. Through the use of several different techniques, we have been able to determine that our closest galactic neighbor, the Andromeda galaxy, to be ~2.5 million light years distant. Now if the Bible is to be interpreted literally, then there is an obvious conflict between known scientific data and what the Bible claims to be so. On the other hand, if the Bible is to be interpreted metaphorically, then it really becomes no more or less valid than any other holy book such as the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita. I suppose one could say that it is a combination of both (literal and figurative), but then where would the line be drawn?

I am having trouble finding the verse where it states that either Adam or Eve were created on the 7th day, while God was resting however...

I'm simply following the sequence of events.

[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.
...
[31] And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen.2
[1] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
[2] And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
[3] And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
[4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
...
[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.

If Adam was indeed the first man, followed by Eve, Cain, then Abel, then it begs the question on how is it that Cain took a wife and found the people to settle a city.

Gen.4
[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.

Another question is why in Genesis 5, Adam is being referred to in the plural?

Gen.5
[1] This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
[2] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.


Now if Chapter 2 is a retelling of the creation story as was suggested, how is it that in Chapter 1, the animals were created on the 5th and 6th day BEFORE man...

[21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[22] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
[23] And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
[25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Yet in Chapter 2, the animals weren't created until AFTER Adam came along?

[19] And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[Charmaine06]

In a nut shell, I have no interest in/to follow after Christianity but to follow after God, if in my travels I come across information shared and understood the same as Christians that we agree with/on, so be it, as God gets the glory. If in the case our understanding differ, so be it, let us just agree to disagree, as God still gets the glory.
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son (Christ) shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." -John 3:36

Unlike Christians I do want to learn about other’s belief and have no issue exposing myself in that way as my own belief is not fragile and God don’t need protecting nor I as He is Protection. God can be found in everything and in everyone as He is all things and in all things. He has many, many names and the bible is not the only place you can learn of Him as He is not limited, the whole World is His. :D Knowledge (all) is good! :einstein
I am the only person in this thread who said that I'm not concerned with other people's beliefs (meaning non-believers). Don't group Christians under this, because I'm only one Christian. I speak for myself. Being a Christian has nothing to do with that. I would like for everyone to accept Jesus, but if a person doesn't, then I'm not concerned about other beliefs. It has nothing to do with fragility or a need to "protect" God. How can I "protect" God? Because I stand up for my beliefs means that I'm trying to "protect" God?????? God is everywhere, but not everyone accepts Him. Most people reject God, so I wouldn't go to an unbeliever for knowledge about God. An unbeliever can tell me nothing about God because His Word doesn't reside in him/her. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Matthew 7:15

[Doddibot]

As many have mentioned already, Genesis is actually a composition of two (if you look later in the book, perhaps even three/four) different books, written at different times by different people - essentially retelling the same story, but with a few differences.

So Genesis 1 and 2 are likely the same story, but written in two different periods of time by two different people. The story had diverged somewhat by then, but was obviously close enough that a later writer could merge the two together.

You may notice many differences between the two accounts, not only in fact but in writing style. For example, Genesis 1 uses the Hebrew Elohim (translated to God) but Genesis 2 always says YHWH Elohim (or Lord God). Later in the book, around Genesis 6, the word switches again to be Adonai (translated just to Lord).

I think that makes the most sense of any explanation.

[jhd1189]

Charmaine.

a) Calm down.
b) Stay on topic. This is a debate about Genesis, and everything that you have referenced was clearly taken from the New Testament.
c) Please stop labeling others as "true believers" and "unbelievers" and the like. It's unecessary and can be taken as offensive.

[Doddibot]

1.Because God understood choice. He didn't create humans as robots, who were only capable of following God beause they were forced to. By giving them the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and telling them they can eat from all but this tree, it gives them a choice to either obey God, or to not obey God. He gave them free will, and the tree is an expression of that. If you don't have the option to disobey God, and are compelled to worship God, where is the choice, and what is the value of that worship?
Perhaps, but one can only be truly free to decisions when one has full knowledge. God lied to the humans when he said that they would surely die within a day (Gen 2:17) and could eat of ANY tree (Gen 1:29), or the serpent lied when he said they wouldn't die and would become as Gods (Gen 3:4) - (Note: the serpent was actually correct, see Gen 3:22). So, because neither Adam nor Eve actually knew what would happen, they were not in a position to make an accurate choice.

Furthermore, it is stated that the tree of KNOWLEDGE gave them the ability to know good from evil (Gen 3:22). Without this knowledge, how were these Edenites going to know whether obeying the serpent or obeying God was good or evil? How can they make a choice without this knowledge?

Chapter 2's account isn't an additional creation, its merely an attempt to explain verse 26 of Chapter 1 a little more clearly, thats all.
This would make sense if there weren't so many other differences.

Namely, the order is different. In Genesis 1, animals are created and then man (Genesis 1:25-27). In Genesis 2, man is created, then animals (Genesis 2:18-19).

Even within the animals, there are differences. In Genesis 1, birds are created from water (Genesis 1:20-21), but in Genesis 2 they are formed from the ground (Genesis 2:19).

In addition, the first chapters says that humans subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28) but in Genesis 2 humans serve the earth (Genesis 2:15).

[hszmv]

Raindeer911, I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but maybe the plural was something akin to the Royal We (i.e. The king said "We are most displeased," stressing his displeasure to the rest of the court), making Adam a figurative representative of the human race. Not just one person but a group of people. Don't hold me to it, I'm just trying to think in the King's English.

Of course all of that can be chalked up to typos, can't it? Lame cop out, but my whole opinion on Genisis is that it is metaphorically symbolic. One theory that I heard is that genisis is about the learning of technology (specifically agriculture) that would replace a more simplistic lifestyle (hunter-gatherer) with a more difficult one (farmer) that brought pain to the people. The fact that man is banished from the Edan is due to the fact that once you learn about something, you can never give that knowledge back. It is with you as if you literally ate it from a tree.

Another theory is that Edan is childhood innocence, and how, like a child, ones "eyes" are opened to human suffering early on, and from that day forth, we are doomed to a life of pain. We can never turn a blind eye on suffering now, because we now know of the good and evil and our lives will forever be complicated by that knowledge (think of how hard it is to tell a homeless person that you have no money to spare (even though you have a nice twenty in your pocket that you don't need, but don't want to give away to some lunatic on the street.)). The very fact that the tree exists signifies suffering has always been around, man just hasn't realized it. The fact that Adam's own son kill his own brother out of jealosy further hits home.

[Doc Doofus]

Personally, as a Jew, I don't think that non-Jews are capable of understanding the Old Testament.

[Charmaine06]

Personally, as a Jew, I don't think that non-Jews are capable of understanding the Old Testament.
I understand the Old Testament, but I'm not a Jew. God's word was not meant only for Jews, but for all people. Adam and Eve weren't Jews and nowhere in the Bible does it say that.

[Doc Doofus]

Charmaine, I was kidding. I was making fun of the argument that you have to be imbued with the "The Word" to understand a Jewish book.

Most people reject God, so I wouldn't go to an unbeliever for knowledge about God. An unbeliever can tell me nothing about God because His Word doesn't reside in him/her.

[Charmaine06]

Charmaine, I was kidding. I was making fun of the argument that you have to be imbued with the "The Word" to understand a Jewish book.
I didn't mention "Jewish book." God's word is not a Jewish book.

[banshee]

I didn't mention "Jewish book." God's word is not a Jewish book.Sorry, but G-d's word is very much a Jewish book. The Old Testament is the Tanakh (Jewish Bible).

[urisStar]

Hi all, I am very interested in knowing more about how everyone interpret Genesis in the bible, because, I am thinking, if you cannot believe even the first chapter in a book, especially one as influential as the bible, then how can you read on and believe the rest of the book. That is why I have so many questions surrounding Genesis, and since I cannot do so in the other 2 threads on this topic anymore since it will go off topic and it has, I thought I start one, and hope that everyone will be courteous and come here to debate about Genesis.

I am using bible gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) as my resource of the bible, since it offers many version which one can cross reference easily including those translated into language other then English. It is also easily searchable with keywords and by chapters.

I like to start off this debate with the "Tree of Knowledge"

I have ask a question regarding the "Tree of Knowledge" in the garden of Eden which "God" has created and place Adam and Eve in.

The questions are:

1) Why is the tree of knowledge place in the garden of eden if "God" did not intend for Adam and Eve to eat from it.

2) Why did Genesis 1.2 this is the account of Adam and Eve, explain that Eve was created from Adam's Rib, when in Genesis 1.1 has another reference that says God created Adam and Eve, mala and female from the earth at the same time. My suspicion is why Create Eve as a companion/helper to Adam, why not leave it at Genesis 1.1 "they are both created at the same time" have the same "level" in all things.

Because a whole religion was built around the fall of Adam and Eve being the reason the world was/is in need of redemption, the main reason they give for the need of Jesus coming and needed to die on a cross; you will be hard press to get an answer that is not religious in nature. The Jews have no such belief of needing to be redeem because of the fall/error of Adam and Eve, and as much as I know there is going to be a fallout on what I say, here goes: Adam and Eve did failed in their mission and they paid for their own failure but there was no fall by Adam and Eve that affected all mankind causing them to be born into sin.

Like I said in my first post, the information given in the first two chapters of this book were interfered with for what ever reason and while I believe there were a Adam and Eve, they were not the first people that were created in the first creation story.

While the second creation may be a reference to their appearance on earth, the story of creating Eve out of Adam's rib is a confused condensation of other events or stories that may have been around at the time the writer inserted this part into the book. While I believe there may have been situations/acts/behavior that Adam and Eve were forbidden to take part in, there were no actual tree called the tree of good and evil/knowledge in the garden. Adam and Eve were not the only people in the garden and there were also people living on the outside all around the garden. :D

[Charmaine06]

Sorry, but G-d's word is very much a Jewish book. The Old Testament is the Tanakh (Jewish Bible).
People may consider The Bible a Jewish book, but God's Word is not a Jewish book. God's word came from God, not the Jews.

[Doc Doofus]

The word Logos, used in Gospel of Matthew, is a Greek word with a complicated meaning. It means "Word" but it also means spirit or divine reason or a number of things that don't have a simple one-word analogy in English or Hebrew.

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html

So when you talk about The Word, you are introducing a non-Jewish concept into a discussion about a Jewish book, written by Jews for Jews in Hebrew (Genesis). You may feel that The Word from Matthew is the same as the God of the Jews, but Jews don't generally feel the same way. Your religion is welcome to use our religion's books, but it's a bit unfair to tell other people that they can't understand our book unless they believe in your particular version of God (Logos).

I know, it's an esoteric argument now. It was meant to be a one-liner joke.

[Charmaine06]

The word Logos, used in Gospel of Matthew, is a Greek word with a complicated meaning. It means "Word" but it also means spirit or divine reason or a number of things that don't have a simple one-word analogy in English or Hebrew.

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html

So when you talk about The Word, you are introducing a non-Jewish concept into a discussion about a Jewish book, written by Jews for Jews in Hebrew (Genesis). You may feel that The Word from Matthew is the same as the God of the Jews, but Jews don't generally feel the same way. Your religion is welcome to use our religion's books, but it's a bit unfair to tell other people that they can't understand our book unless they believe in your particular version of God (Logos).

I know, it's an esoteric argument now. It was meant to be a one-liner joke.
God's word is not Jewish. God is not Jewish. God existed before there were any Jews. God's word is the truth and the truth existed before mankind did. I'm not worshipping a Jewish God. I worship God because there is only one God - Old Testament or New Testament, etc. God's word is not and was never meant for only the Jews. When I use the word "word" I don't mean anything specific in the Bible, but ALL of God's word which not comes from the Old Testament, but the New Testament as well. Jews think they are God's chosen people, but God's chosen people are the ones who follow Him, which includes me and I'm not Jewish; I'm Christian. Jesus is the Son of God and Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. All are one. Jesus is the same as the God in the Old Testament. God's word belongs to us all. It didn't come from the Jews. God's word comes from Himself. Humans can't take responsibility for it. I don't worship the Jews. I worship God (Lord, Christ, and Holy Spirit). Jesus is God, the same one from Genesis, the creator of all things. When I read the Bible, I don't consider it or think of it as a Jewish book, because God's word comes from God, not the Jews. I don't need permission from the Jews to read God's word. I never told anyone that they can't understand "the Jew's book" without the Holy Spirit. I stated that people couldn't really understand (or have true understanding) of God's word unless they have the Holy Spirit. If you don't, then your eyes haven't been opened; you are blind to the truth and it's impossible for you to really understand. I believe because I truly understand and my understanding comes from the Holy Spirit which God gave me. This Holy Spirit existed in the "Old Testament times" and still exists today. I'm not grateful to the Jews because of the Bible. I'm thankful to God because His word only comes from Him; not the Jews, Old Testament or not. The Genesis story is not about the Jews, nor did it come from the Jews. God is the creator (not the Jews), so it comes from Him.

[Ghost sdoj]

With all due respect, Genesis is very much about the Jews. The Jews were the people that God chose to establish the culture needed before Jesus' message could be understood. Their history is important to Christians because they were God's people before we ever heard of God. And by becoming part of the family, it becomes our history as well. In fact our lives seem to mirror the history with frightening precision sometimes. We are chosen for a relationship with God. We are saved from slavery to sin and death by the blood of Jesus. We follow joyfully until God asks us to for something we don't want to do and we rebel. Sometimes we repent, sometimes we are stubborn. Sometimes we even take ourselves into exile for a while. And God is always there when we return, leading our way back home.

[Charmaine06]

With all due respect, Genesis is very much about the Jews. The Jews were the people that God chose to establish the culture needed before Jesus' message could be understood. Their history is important to Christians because they were God's people before we ever heard of God. And by becoming part of the family, it becomes our history as well. In fact our lives seem to mirror the history with frightening precision sometimes. We are chosen for a relationship with God. We are saved from slavery to sin and death by the blood of Jesus. We follow joyfully until God asks us to for something we don't want to do and we rebel. Sometimes we repent, sometimes we are stubborn. Sometimes we even take ourselves into exile for a while. And God is always there when we return, leading our way back home.
What I should have said was the Adam and Eve story is not about the Jews. My mistake. Adam and Eve weren't Jewish. I never said Jews' history isn't important to Christians, but I have nothing to thank them for because God's word comes from Himself and not the Jews.

[Doc Doofus]

First of all, I want to apologize for the tone of my last two posts. They were flippant and not very seriously thought out and I can understand if anybody felt offended by the tone.

I guess I was responding to this, which I disagre with:

Maybe it is good to get an understanding of other people's beliefs, but I'm not concerned with other people's beliefs. That's not going to get me saved. [...] If you don't believe the Bible, then why be so concerned about what it contains? How is knowing about other people's beliefs going to enrich your life in anyway if you don't accept their beliefs as true? [...] I can give you plenty of information about Genesis, but you still won't accept it as true, so what is the true purpose of your interest? You want to know just so you will have that information? If so, what are you going to do with it? Tell me and other believers that you still don't believe it? That it's just a "bunch of nothing"?

I was a little bothered by the idea that there is no great usefulness to understanding other religions. I also disagree that explaining the Bible to other people is a waste of time unless they already believe in it. If that's the true, then the whole book is superfluous. If you believe in it, you don't need to read it. And if you haven't read it, you don't know if you believe in it. And if you have questions about conflicts in the Bible, then you of necessity have ill intent.

There are a lot of conflicts in the Bible. I accept that. I think discussion of them is very useful. Yes, there are some people that will read those conflicts and say, "That's a silly book," but that's their right. Sometimes knowledge is like a ticking time bomb and it takes a little more ticking before it goes off and goes boom.

[urisStar]

First of all, I want to apologize for the tone of my last two posts. They were flippant and not very seriously thought out and I can understand if anybody felt offended by the tone.

I guess I was responding to this, which I disagre with:



I was a little bothered by the idea that there is no great usefulness to understanding other religions. I also disagree that explaining the Bible to other people is a waste of time unless they already believe in it. If that's the true, then the whole book is superfluous. If you believe in it, you don't need to read it. And if you haven't read it, you don't know if you believe in it. And if you have questions about conflicts in the Bible, then you of necessity have ill intent.

There are a lot of conflicts in the Bible. I accept that. I think discussion of them is very useful. Yes, there are some people that will read those conflicts and say, "That's a silly book," but that's their right. Sometimes knowledge is like a ticking time bomb and it takes a little more ticking before it goes off and goes boom.

Hey Doc, it is pointless, understanding like knowledge is a great gem; a pearl of great price, and you know the saying of the uselessness of casting your pearls before swine.

“And if you have questions about conflicts in the Bible, then you of necessity have ill intent”

God have no need for His people to be ignorant and "conflict" in the book is only His way of saying take another look. It would be a totally waste of time to say you believe the Word as God’s Words and think He is so fragile that He recoils every time someone question His words/ask for more clarity. He wants you to ask questions so He can give you understanding, for what good is knowledge without understanding? There are different levels of understanding in the Word and I always say that God have the best sense of humor ever and He enjoy teaching His children one on one, for it is nothing like when man try to teach you. God takes it to a hold other level. :heyhey:

[Chelleypie]

First off, pardon any typos, my sister is in the bathroom. It's time for my contacts to come out, and my junk's in there and so I can't take them out.

Call me a bad Christian if you'd like, but I believe that understanding and embracing other beliefs is incredibly helpful to my own Christian walk. I am Anglican, and our Advent study series is being conducted by Rabbi Task, a local Rabbi, who is good friends with my priest and his wife. I've celebrated Passover alongside my Jewish brothers and sisters, and they have taken part in my Christmas celebrations. Last Lent (Advent is the weeks preceding Christmas, Lent is the weeks preceding Easter) we had a study series that was aimed at helping us as a church understand the major world faiths: Islam, Judaism, Christianity. The first week of the study, Rabbi was unavailable due to an unforeseen emergency, so he lent us a taped interview with Rabbi Kushner, who wrote 'Why Bad Things Happen to Good People'. Rabbi said several things that rang true for me, including (all paraphrased):
1) It doesn't matter if the Bible is true. In a way, fairytales are true, because we keep repeating them. I personally do not believe that the Earth was started by two Hebrew speaking adults and a talking snake either.
2) Christians are preoccupied with getting into heaven. Jews tend to take life on earth much more seriously, since they believe that Messiah hasn't made it here just yet.
3) It really doesn't matter who's 'right'. If Messiah comes the second time, Christians are right. If Messiah comes for the first time, Jews are right. If He never comes, scientists are right. And in the end, does it truly matter who was 'right'?

Number 1 pretty much summed up my belief of Genesis: I believe that God did not create two Hebrew speaking adults and a talking snake. I believe that the Genesis creation story is just that: a story. I am a follower of the belief that God created Earth to evolve.

I also believe that God intended His people (Jew and Gentile) to ask questions.

[voicesinside]

I know that this might not be what you're looking for but I'm a huge vampire fan and I study their myths. Have you ever hear of Lilith by any chance?

Lilith (http://www.angelfire.com/biz4/vampyreresearch/lilt.html) and second Lilith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith) link.

Someone in the massive amount of information on the web about her I read that they believed that there was a male created before Adam however I forget what became of him. Lilith was Adam's first wife, the material she was created with was dirtier then Adam's so she was born evil. Much like all the sexism in our society Lilith "disobeyed" Adam by not wanting to "lie beneath him" :wink: So when Adam tried to force her she called to God and fled from Eden and she mated with demons. And so on, you can read the rest from the link.

And yes never mind that you can also say that Lilith wasn't a real vampire.

[urisStar]

I know that this might not be what you're looking for but I'm a huge vampire fan and I study their myths. Have you ever hear of Lilith by any chance?

Lilith (http://www.angelfire.com/biz4/vampyreresearch/lilt.html) and second Lilith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith) link.

Someone in the massive amount of information on the web about her I read that they believed that there was a male created before Adam however I forget what became of him. Lilith was Adam's first wife, the material she was created with was dirtier then Adam's so she was born evil. Much like all the sexism in our society Lilith "disobeyed" Adam by not wanting to "lie beneath him" :wink: So when Adam tried to force her she called to God and fled from Eden and she mated with demons. And so on, you can read the rest from the link.

And yes never mind that you can also say that Lilith wasn't a real vampire.

I have just started to read about the Kabbalah which will most likely turn into my studying more closely for a better understanding. So far I have come across the story of Lilith once and have made a notation to check out the story if I am not given more clarity by/at the end of my reading the different works on Kabbalah.

The creation stories took place many thousands to maybe a million years apart from the second story, seeing the Earth well populated at/by that time. Also the division between Satan and God took place before Adam and Eve appearance on Earth. The demon stories started when the falling Angles were kicked out of Heaven with Satan and they started to mess with the daughters of man. I know that the people were being terrorized by these spirits and were at a disadvantage. I know that the book took on a different look after the Babylonian captivity and the return of the Jewish people.

There are a lot of tales that came out of the time between the fallen Angles and the appearance of Adam and Eve and there is no wonder that these tales may have got mixed in/mixed up with the story telling of the Hebrews. :argh:

[Charmaine06]

Call me a bad Christian if you'd like, but I believe that understanding and embracing other beliefs is incredibly helpful to my own Christian walk. I am Anglican, and our Advent study series is being conducted by Rabbi Task, a local Rabbi, who is good friends with my priest and his wife. I've celebrated Passover alongside my Jewish brothers and sisters, and they have taken part in my Christmas celebrations. Last Lent (Advent is the weeks preceding Christmas, Lent is the weeks preceding Easter) we had a study series that was aimed at helping us as a church understand the major world faiths: Islam, Judaism, Christianity. The first week of the study, Rabbi was unavailable due to an unforeseen emergency, so he lent us a taped interview with Rabbi Kushner, who wrote 'Why Bad Things Happen to Good People'. Rabbi said several things that rang true for me, including (all paraphrased):
1) It doesn't matter if the Bible is true. In a way, fairytales are true, because we keep repeating them. I personally do not believe that the Earth was started by two Hebrew speaking adults and a talking snake either.
2) Christians are preoccupied with getting into heaven. Jews tend to take life on earth much more seriously, since they believe that Messiah hasn't made it here just yet.
3) It really doesn't matter who's 'right'. If Messiah comes the second time, Christians are right. If Messiah comes for the first time, Jews are right. If He never comes, scientists are right. And in the end, does it truly matter who was 'right'?

Number 1 pretty much summed up my belief of Genesis: I believe that God did not create two Hebrew speaking adults and a talking snake. I believe that the Genesis creation story is just that: a story. I am a follower of the belief that God created Earth to evolve.

I also believe that God intended His people (Jew and Gentile) to ask questions.
Being a Christian, how is understanding or embracing the beliefs of atheists/agnostics going to enrich my life in any way? The same goes for other religions besides Christianity. I don't think that the Judaism religion accepts/believes that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ, so I have no need in embracing it. My focus is on Christ who released us from the law (Old Testament law/Mosaic law) because of His sacrifice. No person could ever follow it completely anyway. Jews still follow it and don't accept Christ's sacrifice or who He really was/is. I don't embrace the Islam religion because I think they only accept Jesus as a teacher or prophet. No need to embrace or understand that. I'll receive no enrichment period. With atheists/agnostics believing in nothing, well, I don't have to go into that. None of these will enrich my life because Jesus is not the center of them. None accept Christ as the Son of God, the Messiah, so I have no need in studying them. Jesus IS the Messiah. I guess the Jews are waiting around for someone who has already come, but they refused to accept Him. There won't be another one!

Also,
1. God's word is not fairytale and shouldn't be compared to a fairytale. What kind of church do you attend??
2. Yes, I'm preoccupied with my salvation, because no one will get a "second chance." This is it, so it's best to make it a priority while I still have the chance.
3. What matters is the truth, not fairytales. Jesus will return (the same Jesus prophesied about in the Old Testament and the one who came in the New Testament). I already know I'm right. Scientists don't know anything compared to the knowledge of God, so I don't put my trust or faith in them. Humans don't know everything, but God does. Humans are full of fault. God is faultless. Very logical. Yes, in the end, it DOES matter who is right or who believes what is right because all our destinations won't be the same.

What makes you think that the first humans, Adam and Eve, spoke Hebrew? Also, if you believe in God, why would you think that God isn't all-powerful? God has the power to make the "impossible" the possible. If you don't believe that, then why believe in God at all? Do you believe in evolution because you don't think that God can do anything? If that's why, then I understand your belief of evolution. A day to God is not the same as a day to us. A day to God could be the same as a great amount of years to us.

There's nothing wrong with people asking questions about things, but what is the intention? If I ask questions only to say afterwards, 'I still don't believe' or 'That's a bunch of nothing' then why ask from the beginning? No matter what someone said, the peron still discredited the information. If so, then what was the person's point in asking? That's what I meant.

[Rabid]

Being a Christian, how is understanding or embracing the beliefs of atheists/agnostics going to enrich my life in any way?

It might not enrich YOUR life, but to those who enjoy learning about the beliefs of others and trying to understand them, it might enrich theirs. If I've correctly interpreted what Chelleypie is trying to express (correct me if I'm wrong), she feels that it could be beneficial to her to learn about other religions even if she does not embrace them. Even if they don't sway your opinion, and they most likely won't, is it such a bad thing to come out having learned something new? I understand wanting to learn about other religions entirely; even as an atheist, I like to know what other people believe in because it interests me. I find it arrogant and somewhat insulting when others refuse to listen to my explanation of my religious belief system (or rather lack thereof) because they feel that theirs is right. If you feel that you are correct in what you believe, I have no problem with it, but is it really such a bad thing to try and understand what others feel? How does it make Chelley, let alone anyone else, any less Christian if she tries to be tolerant?

[Charmaine06]

It might not enrich YOUR life, but to those who enjoy learning about the beliefs of others and trying to understand them, it might enrich theirs. If I've correctly interpreted what Chelleypie is trying to express (correct me if I'm wrong), she feels that it could be beneficial to her to learn about other religions even if she does not embrace them. Even if they don't sway your opinion, and they most likely won't, is it such a bad thing to come out having learned something new? I understand wanting to learn about other religions entirely; even as an atheist, I like to know what other people believe in because it interests me. I find it arrogant and somewhat insulting when others refuse to listen to my explanation of my religious belief system (or rather lack thereof) because they feel that theirs is right. If you feel that you are correct in what you believe, I have no problem with it, but is it really such a bad thing to try and understand what others feel? How does it make Chelley, let alone anyone else, any less Christian if she tries to be tolerant?
Learning something new isn't always beneficial, such as Adam and Eve's gaining knowledge of good and evil. It didn't benefit their lives; it was quite the opposite. Yes, it's interesting knowing what others believe in, but that doesn't mean that I want to study their beliefs. It doesn't mean that I will embrace their beliefs. I never said that I would refuse to listen to others' explanation of their religious beliefs. I would listen, but that doesn't mean that I would be interested in studying the religion or beliefs. It's not that I believe I'm right. It's because salvation doesn't come from none of them because the other religions don't accept Christ as who He really is. If salvation comes from Jesus (which it does) and other religions reject Jesus as who He really is, then why should I waste my time in studying other religions? Listening to others and studying their religion(s) are two different things. That's not being arrogant or insulting.

[Frenchie]

If salvation comes from Jesus (which it does) and other religions reject Jesus as who He really is, then why should I waste my time in studying other religions? Listening to others and studying their religion(s) are two different things.Salvation doesn't come from literacy or mathematics either then, as they're unrelated to Jesus... does it mean you shouldn't waste your time learning to read or count? Such skills only help in our life in this world, don't they?
Just pointing a flawed argument there, not flaming in any way.

[Charmaine06]

Salvation doesn't come from literacy or mathematics either then, as they're unrelated to Jesus... does it mean you shouldn't waste your time learning to read or count? Such skills only help in our life in this world, don't they?
Just pointing a flawed argument there, not flaming in any way.
I was ONLY referring to religion, not anything else, so my argument is not flawed. Learning others' religions won't help me in any way in my life, so that's not a good comparison. I don't need knowledge of other religions to have a rewarding life or understand what I need to know in my life.

[Doc Doofus]

Learning others' religions won't help me in any way in my life, so that's not a good comparison. I don't need knowledge of other religions to have a rewarding life or understand what I need to know in my life.

It might reward yours and everybody else's life if it would prevent a war. I mean Real War, like with tanks and bombs and IED's and poison gas and torture chambers and refugees and suicide-bombers and body bags. We are already in two wars with people of a different religion, and stand on the verge of a wider conflict, much of it revolving around differences in religion.

[nixie_SC]

First of all thanks everyone for participating in this little "quest" I have to read carefully and digest things before replying so as not to make stupid comments. :) I will also not be around towards the end of the year. so happy holiday in advance and below are an attempt to ask some more questions.

To Charmaine
I ask becasue I don't want to be ignorant.


For now I'll attempt to answer the second question. The simple explanation is that there is a school of thought amongst many biblical scholars that suggests the first five books of the Bible/Torah were not written by Moses, but is a fusion of four separate documents (JEPD) written at different times by different people. That would be one explanation the inconsistencies.

Another possible explanation is that if you notice, in Genesis 1 man was created on the 6th day. However, go on to Genesis 2, and you will notice that Adam wasn't created until the 7th day... if you follow the sequence of events, God rested on the 7th day, blessed it, then created Adam. That would of course suggest that Adam was not the first man.

Yes, now that you mention it, the inconsistency is there. So who was it that God created on the 6th day? hrmzz ... more discovery.


The Tree of Knowledge was planted to give humans a choice of whether or not to obey God. God knew the choice they would make, but if they were not allowed to make it, they would be nothing more than puppets. God wanted people, not puppets, so at the moment the tree was planted the plan was set into motion to set things up so the mistake could be fixed. God even gave them the opportunity to admit their own guilt then and there, but they didn't accept the opportunity.

Genesis 2 starts a whole new creation story beginning with verse 4. The bible is a faith history, not a scientific treatise. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two separate stories. They both have the main detail that "In the beginning, God created everything, including people." They are different when it comes to the details that humans were not really around for anyway. In Genesis 1, people were created on day 6. In Genesis 2, Adam was created the same day that the dry land appeared. The reason that Adam was considered the ancestor of all humanity was because every family but Noah's perished in the flood. And Noah was descended from Adam by way of Seth.

And I always heard that the story of Eve being created from Adam was to remind both sexes that they are two halves of a greater whole, and each has abilities that the other lacks.

I expect Charmaine will elaborate further. I'm just stealing some time on the computer while I have a chance today.

I understand all part you have explain, except when it comes to the testing. I just don't see why God need to test human for obedient. Its too desperately wanting authority.

In some way, human are children of God, God created human according to the bible, now, for those who have children, do you test you child for their loyalty?

I wouldn't if I had children. I'd love them unconditionally, like I love my husband / sisters / brothers / parents unconditionally. Never once did it crossed my mind that I should question the loyalty of my family towards me. Even if they do harm unto me, I still love them unconditionally.

My question about the tree of knowledge isn't exactly why God had place the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden, its the motives of God placing it there that I question. the testing and untrusting nature that I doubt, because I do not think God is like that, testing and untrusting and planting traps. its just not very Godly. (disclaimer, i am not saying God is unGodly, its whats written in Genesis that make God seem unGodly)

1) God knows what Adam and Eve would do
2) God wants Adam and Eve to have freedom to choose/free will
3) God wants Adam and Eve to confess when they do wrong
4) God also knows Adam and Eve would not confess
5) Did God set a trap for Adam and Eve to fall into?
6) Did God also had made the serpent

Assuming all the above are yes: Why does God need to place the Tree of Knowledge in the garden of eden?

Now I assume we have to go back to the question of free will, and freedom of making choices.

if God wants Adam and Eve to have the freedom of choice/ free will, God should not be displease with the choices they have make*, beside the motives that Eve wanted to eat from the Tree of Knowledge is not a bad one, its actually a good one, she wanted knowledge. Human strive on gaining knowledge, the world we live in today is build upon knowledge. You cannot do without knowledge. why shun them from gaining knowledge. School, college, university degrees, phd, etcetera are the basic requirements now, if you are to survive the world.

If God had really wanted Adam and Eve to have free will, God would have place Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden together with the tree of knowledge and the tree of life and the rest of the vegetations and let them choose. There would have no "rules" apply, they would simply be put there and be left alone to make their own choices without all the fine prints attached.

*why I say God should not be displease with choices made by Adam and Eve. Judgment day. According to the bible all will be judge on that day for qualification into Heaven or Hell (I think, have not read that part yet, must also be very interesting, correct me if I am wrong). You porbably say if they hadn't eat from the tree of knowledge they would not need to be judge, but then I would ask you, what about freedom of choice? does that not apply? if you have freedom of choice and judgment day, God should actually not be displease at all, and let things run it's course. No? well probably you say its not up to me to make the call ... but then what about free will?

5) Is knowledge good?
6) Is knowledge able to help Adam and Eve know right from wrong?

Assuming both the above has a yes answer and the scenario below, would Eve have made the correct choice in taking fruit from the Tree of Knowledge? becasue the choice is made without bad intention, would it still be deem as a wrong choice?

The hypothetical scenario:
Eve could have been thinking this when she eats from the Tree of Knowledge: If I gain knowledge I can help God more, and be able to have intelligent conversation with God instead of being ignorant and have nothing to say to her creator. And, if by making an unfavourable choice, Adam and Eve were punished, how can they make any other choice ever again freely?

What if:
7) what if the bible is written as a daily guide book (i know we Chinese have one, tells you things you should or should not do, on what day, etcetera, long story, if you believe that book, you have to consult it everday and do all the things according to it, but luckily its not a book that you can use to "govern" people with, althought there a some that you can use to scare the general populace)
8) and the tree of knowledge is a metaphor.

assuming the above is correct:
The tree of knowledge as a metaphor for "Law" during the time the bible is being written, one can control the general populace pretty easily, just say don't do that, you are eating from the tree of knowledge, God is going to punish you.

While we are all engross in the Tree of Knowledge, What if :
Adam and Eve had instead eaten from Tree of Life and become immortal?

[Doddibot]

My focus is on Christ who released us from the law (Old Testament law/Mosaic law) because of His sacrifice.
Just a question, do you know the Bible verse that says this is true? Because from memory, doesn't Jesus say something like 'I'm not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil' and then 'not one tittle shall pass from the law until it be fulfilled' (no Bible on me at the moment, so I'm just going from memory. I think it's in the Sermon on the Mount - Mat 5?).

Humans don't know everything, but God does. Humans are full of fault. God is faultless. Very logical.
But who wrote and translated the Bible? Men, not God. God may have revealed things to men, but that in no way guarantees they will remember, record and that somebody else will translate it correctly. Plus, we already know of verses that have either been taken out or put in various translations and transcribings of the Bible (like Mat 18:11 is in the KJV, but not mentioned at all in the NIV).

So, even if God revealed to somebody what actually happened in the beginning of the world, how do you know it wasn't changed by men? Like when the people of Israel were in Babylon, maybe they changed their creation story to fit more with the Babylonian creation accounts (the Enûma Eliš (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%BBma_Elish), which features a six day creation and then a seventh day of rest, and Atra-Hasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis), which features a family (and a host of animals) being saved from a flood because the father of the family, Atrahasis, was warned by the god Enki of a global flood).

[urisStar]

nixie, Your questions are well thought out and your conclusions about God is correct as God test no one.

It is being assume that Adam and Eve were human like the people they were sent to live among because of the literal words used to tell the story. So far we can conclude that the people lack knowledge of who God was/is and it continue to show that point throughout the stories. There is great effort by the story tellers to present all things in human form/human understanding as it speaks to their limitation of understanding the things of God.

The story tells us that Adam and Eve were created out of dust with Eve being created from one of Adams ribs as if Eve was an after thought. We were told that humans were created in God’s image male and female created He them. If God’s image consist of male and female, the second creation story is plainly letting the readers know that Adam and Eve were different from the people created in the first creation story.

Adam and Eve were sustained by the tree of life because their form/being were different and remained different until their failure in their mission that was to negate the effects of the falling Angels on God's creation. God clothed then in skin after He pretty much demoted them to a human existence. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”…to be cont’d. (have to do this in stages.) :D

Adam and Eve where told how this mission was to be completed/accomplish and it was to take a period of time, but Eve wanted to speed up the process and believed she was doing good. Adam apparently agreed with her knowing full well that the plans God give to him were proven and true. The serpent which is not a serpent as we know them, only confused the issue knowing full well that any plan opposing God’s plans would result in evil remaining on earth as that was his (serpent) plans, (for things to stay the same)to prevent the success of God’s plans as it directly affected him and his fallen host. :D

If one takes a second/another look it would/will remind them of another story having to do with Jesus. :howdy:

[Ghost sdoj]

Nixie: It is not a question of God wanting authority as much as it is a question of God wanting real people instead of puppets. God placed the tree, knowing that they would eventually choose to eat from it, because God wanted to also allow them to choose to have a relationship with God. God loves them anyway, and a plan for redemption was beginning even as the tree was planted. A relationship with someone who has no choice in the matter is like having a teddy bear. It may be very nice for a while, but it is ultimately unsatisfying because you realize that the conversations you have with it are really nothing more than conversations with yourself, and it isn't offering any real emotion when you get a hug from it. A living person who can choose to spend time with you or to go elsewhere offers a much more satisfying relationship. God wants a relationship that is not forced on us. To be able to choose God, we MUST be given the freedom to reject God.

It was not a trap. They were warned ahead of time that they would die if they ate from the tree. The fact that it was a spiritual death rather than a physical death does not mean that there was any deception on God's part. They made their choice, they stuck by their choice, and God honored it. But their choice meant that they could no longer have the relationship with God that they once had, and they could no longer stay in the home they had lived in.

Regarding the day of Judgment: I was always taught that you were judged by whether or not you had honestly chosen to accept God's plan for your salvation. If you have accepted God's offer, you are accepted. If you have chosen to reject God, you don't have to live with him.

It was not the "Tree of Knowledge" it was the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". Knowledge like "round things roll, and can be used to help carry things" is not evil. Knowledge like "If my neighbor has something I want it is possible for me to just hit him and take it, even though it is not a good thing to do." is evil. It is the second form of knowledge that was granted by the tree, not the first.

(And if they had eaten from the tree of immortality, either they would have not had many children or there would be an even bigger population problem than we already have. :lol: )


Doddibot, check out Galatians Chapters 3-5. Or most of Hebrews. Or Romans Chapters 4-8.

[BeechWell2]

Apologies to urisStar for interrupting his treatise. :)

To me, the genesis story, in particular the banishment from Paradise, makes most sense in a psychological/evolutionary interpretation, which focuses more on the humans and not on god (who does not appear in his modern Christian personal form, but rather as a form of universal law in this part of Genesis).
As others have posted already, paradise represents the blissful state of innocence before the beginning of civilization. Or even the beginning of the human mind, that - in contrast to animals - does make a distinction between good and evil and introduces moral laws (they cover their nakedness). The snake traditionally is a symbol of wisdom and the desire to learn (although I don't know how this is seen in Jewish tradition).
So when Eve follows the advice of the serpent and eats from the fruit she makes the necessary step from the oblivious state of animal innocence and stagnation to the self-conscious, and at the same time progressive human mind. The humans thus "emancipate" from the rule of god, or nature, taking their fate into their own hands.
This means they now have to leave Eden, the place of oblivion. They now know hardships and try to overcome them. This does not necessarily mean the life in Eden was without hardships, but rather that they didn't recognize them as such.
I find it important to not understand the banishment from Paradise so much as a punishment from an angry god, but rather as the precondition to truly become human - i.e. develop a sense of self and strive to understand this self and the world it is set in; and eventually the desire to try to better your lot.

It may be noteworthy that most religions know the advancement of humanity from an earlier, better, age to a more difficult present day. In particular the story of Prometheus and Pandora from Greek mythology has many parallels to the Eden story. The humans (Prometheus, the patron of humanity) steal the fire from the gods (the act of "emancipation") and are then punished with all sorrows that Pandora (also the first woman ;)) brings to them, along with Hope which lets them endure the sorrows.

Maybe one could also see the Sumerian Gilgamesh-epos, which revolves around the search for eternal life, as the search for the lost Eden (iirc Adam and Eve were immortal in Eden - another hint at the stagnation), which eventually is doomed to fail.

[Doc Doofus]

When we are born, we are brought into the world naked. We are cared for carefully by our parents (if we have good parents) and protected from dangerous things

But at some point, in adolescence, we (most of us) rebel against our parents in some way. We get too smart for our own good. Eventually, somebody packs our bags and shoos us out the door and welcomes us to the world of hard knocks. (Or college!)

Now, does that remind you of anything?

The Tree is an interesting symbol. I don't think most people can seriously believe there was an actual tree with leaves and roots and fruit involved. There is clearly something metaphorical there. But the whole story of Adam and Eve from their creation to their expulsion from Eden forms the classic narrative of a child's birth, childhood, adolescence, and separation at adolescence from his parents.

It's also nice to know that such separations are not always permanent. You grow up, you wise up, you chill out. You can never return home as babies, but you can return to your parents as a grown child who has learned respect and earned respect.

I'm also reminded in some ways of the story of Joseph. Hmmm... Too deep.

[davious]

Not too deep for me, Doc...I know the story of Joseph, and I can see the similarities immediately...I also would mention the Jesus' parable about the Prodigal son, but, that's New Testament, so not something Christians and Jews would have shared history with, unlike Adam & Eve and Joseph, which is contained in both traditions...

[Charmaine06]

Just a question, do you know the Bible verse that says this is true? Because from memory, doesn't Jesus say something like 'I'm not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil' and then 'not one tittle shall pass from the law until it be fulfilled' (no Bible on me at the moment, so I'm just going from memory. I think it's in the Sermon on the Mount - Mat 5?).
Yes I do. I didn't make it up:

Galatians 3

1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? (faith)
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort?
4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by your observing the law, or by your believing what you heard?
6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.
8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”
9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”
11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because “the righteous will live by faith.”
12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “Whoever does these things will live by them.”
*****13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” *****
14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

EXPLANATION: The above is Paul's argument that justification/salvation comes not through the law or the works of the law but by faith in Jesus and in his sacrifice. The gift of God's Spirit to the Galatians came from the gospel received in faith, not from doing what the law enjoins. The story of Abraham shows that faith in God brings righteousness. Faith is what matters which is in contrast to the claims of the people who think that circumcision and observance of the law are needed to bring the promised blessing.

People who depend on works of the law, not on promise and faith, are under a curse because they do not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law in order to gain eternal life. The Bible teaches that no one is justified before God by the law. Salvation then depends on faith in Christ who died for our sins, taking upon Himself a curse, to free us from the curse of the law.

________

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.
17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
18 For if the inheritance (salvation) depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed (Jesus) to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator.
20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

*****21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life (eternal life/salvation), then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.
22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.*****

EXPLANATION: This scripture proves wrong others' claims that the promises of God are fulfilled only as a reward for human observance of the law.

If Old Testament law/Mosaic law does not save, then why was it given? In the Bible, Paul says the law served to show that sin is, that the law in effect served to produce transgressions. The law does not oppose God's purposes, because it carries out its function so that righteousness comes by faith and promise, not by human works of the law.

__________

*****23 Before the coming of this faith (Christianity), we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 So the law was put in charge of us until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.*****

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

EXPLANATION: The teaching is that since faith (Christianity) has come, we (true followers of Christ) are no longer under the law. Christianity didn't exist before New Testament times of the Bible. A person can't earn salvation. That's why true Christians aren't required to observe Old Testament law anymore. If we could earn salvation, then what would be the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice? If observing the law was required for salvation, then we could earn salvation by our own works. Jesus' sacrifice PLUS our works would be necessary for our salvation, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that. Salvation is only given by grace from God; not by our observing of the law. Even if we obeyed all of the law completely, we still would not be worthy of salvation because there is nothing we can do to earn salvation. That was the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice. That's why I don't observe any Old Testament law. I don't follow the Ten Commandments because Jesus released us from the law. I don't observe Passover, the Sabbath, etc. If you still don't understand, then here (http://www.iswasandwillbe.com/freefromlaw.php) is a more in-depth explanation.

Regarding the day of Judgment: I was always taught that you were judged by whether or not you had honestly chosen to accept God's plan for your salvation. If you have accepted God's offer, you are accepted. If you have chosen to reject God, you don't have to live with him.
From my understanding, Jesus' saints (or true followers) will be raised first to meet Him in the sky when He descends from His holy kingdom in heaven. Only these will be raised in the 1st resurrection. Then, later in the 2nd resurrection, the unsaved (the ones who rejected God/Christ) will be raised to be judged according to their works. Only the unsaved will be in this resurrection. The saved, or true followers of Christ, will not be judged because they had accepted Christ in their lifetimes. Only the unsaved will be judged. (In the Bible, it says: Revelation 20:6 - Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.) The true followers of Christ will reign with Him in his spiritual and heavenly kingdom during that milennium. Only those who serve Christ will be raised first. They will have no need for judgement. Only the ones who didn't serve Christ will be judged and there destination will be different from the saints.

Doddibot, check out Galatians Chapters 3-5. Or most of Hebrews. Or Romans Chapters 4-8.
Thanks, I think.

It is being assume that Adam and Eve were human like the people they were sent to live among because of the literal words used to tell the story. So far we can conclude that the people lack knowledge of who God was/is and it continue to show that point throughout the stories. There is great effort by the story tellers to present all things in human form/human understanding as it speaks to their limitation of understanding the things of God.

The story tells us that Adam and Eve were created out of dust with Eve being created from one of Adams ribs as if Eve was an after thought. We were told that humans were created in God’s image male and female created He them. If God’s image consist of male and female, the second creation story is plainly letting the readers know that Adam and Eve were different from the people created in the first creation story.

Adam and Eve were sustained by the tree of life because their form/being were different and remained different until their failure in their mission that was to negate the effects of the falling Angels on God's creation. God clothed then in skin after He pretty much demoted them to a human existence. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”…to be cont’d. (have to do this in stages.) :D

Adam and Eve where told how this mission was to be completed/accomplish and it was to take a period of time, but Eve wanted to speed up the process and believed she was doing good. Adam apparently agreed with her knowing full well that the plans God give to him were proven and true. The serpent which is not a serpent as we know them, only confused the issue knowing full well that any plan opposing God’s plans would result in evil remaining on earth as that was his (serpent) plans, (for things to stay the same)to prevent the success of God’s plans as it directly affected him and his fallen host. :D

If one takes a second/another look it would/will remind them of another story having to do with Jesus. :howdy:
Where have you gotten your information or your ideas about the truth of the Adam and Eve story? Nothing in the Old Testament (Bible) says that Adam and Eve weren't human. what makes you think there were other humans on Earth before Adam was created by God? Why would God create the first human and this human not know anything of God? That doesn't make sense. God wanted and still wants us to have a relationship with Him, not only wonder about Him. You are making assumptions about Genesis and you have no proof. There is no second creation story. You just have a misunderstanding of the creation story. Also, Adam and Eve did not evolve. They were created as they were - humans. Adam and Eve didn't evolve from any kind of primate. Human evolution is totally false. You have a misunderstanding of Genesis.

[Doddibot]

Also, Adam and Eve did not evolve. They were created as they were - humans. Adam and Eve didn't evolve from any kind of primate. Human evolution is totally false.
You know, I did have a thread on evolution. (It's sort of off topic here) Feel free to post there if you want. I'd be glad to answer your objections to human evolution (and I thin GothPunk wouldn't mind either).

Evolution? (http://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?t=47909)

[urisStar]

Thanks, I think.


Where have you gotten your information or your ideas about the truth of the Adam and Eve story? Nothing in the Old Testament (Bible) says that Adam and Eve weren't human. what makes you think there were other humans on Earth before Adam was created by God? Why would God create the first human and this human not know anything of God? That doesn't make sense. God wanted and still wants us to have a relationship with Him, not only wonder about Him. You are making assumptions about Genesis and you have no proof. There is no second creation story. You just have a misunderstanding of the creation story. Also, Adam and Eve did not evolve. They were created as they were - humans. Adam and Eve didn't evolve from any kind of primate. Human evolution is totally false. You have a misunderstanding of Genesis.

It is really sad that Christianity has long since ceased to be the religion of Jesus although it still valiantly portrays a religion about Jesus. In case Christians have forgotten the Master’s personal gospel was/is the Fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of all men. Christianity is now more about Paul and Peter’s personal belief on what they thought Christianity should be and when Christians get into the business of justifying their dogmas, they immediately start quoting the words of Peter or Paul, anyone but the word of Jesus, why is that? Not one of those scriptures is a direct quote from Jesus Himself, what, did He had nothing to say on any subject concerning Him and the Father?

You are concern about where I got my information? The same way/place Paul and Peter got their information! I would quote what Jesus said on the subject, but you have a bible, try following after His sayings and maybe, just maybe, you too may be privy to information between the lines that only the Father, Jesus and the Holy spirit can bring forth to those who “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you“. A quote right out of the mouth of Jesus Himself, how about that! :D

He is not dead, He is still alive! :einstein

[Chelleypie]

If human evolution is totally false, why is there fossil evidence of it? I cannot refute that, no matter how hard I may try. And neither can you. You can kick and scream all you want, but you and the rest of the fundementalist Christian population will eventually have to stop and think 'Maybe God did create a world that evolved'.

Last I looked, Christianity and God are both about tolerance. You don't seem to have a whole lot of it. Just an observation, not an insult. I cannot honestly understand the 'I'm Christian and so I'm right!' thing. I never have. Probably comes from being a PK in an obscure church. I spent ... let's see ... 9 years as a Salvation Army Officer's child. So yea, this is not my first time on this merry go round.

You say that Christ's coming nulled the Old Testament. Go back and read again, please. You're wrong. Example:
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:18, NIV. I prefer The Message or New Living, but NIV will do.)

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[a] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]" (Matthew 19:19 NIV) Source: BibleGateway.com (My Bible is somewhere in here, but I read it last night and then left it somewhere else... go me!)
Now, I don't know about you, but those two verses appear to be saying pretty much the same thing. I do not believe that Christ's arrival nulled the Old Testament. It did make animal sacrifice null. But the whole Old Testament (and consequently the Torah) do not need to be tossed out with the bath water, so to speak.

I also would like to alter my statement of 'It does not matter if the Bible is true'. What I should have said was that the Bible IS true. But it is very likely not historically accurate. It is not true as your morning paper is true, but it is true in other senses. I stand by the fact that the world did not begin as two adult Humans and a talking snake. I do not find that to even be possible. Not even plausible. It is a myth.

And I've stated numerous times that I am Anglican. I was born and baptized Catholic, grew up Weslyn (spelling), became a Salvation Army officer's child (yes, it's a church too, my parents are both ordained ministers) and am now a practicing Anglican. You know us: elected an openly gay bishop in Massachusetts, our national Bishop is a woman. I spent a short time as an agnostic after my parents left the Salvation Army ('The Sally', as I affectionately call it) because I wasn't sure it was all real.

Bottom line, Nixie, I believe that the Creation story in Genesis is a myth. I believe most of the rest of Genesis to be truth.

And Rabid, you are very correct in your conclusions. I find all belief systems fascinating. Do I agree with them? No. But I find them incredibly interesting. Like I have always wondered if most atheists are atheists due to lack of proof, or if most are disillusioned Catholics/Jews/Protestants etc. Do I agree with you? No, but I don't have to agree to come away saying 'Wow, that's an interesting thought, I never thought of it that way!'

If your faith is strong, you have nothing to fear from learning about another's faith. It is only when your own faith is weak that you must fear another belief.

And Frenchie, I've heard some fundamentalists argue just that. Like here, a lot of Southern Baptists are pulling their kids out of public schools and into private Baptist church run schools because of all the ... how did they put this ... to paraphrase, 'All the sin in the American school system, such as teaching of Evolution'.

[Charmaine06]

You know, I did have a thread on evolution. (It's sort of off topic here) Feel free to post there if you want. I'd be glad to answer your objections to human evolution (and I thin GothPunk wouldn't mind either).

Evolution? (http://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?t=47909)
Thanks for the link, but I won't read it since I'm not interested in studying what I don't believe. Humans don't know everything, so I'll only accept evolution as a prediction, not a fact. No offense. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God created Adam over time. Adam wasn't a primate or an animal. God gave Adam (while he was alone) dominion over ALL ANIMALS. If Adam was an animal, then that would mean that God would have given Adam dominion over himself as well. God had dominion over all humans. Evolution is false and I'll never believe it. I used to when I was a child, but that's because I was a child and thought like a child.

It is really sad that Christianity has long since ceased to be the religion of Jesus although it still valiantly portrays a religion about Jesus. In case Christians have forgotten the Master’s personal gospel was/is the Fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of all men. Christianity is now more about Paul and Peter’s personal belief on what they thought Christianity should be and when Christians get into the business of justifying their dogmas, they immediately start quoting the words of Peter or Paul, anyone but the word of Jesus, why is that? Not one of those scriptures is a direct quote from Jesus Himself, what, did He had nothing to say on any subject concerning Him and the Father?

You are concern about where I got my information? The same way/place Paul and Peter got their information! I would quote what Jesus said on the subject, but you have a bible, try following after His sayings and maybe, just maybe, you too may be privy to information between the lines that only the Father, Jesus and the Holy spirit can bring forth to those who “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you“. A quote right out of the mouth of Jesus Himself, how about that! :D

He is not dead, He is still alive! :einstein
What makes you think that Christianity has changed? Do you believe that the only truth of the Bible (or the New Testament) comes from the words of Jesus? I thought you didn't believe in Jesus? There is the Fatherhood of God, but there is also Jesus (the Son) and the Holy Spirit. You failed to mention all of them as one. How would you know what Christianity has become when you're not a Christian? Are you going by what you see on tv? You don't know all what goes on in a Christian church. You're not a Christian so I can't take information from you about Christianity. Did you know that God reveals to people, especially his followers? Since I quoted from the Bible (Paul's words) and not actual words from Jesus (in the Bible), does that mean it's not true or doesn't come from God? If you're saying that, how would you know? Didn't Jesus tell his disciples about the Holy Spirit? Do you actually think that Jesus would just leave his disciples cold without leaving 'someone' (the Holy Spirit) with them to help them/teach them so the word of God/Christ (with the new covenant) would spread? Are you saying that the only valid words from the New Testament are the actual words of Jesus? If so, then you're sadly mistaken.

You say that you get your information from God. How do you know you haven't been misled by Satan? Remember Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. God's word is not to deceive or mislead. He reveals His word by the Holy Spirit. You don't have to read between the lines. It's right there for you to understand (with the Holy Spirit of course), not for you to make up things that's not there. It's easy to read something, but really understanding is totally different.

I know God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is alive. He was, is, and always will be. No need to tell me that because I'm a follower of Christ. I don't serve someone that is dead. That doesn't even make sense.

If human evolution is totally false, why is there fossil evidence of it? I cannot refute that, no matter how hard I may try. And neither can you. You can kick and scream all you want, but you and the rest of the fundementalist Christian population will eventually have to stop and think 'Maybe God did create a world that evolved'.
Fossil evidence such as 'Lucy'? That's a skeleton, not evidence. Where's the proof that this Lucy thing was part of "human evolution"? How do you know that it wasn't just a primitive primate or something? You don't know and there's no evidence that humans evolved. Fossils aren't proof.

Last I looked, Christianity and God are both about tolerance. You don't seem to have a whole lot of it. Just an observation, not an insult. I cannot honestly understand the 'I'm Christian and so I'm right!' thing. I never have. Probably comes from being a PK in an obscure church. I spent ... let's see ... 9 years as a Salvation Army Officer's child. So yea, this is not my first time on this merry go round.
If Christianity and God were about tolerance, then there wouldn't be death. There wouldn't be "Judgement Day." If they were about tolerance, then God would just allow anyone to be saved, including atheists/agnostics, etc. I accept that there are other religions, but that doesn't mean that I want to study them. I accept others as not believing in God, etc., but that doesn't mean that I will accept that their disbelief is right. I never said or believed that just because I'm Christian means that I'm right. I believe (and know for myself - called faith) that God's word is right and is the truth and I believe in no other truth.

You say that Christ's coming nulled the Old Testament. Go back and read again, please. You're wrong. Example:
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:18, NIV. I prefer The Message or New Living, but NIV will do.)

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[a] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]" (Matthew 19:19 NIV) Source: BibleGateway.com (My Bible is somewhere in here, but I read it last night and then left it somewhere else... go me!)
Now, I don't know about you, but those two verses appear to be saying pretty much the same thing. I do not believe that Christ's arrival nulled the Old Testament. It did make animal sacrifice null. But the whole Old Testament (and consequently the Torah) do not need to be tossed out with the bath water, so to speak.
Where did I say that Christ's coming nullified the Old Testament? You won't be able to find that because I never made that statement. I said that my focus is on Christ who released us from the law (Old Testament law/Mosaic law) because of His sacrifice. For one, I didn't mention Christ's coming. Even Jesus followed the law when He was here as a man. Jesus hadn't died yet. Only his sacrifice would release us (His followers) from the law. By still observing the law, that's saying that I can earn salvation by my works or my doing. If I could earn salvation, then what was the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice??? No one could earn salvation, so Jesus's sacrifice was necessary. The law revealed to us our sins. It's purpose was to make sin clear, to condemn us. With Jesus' sacrifice came a new covenant. If there is a new covenant, which there is, then why would the old one still exist? I never said that it was thrown out. I know of my sins because of it, but because of Christ's sacrifice, I no longer need it. I already know how to live a Christian life. If I'm supposed to love others as myself, then why would I murder others, steal from them, lie to them, covet what they have, have sexual relations with a married person (commit adultery), etc.? All that is written in our hearts. It's the law of love. I don't need the old covenant law anymore because of Jesus' sacrifice. I don't need the old covenant law. If I did, then that's telling me that I can earn salvation. But the Bible tells us that we can't earn salvation. Salvation is given by grace, not earned. Salvation is given because Jesus died for us. We still can't be perfect, but we're supposed to try our best not to sin. And when we do, we're supposed to repent, to continually repent all of the rest of our lives (after we've accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior). No one could be perfect and God knew that. That's why He gave us Christ. He's our redeemer. No, Jesus didn't come to throw out the law. He came to fulfill it - with Himself. There can't exist an old covenant and a new one. The Bible says that all who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” You know why? Because no one could ever follow the law completely. So if you think you have to follow it, then you are under a curse, because there is no way you could keep it. God knew that. It also says "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." The law of sin and death is the 10 Commandments, etc. which all come from the old covenant with God. The New Testament teaches us that we are "not under the law", but are to be guided by the Holy Spirit of Christ. The Law of the Old Testament was given to teach them about Jesus, the coming Savior, and to make them become aware of sin. After Jesus' sacrifice we were rescued from the Law. Included in the 10 Commandments is the Sabbath. As believers and followers of Christ, we are to "rest (daily) on the promises" of God, by faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, we have rest in Christ (Jesus is our rest, our Sabbath) by having faith in Him. We should rely on faith in Christ and not on our own works because we can't earn salvation. I can't follow the law of the Old Testament and rely on my own works for salvation. I follow and rely on Christ with faith because He died for me and I have salvation only through Him, not by anything I could do because we all fall short. He is perfect and we're not. I don't have to have a specific day to reflect on the goodness of God in my life (going to Church, reading the Bible, etc.) Yes, we should have fellowship with our believers (examples: going to church, Bible study groups, etc.), but following the law isn't going to get you saved. Accepting Christ and His sacrifice for you and relying on him in faith is the only way.

For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory.
The former law is set aside because it was weak and useless ("for the law made nothing perfect"), and a better hope is introduced - Christ. If there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

The old covenant law pointed towards Christ. Now that we have Christ, or the Messiah, the new covenant, why would I still focus on the old covenant?

Gal 4:9-11
But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Gal 3:24-25
The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster
It was not shameful to be in elementary school when you were a child, but to be in elementary school when you're an adult is a shame.

Acts 15:10-30
"Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we (Jews) nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they (the Gentiles) are."
The "yoke" of bondage is the old covenant law.

After we have accepted Christ, shall we curse ourselves by deliberately "groveling in the shadows of the old covenant religious law"?

Gal 4:21
Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?
Gal 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us...

By accepting and following Christ, you will do good works, not by following old testament law, but by relying on Jesus.

Gal 5:1-4,7-10,12
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery (old covenant law/old testament law). Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is required to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace (the gift of Jesus' sacrifice/salvation which is given by grace)... You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be... As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

2 Cor 3:6-12
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter (old covenant law/old testament law) but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone (10 Commandments), came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious (old covenant) has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory (new covenant). And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold.

There is much scripture that supports what I've stated in I believe in it wholeheartedly. I suggest that other followers of Christ do the same.

I also would like to alter my statement of 'It does not matter if the Bible is true'. What I should have said was that the Bible IS true. But it is very likely not historically accurate. It is not true as your morning paper is true, but it is true in other senses. I stand by the fact that the world did not begin as two adult Humans and a talking snake. I do not find that to even be possible. Not even plausible. It is a myth.

And I've stated numerous times that I am Anglican. I was born and baptized Catholic, grew up Weslyn (spelling), became a Salvation Army officer's child (yes, it's a church too, my parents are both ordained ministers) and am now a practicing Anglican. You know us: elected an openly gay bishop in Massachusetts, our national Bishop is a woman. I spent a short time as an agnostic after my parents left the Salvation Army ('The Sally', as I affectionately call it) because I wasn't sure it was all real.
You can't say it's a myth or not even plausible because you weren't there. Do you not believe in God's power? If this is not plausible or possible to you, then obviously you don't. I believe that God can do anything because He is all-powerful. I didn't have to be there because I believe in His power and His word is the truth. I don't believe that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. I don't believe that God would allow myths to be included with His word.
How can your church have an openly gay minister when two people of the same sex having sexual relations with each other is sin??? How can a person intentionally going against God (and not repenting) teach me anything (religiously)? A person teaching God's word is supposed to be living it, not blatantly disregarding it. Having a woman as a Bishop doesn't go against God's word because He gives us, female and male, spiritual gifts to spread His word. Being a female or male has nothing do with it. So, great job for that!



And Rabid, you are very correct in your conclusions. I find all belief systems fascinating. Do I agree with them? No. But I find them incredibly interesting. Like I have always wondered if most atheists are atheists due to lack of proof, or if most are disillusioned Catholics/Jews/Protestants etc. Do I agree with you? No, but I don't have to agree to come away saying 'Wow, that's an interesting thought, I never thought of it that way!'

If your faith is strong, you have nothing to fear from learning about another's faith. It is only when your own faith is weak that you must fear another belief.
My faith in God, nor fear, has nothing to do with it. I just don't see how it could enrich my life. Studying others' religions has nothing to do with my salvation, so what good will it do me? It won't benefit me in any way. Learning this information isn't necessary for my existence (and I'm only applying that to this situation, no others).

And Frenchie, I've heard some fundamentalists argue just that. Like here, a lot of Southern Baptists are pulling their kids out of public schools and into private Baptist church run schools because of all the ... how did they put this ... to paraphrase, 'All the sin in the American school system, such as teaching of Evolution'.
Great job also! I wouldn't want people teaching my children (if I had any) things that aren't true either.

[davious]

Charmaine06, I fully accept Genesis, as a Christian, but I do believe in evolution...I just believe that the evolution of humans required God's touch. The Bible is not a science textbook, it does not tell us exactly how things happened....just why they happen, as part of God's design. Genesis in particular is allegorical, not literal. Indeed, how could we have the "days" of creation, before the Earth was formed and orbited the sun? Isn't a day defined as the Earth's rotation in its orbit around the sun? But, how can the Earth be rotating in its orbit before the sun was created by God, or before God gave the planet substance? Its metaphorical, symbolic. I used to take Genesis literally, before I learned not to. Evolution must exist. If we take Genesis literally, then all dinosaur bones are frauds. If they are frauds, then God deliberately deceived us. God being a deceiver goes completely against Christianity, so I reject that notion. God also gave us the intelligence to figure out science. That science came up with a technique known as carbon dating, which has been used to approximate the age of the Earth. Either the bones are as old as science says, making the Genesis account more poetic and allegorical than factually based, or Genesis is literally true, and God intentionally lied to us, by putting the bones there, and making our science that dates those bones completely worthless. Genesis, if taken literally, puts the Earth at approximately 10,000 years old. That simply cannot be true. If however, it is a poetic accounting, and doesn't need to be literal, the core of the creation story, that God created the heavens and the Earth can all still be true, without a contradiction where science is concerned. Genesis tells us that God created the world. It does not tell us how God chose to accomplish that task. Evolution helps to explain the how, just as the Big Bang theory can be accepted by Christians as well, as the method by which God created the universe. Again, the Bible is not a science textbook, we shouldn't look to it to explain how God works...we should look to it to attempt to understand why God does things, what our purpose on Earth is, who we are as God's children, but not the exact processes involved. God gave us the intelligence to figure out the science that will explain those processes, so God didn't need to include the hows into the Bible.

[Doddibot]

When I mention evolution, I am referring to human evolution. Do you actually believe that Adam was some kind of primate? Do you actually believe that some primate evolved into humans? I'll never accept that. Never. I'd be more accepting of animal, etc. evolution, but not human evolution. I just don't buy it even with the fossils. I believe those fossils were just some primitive primate and nothing that evolved into humans.
Why do you say you will "never accept" human evolution more so than animal evolution (eg birds evolving from reptiles), when a literal view of Genesis would mean both are wrong?

[Charmaine06]

Charmaine06, I fully accept Genesis, as a Christian, but I do believe in evolution...I just believe that the evolution of humans required God's touch. The Bible is not a science textbook, it does not tell us exactly how things happened....just why they happen, as part of God's design. Genesis in particular is allegorical, not literal. Indeed, how could we have the "days" of creation, before the Earth was formed and orbited the sun? Isn't a day defined as the Earth's rotation in its orbit around the sun? But, how can the Earth be rotating in its orbit before the sun was created by God, or before God gave the planet substance? Its metaphorical, symbolic. I used to take Genesis literally, before I learned not to. Evolution must exist. If we take Genesis literally, then all dinosaur bones are frauds. If they are frauds, then God deliberately deceived us. God being a deceiver goes completely against Christianity, so I reject that notion. God also gave us the intelligence to figure out science. That science came up with a technique known as carbon dating, which has been used to approximate the age of the Earth. Either the bones are as old as science says, making the Genesis account more poetic and allegorical than factually based, or Genesis is literally true, and God intentionally lied to us, by putting the bones there, and making our science that dates those bones completely worthless. Genesis, if taken literally, puts the Earth at approximately 10,000 years old. That simply cannot be true. If however, it is a poetic accounting, and doesn't need to be literal, the core of the creation story, that God created the heavens and the Earth can all still be true, without a contradiction where science is concerned. Genesis tells us that God created the world. It does not tell us how God chose to accomplish that task. Evolution helps to explain the how, just as the Big Bang theory can be accepted by Christians as well, as the method by which God created the universe. Again, the Bible is not a science textbook, we shouldn't look to it to explain how God works...we should look to it to attempt to understand why God does things, what our purpose on Earth is, who we are as God's children, but not the exact processes involved. God gave us the intelligence to figure out the science that will explain those processes, so God didn't need to include the hows into the Bible.

When I mention evolution, I am referring to human evolution. Do you actually believe that Adam was some kind of primate? Do you actually believe that some primate evolved into humans? I'll never accept that. Never. I'd be more accepting of animal, etc. evolution, but not human evolution. I just don't buy it even with the fossils. I believe those fossils were just some primitive primate and nothing that evolved into humans.

I also believe that a day to God is much different from a day to us humans.
Why do you say you will "never accept" human evolution more so than animal evolution (eg birds evolving from reptiles), when a literal view of Genesis would mean both are wrong?
What is this literal view of Genesis concerning humans???

[Doddibot]

What is this literal view of Genesis concerning humans???
To clarify:

A literal view of Genesis (as opposed to the allegorical view espoused by davious and others) would mean that humans did not evolve from primates, but it would also mean that land animals were created separately from birds and sea animals. Therefore, why do you take greater offense at the idea that humans could be related to other primates, than you do at the ideas that birds are related to reptiles or that whales are related to cows?

[Doddibot]

God being a deceiver goes completely against Christianity, so I reject that notion.
While I really admire your viewpoint (seriously, more people have to argue for compatibility of science and faith!), I have to ask (seeing as this is a debate) how this view of God not being a deceiver is compatible with the Genesis story, where God actually LIES to Adam and Eve (Gen 2:17). God says they will drop dead within a day if they eat of the Tree of Knowledge, but they eat it and live for many years.

[Charmaine06]

To clarify:

A literal view of Genesis (as opposed to the allegorical view espoused by davious and others) would mean that humans did not evolve from primates, but it would also mean that land animals were created separately from birds and sea animals. Therefore, why do you take greater offense at the idea that humans could be related to other primates, than you do at the ideas that birds are related to reptiles or that whales are related to cows?
Genesis 1
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 birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creep
27 And 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 birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

It says 'Our image and our likeness'. If humans evolved from primates, then that's saying that God is a primate, which He isn't. It didn't say 'evolve, transform, or change gradually into our image and our likeness'. Also God gave Adam and therefore humans dominion over all other things, including animals, insects, etc. God never called Adam an animal. God gave Adam (and therefore humans) dominion over all animals, not over himself. Adam was never an animal and we're not either.

While I really admire your viewpoint (seriously, more people have to argue for compatibility of science and faith!), I have to ask (seeing as this is a debate) how this view of God not being a deceiver is compatible with the Genesis story, where God actually LIES to Adam and Eve (Gen 2:17). God says they will drop dead within a day if they eat of the Tree of Knowledge, but they eat it and live for many years.
God NEVER lied to Adam and Eve. He didn't tell Adam that he would die within a day after eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil:

Genesis 2
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die.”

Another translation:
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
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 thou shalt surely die.

He would experience spiritual death (separation from God) which would lead to physical death. Jesus redeemed us to God, but that's another story. There's no lie in God's word. Also, 'for in the day' doesn't mean that they will die right then. Like I stated, it means that from the moment they eat from the tree, they will experience spiritual death (which will eventually lead to physical death).

[Doddibot]

It says 'Our image and our likeness'. If humans evolved from primates, then that's saying that God is a primate, which He isn't.
And you know this because...?
It didn't say 'evolve, transform, or change gradually into our image and our likeness'.
But verse 24 says "Let the earth bring forth…” which actually gives support to those who believe in Theistic Evolution. Besides, the word 'create' could refer to a slow process of gradual change, as we say 'the beach was created by the action of the waves on the rocks'.

Also God gave Adam and therefore humans dominion over all other things, including animals, insects, etc. God never called Adam an animal. God gave Adam (and therefore humans) dominion over all animals, not over himself. Adam was never an animal and we're not either.
True, God didn't say Adam was an animal. But God also didn't say whales are mammals, but we know this is true.

Also, read Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."



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 thou shalt surely die.

He would experience spiritual death (separation from God) which would lead to physical death. Jesus redeemed us to God, but that's another story. There's no lie in God's word. Also, 'for in the day' doesn't mean that they will die right then. Like I stated, it means that from the moment they eat from the tree, they will experience spiritual death (which will eventually lead to physical death).
And you know this means spiritual death how? There is no Biblical support for this view. It's just made up by apologists. Even under this interpretation, God was still deliberately misleading, if not lying, by not clarifying what sort of death it would be.

What kind of a threat is it to say "Eat this, and you'll eventually die!" A 930 year delay between spiritual death and physical death isn't bad. Besides, there is no support for the idea that Adam was immortal, so physical death was always on the horizon.

Clearly, the Serpent is telling the truth by explaining to Adam and Eve that "ye shall not surely die". As in, 'you won't drop dead instantly like God led you to believe'

[hszmv]

Perhaps it is actually trying to explain a unique position man has over all other animals. Out of all God's creation, Man is the only one that (in so far as we know) is aware of his/her own mortallity. It might not be instantaneous death, but the realization that no matter what we do, few of us will be remembered in one hundred years.

Again, this realization, that all your work in this life is for nothing is another death of innocence scenario. So if the apple is knowledge of human suffering, his imminant death (not his death, but the knowledge that he will one day be food for worms) is a scary thought.

[Doc Doofus]

"'Our image and our likeness'."

Does that mean God is human, like us? Does he have a nipples and a belly button? What FOR? That's a very uninspired and limited view of God.

Jews say that God is "ineffable," an interesting word with a dual meaning. Unspeakable, meaning, you cannot speak his name. But also, indescribable, beyond anybody's capacity to describe. Christianity focuses more on the "personal relationship with God" part of their religion so much that perhaps this part of Judaism gets lost in Christianity. But Jews would be quite comfortable with the idea of God not being primate or human or any of the above, because those are all such mundane things so easily described, so not-ineffable.

Personally, I took that phrase to mean "intelligent and conscious."

In Artificial Intelligence, which was my area of study in grad school, there is endless debate about whether it's possible to create artificial consciousness. We can create very intelligent computers, in that they are able to solve problems when we tell them explicitly how to. But we are far, far away from the point when we can give the Divine Spark to a computer program such that it can independently reprogram itself and burst beyond the confines of what it knows from what we have already told it to do.

If there is anything we share with the God of Genesis (and I use that phrase because my own conception of God is more complicated than Genesis would provide for), then it would be that: intelligence and consciousness. And that is what most distinguishes us from the other animals of the Earth. Or so it seems at present.

If, at some point in the future, we do find other mortal intelligent lifeforms somewhere else in the universe, I seriously doubt that they will look anything like us. There is no specific reason that being intelligent should require one to have a head of hair or five toes or two eyes and one nose, or any eyes or any nose.

[Ghost sdoj]

How much experience do you think Adam and Eve had with death before they disobeyed? There had been no reason for death in Eden, so nothing had died. Therefore, death would have meant something more like "a very unpleasant change." Which happened. And there is a great deal of biblical support for it having been a spiritual death which they experienced. Unfortunately I need to log off now. I'll be back when I get another chance.

[urisStar]

I know spiritual death is a popular ideology within christianty and have gotten its origin from the Adam and Eve story and certain of Paul’s writing, however have anyone stop to think that the image that identify us to the Creator is the spirit man, so if one considered that Adam experience spiritual death/was cut off from the Father, then there is no way that conversation took place with Adam and Eve with the Creator after they failed/disobeyed the Word of the Father. The story of Cain and Abel bringing their offerings to God and Him there to accept one and reject the other could not have happened. God intervention on Cain’s behalf about his fear of others killing him (which is a mystery in it self if one believe that the world only consisted of Adam, Eve and Cain) because of what he did to his brother could not have happened. The story about Abraham or any other until and up to the work of Christ was completed could not have happened. It would have to have been something else as in not literal, won’t you think?

What we do know, was/is Adam and Eve were immortal before their failure, but became mortal after. :D

If any one think that it is possible to be separated from God it is due to lack of knowledge or false knowledge. One could not know God and think that! :blink:

[Charmaine06]

And you know this because...?
Primates can't speak. They can communicate, but not speak as we can.

But verse 24 says "Let the earth bring forth…” which actually gives support to those who believe in Theistic Evolution. Besides, the word 'create' could refer to a slow process of gradual change, as we say 'the beach was created by the action of the waves on the rocks'.
There's nothing in the Bible that supports that.

True, God didn't say Adam was an animal. But God also didn't say whales are mammals, but we know this is true.
There's no need to say that this animal is this, this animal is that, etc...

Also, read Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."
Which means:

Ecc 3
18 I also thought, “As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.
19 Man’s fates is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath;man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless.
20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.
21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

Man is like animals in that they both will die. It's not saying that they are animals, but comparing them to animals in that both will return to the dust in which they both came from, was made from.

And you know this means spiritual death how? There is no Biblical support for this view. It's just made up by apologists. Even under this interpretation, God was still deliberately misleading, if not lying, by not clarifying what sort of death it would be.

What kind of a threat is it to say "Eat this, and you'll eventually die!" A 930 year delay between spiritual death and physical death isn't bad. Besides, there is no support for the idea that Adam was immortal, so physical death was always on the horizon.

Clearly, the Serpent is telling the truth by explaining to Adam and Eve that "ye shall not surely die". As in, 'you won't drop dead instantly like God led you to believe'
Yes, there is Biblical support for this. Death is separation. A physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God.

In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam that for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Adam does fall, but his physical death does not occur immediately; God had another type of death in mind, which was spiritual death. This separation from God is what's seen in Genesis 3:8. When Adam and Eve heard the voice of God, they “hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God.” The fellowship with God had been broken. They were spiritually dead. That's similar to someone saying that you are dead to that person. That doesn't mean that you actually died, but your closeness or special relationship with that person has ended.

When Jesus was on the cross, He paid the price for our sins by dying on our behalf. Even though Jesus is God, He still had to suffer in agony of a temporary separation from the Father due to the sin of world He took on because of us. This spiritual separation from the Father was the result of Jesus' taking our sins upon Himself. Sin is the exact opposite of God and God had to turn away from Jesus, His own Son, at that point in time - when Jesus cried, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” while He was dying on the cross.

A person without Christ is spiritually dead. Paul describes it as “being alienated from the life of God.” To be separated from life is the same as being dead.

When we are born again, the spiritual death is reversed. Before salvation, we are dead (spiritually), but Jesus gives us life. “And you hath he quickened (made alive), who were dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ” (Ephesians 2:5). “And you, being dead in your sins . . . hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses” (Colossians 2:13).

Before Christ died for us, we were spiritually dead, unable to save ourselves, powerless to perceive the life of God until Jesus called us to Himself. He “quickened” us; “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.” Christ is our Redeemer. He redeemed us to God. We could regain that fellowship with God that Adam and Eve first experienced with God before their fall. We couldn't have done that for ourselves because sin separated us from God. So that was the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus died in our place, taking the punishment that we deserve. Jesus died so that we could live (have eternal life with Him).

The book of Revelation tells of a “second death,” which is a final (and eternal) separation from God. Only those who have never experienced new life in Christ will be a part of the second death. All other religions, except Christianity, require earning salvation by good works. The Bible says that salvation can not be earned; it's only given by grace. That's why most Christians say that Christianity is the only path of salvation - because of Christ. No other religion can state that. Salvation is given by faith alone; not faith plus works.

Does that mean God is human, like us? Does he have a nipples and a belly button? What FOR? That's a very uninspired and limited view of God.
No. There's a purpose for nipples and navels. God has no need for those.

Jews say that God is "ineffable," an interesting word with a dual meaning. Unspeakable, meaning, you cannot speak his name. But also, indescribable, beyond anybody's capacity to describe. Christianity focuses more on the "personal relationship with God" part of their religion so much that perhaps this part of Judaism gets lost in Christianity. But Jews would be quite comfortable with the idea of God not being primate or human or any of the above, because those are all such mundane things so easily described, so not-ineffable.
God has many names/titles. God is Love, Peace, Alpha, Omega, Pure, etc.... I don't look to the Jews for a name to call God. No offense. God wants us to have a personal relationship with Him. That was His purpose for us. I believe that the Jews rely on the Old Testament or Torah and the old covenanat with God. The old covenant made us aware of our sin. It condemned us. But Christianity focuses on the new covenant with God - with Christ. The old covenant is no longer needed because we, Christians, are aware of our sins and have been condemned. Jesus freed us from eternal condemnation by His sacrifice and Christians should rely on this and faith in Him, not on the old covenant laws. I believe that Jews still rely on these old covenant laws and think that salvation can be earned, which it can't, so why would I choose to go backward instead of forward?[/QUOTE]

[Doc Doofus]

The old covenant is no longer needed because we, Christians, are aware of our sins...

Totally misses the point of what I was saying. I wasn't trying to convert you to Judaism, and wouldn't try if I could. The point was that God cannot be described. Not that it's prohibited, just that it can't be done. Our conception of God is necessarily limited by the things we know and understand. God is a black box that we can only vaguely describe the outside of.

Yet you are telling us that this one phrase from Genesis, "Made in His image," tells you that we can tell whether God is primate or human. I am saying that is a very limited conception of the possibile forms of God.

If God has no nipples or navel, does he have a penis? If he does, what for? If he doesn't, then is he still a male, still a He? If he is neither male nor female, then how can he be compared to a human? Gender is one of our most distinctive characteristics. Could God be a hermaphrodite, self-reproducing the way certain fish do (like Rivulus marmoratus) or can he divde like an amoeba?

We don't know. And my own suspicion (not really a belief) is that whatever God is, it's so much more complicated that such discussion is probably moot.

[davious]

Our brains are completely incapable of understanding God in the fullest way, in much the same way it would be impossible for an ant to comprehend the vastness of the universe. I don't think being made in God's image refers to a physical form, I always took it to mean that we are born with a spiritual nature, that being made in God's image meant that there is more to us than our corporeal bodies...Basically, it means God created us with souls, not that God is male or female, or whatever. God has only revealed enough of His nature to not completely overwhelm us. We are simply not capable of truly understanding all that it means to be "God". We only know what God has allowed us to know...because anything more would be more than we can process mentally. We are ill-equipped to try understand all that God is.

[urisStar]

Most have a problem understanding even what God has revealed and given for/want us to know. In all seriousness, one can’t study the old testament and not see the love of God for His chosen people. No matter what went down, God was always there revealing Himself to them in so many ways perchance they would understand His Nature. It is the best love story ever and yet men don’t see/understand it in its fullness of that love. :D

[Doddibot]

Primates can't speak. They can communicate, but not speak as we can.
That assumes we are not primates. As you are using this to demonstrate that humans are not primates, your logic is circular.

Premise 1: No primate can speak (assuming humans are not primates)
Premise 2: God can speak
Conclusion 1 (from P1 & P2): God is not a primate
Premise 3: Humans were created in the likeness of God
Conclusion 2 (from C1 and P3): Humans are not primates

See that your premise is the same as your conclusion?

There's nothing in the Bible that supports that.
There is plenty in the Bible that supports that. Read: Evolution...the Bible taught it first (http://answersincreation.org/evolution_bible.htm). You may be interested in other articles on that site too.

There's no need to say that this animal is this, this animal is that, etc...
Which means that humans may be primates, but that it wasn't mentioned (because, as you say, there is no need to do so).

In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam that for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Adam does fall, but his physical death does not occur immediately; God had another type of death in mind, which was spiritual death. This separation from God is what's seen in Genesis 3:8. When Adam and Eve heard the voice of God, they “hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God.” The fellowship with God had been broken. They were spiritually dead. That's similar to someone saying that you are dead to that person. That doesn't mean that you actually died, but your closeness or special relationship with that person has ended.
So, when God said "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.", he really meant to say "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt be dead to me".

Salvation is given by faith alone; not faith plus works.
Despite what it says in James 2:17, Matthew 7:21, John 5:29, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 2:23 and Matthew 19:17?

How much experience do you think Adam and Eve had with death before they disobeyed? There had been no reason for death in Eden, so nothing had died.
No reason for death? Why wouldn't there be death? God says in Genesis 3:22 "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever".

Now, that to me suggests that they hadn't yet eaten of the Tree of Life, and therefore would not have lived forever.

In addition, there are few other verses, such as Psalm 104:29 (which tells of God killing animals, and creating animals. So, unless you think God made animals after the 'Fall of Man', then I guess there must be death before then.)

Now, Adam and Eve obviously knew of death, because why else would they bother to eat?

[Charmaine06]

That assumes we are not primates. As you are using this to demonstrate that humans are not primates, your logic is circular.

Premise 1: No primate can speak (assuming humans are not primates)
Premise 2: God can speak
Conclusion 1 (from P1 & P2): God is not a primate
Premise 3: Humans were created in the likeness of God
Conclusion 2 (from C1 and P3): Humans are not primates

See that your premise is the same as your conclusion?
I'm not making any assumptions. I'm stating the truth that humans are and never were primates.
No primate can speak. Only humans can speak. Therefore humans aren't primates.
God can speak. God is not a primate. There's nothing difficult to understand about that.

There is plenty in the Bible that supports that. Read: Evolution...the Bible taught it first (http://answersincreation.org/evolution_bible.htm). You may be interested in other articles on that site too.
Sorry. Still don't believe it. I don't believe information regarding God that comes from atheists/agnostics/unbelievers. All they want to do is disprove the existence of God. I just don't buy it.

Which means that humans may be primates, but that it wasn't mentioned (because, as you say, there is no need to do so).
Nope, it doesn't mean that humans may be primates. I was only referring to the animals. Humans aren't animals and never were animals.

So, when God said "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.", he really meant to say "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt be dead to me".
'For in the day' means that the very day that Adam ate from the tree, he would experience spiritual death. There's no mistake in that. It's just that people misinterpret it. God is not a liar.

Despite what it says in James 2:17, Matthew 7:21, John 5:29, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 2:23 and Matthew 19:17?
James 2
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if people claim to have faith but have no deeds? Can such faith save them?
15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

In the Bible, Paul continually says that justification is by faith alone while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works. James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his life – then he likely does not have genuine faith in Christ. James and Paul do not disagree on their teaching on salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that faith in Christ produces good works.

Matthew 7
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven.

The will of God is for the person to believe in Him, believe in His Son Jesus, accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, confess and truly repent of your sins (truly turning away from a life of sin). You can't earn salvation because if you could then Jesus' sacrifice would have been in vain. There wouldn't have been a need for Christ's sacrifice if we could earn salvation.

John 5
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice
29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

What is good = Accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, confessed, truly repented by turning away from a life of sin which automatically brings about good works. Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior is having faith in Him and by that salvation is given. When a person turns away from a life of sin by accepting Christ, then why would that person continue to live a life of sin? No, that person would turn away from sin and good works would come from this. Earning salvation by good works is totally impossible. No one can earn salvation. No one.

1 Peter
17 Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear.

Perserverance is necessary. You can't accept Christ and then continue in sin. It's a life-long process of continually confessing and repenting. This is a difficult thing to do in one's life, but you have to put in effort. Still, a person can do nothing to earn salvation. I will do good works because I'm a Christian, but those works won't earn me salvation. My faith in Christ has. Because of Him is why I can do good works in His eyes; not of my own doing.

Revelation 2
20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.
22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.
23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Your deeds = what you did in your life. I choose to follow Christ. I've accepted Him as my Lord and Savior and because of my faith in Him, I can do good works, but it's not my works that will save me, but Jesus because He died for me. If my works could save me, then that's saying that I can be perfect. No one is perfect. We all have fallen short of the glory of God. God cared so much for us that He chose to do something about that. He gave His Son for us and that's the only reason why we can have salvation. It can only be given; not earned. Once salvation is given, a person can please God because of Christ; not because of one's own doing.

Matthew 19
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

Jesus wasn't preaching/saying that keeping the commandments saves us. Jesus knew that bad news comes before good news. The Bible clearly teaches that the purpose of the law is to make us aware of our sinful condition. This is what Jesus was trying to do with the rich, young ruler. Unfortunately, the man was steeped in self-righteousness and blind to his sin. We can see this from his reply: “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Notice that one of the commands that Jesus hadn't previously brought up was that We shall not covet. But now Jesus brings that command into their talk:
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Unfortunately, instead of allowing the law (the commandments) to lead the man to confess to Jesus that he'd failed to keep the law and needed grace and mercy, the man walked away sad because he had a lot of stuff.

The law, which many people were/are tempted to backslide into, provides only death. The law did not, and still does not, provide salvation. The law makes us conscious of our sin and the wages of sin is death. The law brings wrath. The law was not given to us as a model of how to live and how to earn salvation. Salvation cannot be earned. Rather, the law was brought in to "increase our trespass". God wanted our trespass to increase to look for another answer - to push us towards Jesus. By backsliding into Judaism, people are left with all the problems the law brings, but with no solution. The law never causes our sins to increase; it merely points out what already exists. It shows how much we really need a savior.

The Bible is quite clear that our own works do not help earn salvation. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done” (Titus 3:5). “Not of works” (Ephesians 2:9). “There is none righteous, no not one” (Romans 3:10). This means that offering sacrifices, keeping the commandments, going to church, being baptized, and other good deeds are incapable of saving anyone. No matter how “good” we are, we can never measure up to God’s standard of holiness (Romans 3:23; Matthew 19:17; Isaiah 64:6).

[Doddibot]

I'm not making any assumptions. I'm stating the truth that humans are and never were primates.
No primate can speak. Only humans can speak. Therefore humans aren't primates.
God can speak. God is not a primate. There's nothing difficult to understand about that.
The only difficult thing for me to understand is how you came to that conclusion. Because from the looks of it, you've just declared that you are correct and know the truth, without giving me any reasons.


Sorry. Still don't believe it. I don't believe information regarding God that comes from atheists/agnostics/unbelievers. All they want to do is disprove the existence of God. I just don't buy it.
Did you even read it? It's written by a Christian, who openly admits in the opening statement that he doesn't believe evolution is the correct explanation.

Nope, it doesn't mean that humans may be primates. I was only referring to the animals. Humans aren't animals and never were animals.
Fine, I should have said "that doesn't mean humans are not animals". Because you've just declared humans are not animals, despite that fact that the Bible never actually says humans are not animals, nor that humans are animals (just as the Bible makes no comment on whether whales are or aren't mammals).

God is not a liar.
How do you know this?

Earning salvation by good works is totally impossible. No one can earn salvation. No one.
Well, if you believe that a serial rapist and murderer can accept Christ late in his life, confess/repent and God will save him, but his young victims, though they lived a good and moral life, will suffer eternally if they lack faith in Jesus, then I'm afraid I must think your God is not a very just one.

[banshee]

No reason for death? Why wouldn't there be death? God says in Genesis 3:22 "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever".

Now, that to me suggests that they hadn't yet eaten of the Tree of Life, and therefore would not have lived forever.
While Adam and Eve lived in the Garden, they were allowed to eat from the tree of life. Whether they ever did is immaterial for while they were in Eden the Tree of Life was available, hence, they were for all practical purposes immortal.

God did not lie when he told Adam that he would 'die within a day'. According to the Scripture one day for God is a thousand of our years:

And this one thing let not be unobserved by you, beloved, that one day with the Lord [is] as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day -Peter 3:8

For a thousand years in Thine eyes [are] as yesterday, For it passeth on, yea, a watch by night. -Psalm 90:4 (I use Young's Literal Translation, BTW)

Genesis 3:22 is not a completed sentence. Adam and Eve do not choose to eat from the tree of life and live an eternity of hardship and neither does God require that they do before "Jehovah God sendeth him forth from the garden of Eden to serve the ground from which he hath been taken; yea, he casteth out the man, and causeth to dwell at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubs and the flame of the sword which is turning itself round to guard the way of the tree of life. (GEN 3:23-24)" Their punishment was mortality (being denied access to the Tree of Life) and a life of labor.

And as you have pointed out, Adam lived for another 930 years, which is short of the thousand-year-day of God.

Catholicism teaches that God guided man's evolution from the primordial ooze (theistic evolution) and that God is responsible for giving man a soul. That Genesis 2:7 (And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.) it not just about God forming man but also God bestowing upon him his soul. According to the Catechism science (i.e. evolution) and faith are not mutually exclusive, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

[Charmaine06]

The only difficult thing for me to understand is how you came to that conclusion. Because from the looks of it, you've just declared that you are correct and know the truth, without giving me any reasons.
Well, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not the truth. I understand it very easily and it makes perfect sense.

Did you even read it? It's written by a Christian, who openly admits in the opening statement that he doesn't believe evolution is the correct explanation.
No, I didn't read it. I'm not going to waste any of my time in reading about human evolution. I know much about it anyway. I just don't accept it and never will.

How do you know this?
Because I have faith in that He's not. Do you actually feel comfortable in assuming that God is a liar???


Well, if you believe that a serial rapist and murderer can accept Christ late in his life, confess/repent and God will save him, but his young victims, though they lived a good and moral life, will suffer eternally if they lack faith in Jesus, then I'm afraid I must think your God is not a very just one.
Yes, that's exactly how it goes. Everyone has a choice in accepting or rejecting God/Christ. Yes, a serial rapist or serial killer can be saved if he/she accepts Christ while his/her victims, who chose to reject God/Christ, wouldn't receive salvation. That's very possible. Sin is sin to God so being a serial rapist or killer is no better than being a liar, adulterer, thief, etc. No one can live a good and moral life. No one. There is and was never anyone that is good. Not one person. Not the Pope, Mother Theresa, Mary (the mother of Jesus), etc.. Not me or anyone else ever. The Bible says that we all fall short of God's glory. You mentioned living a good and moral life. That's saying that a person whose lived a "good and moral" life can earn salvation. I keep saying and the Bible does also that salvation can not be earned. It's not a person's works that can earn them salvation. If a serial killer/rapist turns away from his life of sin and truly accepts Christ, he can be saved by the mercy of Christ (His grace) while his victims who rejected God but lived a "good and moral" life according to human standard would not receive salvation. A person who rejects Christ can not be saved. That's impossible and it's very fair. If a person truly repents, then God will forgive that person, no matter what he/she did. But God won't forgive a person who rejected Him.

[jhd1189]

Charmaine, forcing your... interpretation of Christianity on people and arguing with them without actually attempting to say anything beyond "I'm right because I am and your viewpoints disinterest me" does not constitute the requirements for a healthy debate. Refusing to hear other people's viewpoints and scoffing at the articles and sources that they present to you without so much as taking a glance at them is rude, and certainly not proper debate room etiquette.

[Rabid]

Well, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not the truth. I understand it very easily and it makes perfect sense.

I could just as easily say that, even though you're led on by an age-old fictional tome with notions of a god, it doesn't mean that one exists. No matter how strongly you believe in the Bible and no matter how many verses you throw back at me, there is no way conceivable way to prove the existence of a god other than stating your faith time and time again just as I cannot prove to you that there is no such thing as a god no matter how much science supports it. I think there comes a point where theists and atheists must agree to disagree.

[urisStar]

Yes, that's exactly how it goes. Everyone has a choice in accepting or rejecting God/Christ. Yes, a serial rapist or serial killer can be saved if he/she accepts Christ while his/her victims, who chose to reject God/Christ, wouldn't receive salvation. That's very possible. Sin is sin to God so being a serial rapist or killer is no better than being a liar, adulterer, thief, etc. No one can live a good and moral life. No one. There is and was never anyone that is good. Not one person. Not the Pope, Mother Theresa, Mary (the mother of Jesus), etc.. Not me or anyone else ever. The Bible says that we all fall short of God's glory. You mentioned living a good and moral life. That's saying that a person whose lived a "good and moral" life can earn salvation. I keep saying and the Bible does also that salvation can not be earned. It's not a person's works that can earn them salvation. If a serial killer/rapist turns away from his life of sin and truly accepts Christ, he can be saved by the mercy of Christ (His grace) while his victims who rejected God but lived a "good and moral" life according to human standard would not receive salvation. A person who rejects Christ can not be saved. That's impossible and it's very fair. If a person truly repents, then God will forgive that person, no matter what he/she did. But God won't forgive a person who rejected Him.

:rant: Stop misrepresenting God and stating things you have no understanding about! You have no idea what God would or won't do when it come to the life of others as you can't discern the "spirit man" of another person nor where they stand or don't stand with their Maker. Only a new christian is stuck on the plan of salvation and give out misinformation and is confused about the things of God, so much so they can't seem to move on. :censored: (I am not being rude jhd1189, just straightforward). :cry:

[Reindeer911_SC]

:rant: Stop misrepresenting God and stating things you have no understanding about! You have no idea what God would or won't do when it come to the life of others as you can't discern the "spirit man" of another person nor where they sand or don't sand with their Maker. Only a new christian is stuck on the plan of salvation and give out misinformation and is confused about the things of God, so much so they can't seem to move on. :censored: (I am not being rude jhd1189, just straightforward). :cry:

I have to agree. This is what I meant in the other thread about how dogma and literalism override love and compassion in the mindset of many fundamentalists. Seeking salvation or closeness with God is not a spiritual "license to kill"... likewise many a scoundrel has done a death-bed conversion with the idea of getting a better deal on the other side. Common sense would indicate that it doesn't work that way. It's pretty ludicrous to think that a Christian who has been so-called "born again" can bomb an abortion clinic in God's name and automatically get a ticket to heaven, while an agnostic who genuinely cares and tries to help people is going to roast in hell.

[davious]

It's pretty ludicrous to think that a Christian who has been so-called "born again" can bomb an abortion clinic in God's name and automatically get a ticket to heaven, while an agnostic who genuinely cares and tries to help people is going to roast in hell.

Yeah, except that a "born again" Christian who bombs an abortion clinic isn't really a born again Christian. They just claim to be. If someone takes the time to bomb an abortion clinic, its because of a belief that they hold strong enough to prohibit them from seeing the wrongness of the action. Meaning, they wouldn't feel sorry about it, they wouldn't be remorseful about it later. If they aren't remorseful, they aren't asking Christ to forgive them for their action. If they aren't asking Christ to forgive them from their sins, they aren't going to go to heaven, because they are unrepentant. As a Christian myself, I would reject anyone who bombs an abortion clinic as a member of my faith, and I am very Pro-Life. Christ never once advocated acts of terrorism.

However, if, later in their life, they regret their action, and ask God to forgive them for that terrible act, then, yes, they would go to heaven, provided they still accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior. They would have the same opportunity as anyone else. God didn't put a timetable on faith, didn't say that you have to believe by a certain age, or anything. The same is true of a murderer in prison who sees the error of his ways, and truly accepts Christ while in prison. Christ told the criminal hanging on the cross next to him that he would see him in paradise, for recognizing Christ for who he is. People who end up crucified are not petty criminals. You don't get crucified for getting caught stealing bread...you get it for serious offenses. That criminal still found salvation in the last day of his life, because he recognized Christ as Christ.

But, back to Genesis, Banshee's post hit the nail on the head, faith and science are not mutually exclusive.

[urisStar]

Yeah, except that a "born again" Christian who bombs an abortion clinic isn't really a born again Christian. They just claim to be. If someone takes the time to bomb an abortion clinic, its because of a belief that they hold strong enough to prohibit them from seeing the wrongness of the action. Meaning, they wouldn't feel sorry about it, they wouldn't be remorseful about it later. If they aren't remorseful, they aren't asking Christ to forgive them for their action. If they aren't asking Christ to forgive them from their sins, they aren't going to go to heaven, because they are unrepentant. As a Christian myself, I would reject anyone who bombs an abortion clinic as a member of my faith, and I am very Pro-Life. Christ never once advocated acts of terrorism.

However, if, later in their life, they regret their action, and ask God to forgive them for that terrible act, then, yes, they would go to heaven, provided they still accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior. They would have the same opportunity as anyone else. God didn't put a timetable on faith, didn't say that you have to believe by a certain age, or anything. The same is true of a murderer in prison who sees the error of his ways, and truly accepts Christ while in prison. Christ told the criminal hanging on the cross next to him that he would see him in paradise, for recognizing Christ for who he is. People who end up crucified are not petty criminals. You don't get crucified for getting caught stealing bread...you get it for serious offenses. That criminal still found salvation in the last day of his life, because he recognized Christ as Christ.

But, back to Genesis, Banshee's post hit the nail on the head, faith and science are not mutually exclusive.

Just an observation and not an attack: If one only accepts Christ as an insurance policy to keep them out of hell and a sure safe way to enter heaven, do you really think that is the Father’s intent of salvation? While salvation is given by Grace, it shows its self by bring forth fruit unto righteousness. That fruit is the attribute of the Father Himself and cannot help but reproduce Itself in those given the gift of salvation. The fruit of the spirit by which one knows indeed you are a son of God which is what we were ALL called to be. Those nine (which is One) fruit is not a choice, it is an actual condition (state of being/what you have become/what you are) of salvation that shows up in the sons of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. (For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

Jesus Himself said by their fruit you shall know them so apparently it must show itself if it can be seen! :stick:

[sabrown100]

But, back to Genesis, Banshee's post hit the nail on the head, faith and science are not mutually exclusive.

Well that is another debate and cannot be answerd with a simple yes/no.

[davious]

Just an observation and not an attack: If one only accepts Christ as an insurance policy to keep them out of hell and a sure safe way to enter heaven, do you really think that is the Father’s intent of salvation?

No. But God knows what your motivation is, and knows if your repentance is genuine or not. Just because people are stupid enough to be fooled doesn't mean God is. Someone that plans on using Christ as an insurance policy doesn't really accept Christ at all. But, that doesn't mean that you are prevented from accepting Christ late in life, and having it be for real. In fact, Paul, perhaps Christ's greatest apostle, was orginally a persecutor of Christians. He not only denied Christ, he flat out mocked Christians...but, he still became God's instrument. Using Christ as an insurance policy reminds me of a saying I once saw:

Many of those who plan to seek Christ at the 11th hour die at 10:30.

But, we are getting really off track from Genesis, so I am not going to comment on Christ in this thread again, unless it pertains to the Creation story.

[Reindeer911_SC]

Yeah, except that a "born again" Christian who bombs an abortion clinic isn't really a born again Christian. They just claim to be. If someone takes the time to bomb an abortion clinic, its because of a belief that they hold strong enough to prohibit them from seeing the wrongness of the action. Meaning, they wouldn't feel sorry about it, they wouldn't be remorseful about it later. If they aren't remorseful, they aren't asking Christ to forgive them for their action. If they aren't asking Christ to forgive them from their sins, they aren't going to go to heaven, because they are unrepentant. As a Christian myself, I would reject anyone who bombs an abortion clinic as a member of my faith, and I am very Pro-Life. Christ never once advocated acts of terrorism.

However, if, later in their life, they regret their action, and ask God to forgive them for that terrible act, then, yes, they would go to heaven, provided they still accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior. They would have the same opportunity as anyone else. God didn't put a timetable on faith, didn't say that you have to believe by a certain age, or anything. The same is true of a murderer in prison who sees the error of his ways, and truly accepts Christ while in prison. Christ told the criminal hanging on the cross next to him that he would see him in paradise, for recognizing Christ for who he is. People who end up crucified are not petty criminals. You don't get crucified for getting caught stealing bread...you get it for serious offenses. That criminal still found salvation in the last day of his life, because he recognized Christ as Christ.

Then it would logically follow that anyone who commits a sin after they have been "saved" would not truly be "born again" either because they wouldn't be truly repentant. According to Charmaine, "sin is sin", whether it be bombing abortion clinics or telling a little white lie to so as not to hurt someone's feelings.

But, back to Genesis, Banshee's post hit the nail on the head, faith and science are not mutually exclusive.


Depends on the nature of the faith. Going back to the Genesis example, if someone were to advocate a literal 7 day creation despite all the evidence to the contrary, then yes, science and faith would be mutually exclusive.

[Charmaine06]

Charmaine, forcing your... interpretation of Christianity on people and arguing with them without actually attempting to say anything beyond "I'm right because I am and your viewpoints disinterest me" does not constitute the requirements for a healthy debate. Refusing to hear other people's viewpoints and scoffing at the articles and sources that they present to you without so much as taking a glance at them is rude, and certainly not proper debate room etiquette.
I don't agree with you, but I apologize to anyone I've offended. I don't see how I'm forcing my beliefs on people though. I can't force anyone to believe anything. I have the right to state my beliefs. Am I at fault because some others don't agree with me? I wasn't arguing with anyone; only stating my beliefs. I don't believe that I'm right. I believe that God's word is right and the truth. I never told anyone that their viewpoints don't interest me. I am interested in what others believe. It's just that I'm not interested in studying/researching what they believe and the others have the right to not be interested in studying/researching what I believe. If I post a link to a site, others have every right to not even clink on that link to read what I linked to. I didn't read it because I already know about human evolution. I've already read about it and viewed numerous programs on tv about it because they were interesting and entertaining. I just don't accept it as fact though. I'm not interested in studying/researching human evolution because I don't believe in it. How would others know that I didn't follow the link if I hadn't mentioned it? They wouldn't have. I'll just not let anyone know from now on so there won't be any problems. Also, I included scripture to back up what I was saying so it wasn't like I was just saying 'I'm right' and nothing to back it up. Again, I'm sorry.

:rant: Stop misrepresenting God and stating things you have no understanding about! You have no idea what God would or won't do when it come to the life of others as you can't discern the "spirit man" of another person nor where they stand or don't stand with their Maker. Only a new christian is stuck on the plan of salvation and give out misinformation and is confused about the things of God, so much so they can't seem to move on. :censored: (I am not being rude jhd1189, just straightforward). :cry:
Wouldn't it be better to say 'stating things I think you have no understanding about' or 'stating things you probably have no understanding about'? You have no idea of what I understand just because you don't agree with my beliefs. I read God's word and I understand most of what I read. I'm only saying what's in the Bible. I didn't make up any of it. If God says there is only one path to salvation, then how can I say that there is more than one or a different one? I'd be making that up; that's not what I've done. I'm not a new Christian either. I was brought up in the Christian faith and was baptized when I was about 13. I knew what I was doing and I knew what sin was. I haven't given out misinformation because you don't believe it or don't agree with it. You have your beliefs and so do I. You don't have to accept mine and I don't have to accept yours. No one has the right to judge.

Then it would logically follow that anyone who commits a sin after they have been "saved" would not truly be "born again" either because they wouldn't be truly repentant. According to Charmaine, "sin is sin", whether it be bombing abortion clinics or telling a little white lie to so as not to hurt someone's feelings.
Just because a person is saved doesn't mean that that person will not sin anymore. A person who is saved could have still committed a murder but be truly repentant. Being saved doesn't mean that you become perfect, that you suddenly live a perfect life. I'm saved because I accepted Jesus. I believe in who He is and what He did for me. I have faith in Him. Because of that, I chose to turn away from sin and follow Christ. I still sin sometimes, but I purposely try not to sin. Sinning and not caring about it and not repenting is very different. I still sin sometimes because I'm human. Being saved doesn't mean that you become inhuman or perfect. Only God is perfect. When I sin, I am truly repentant of my sin, because I sin against God and I hate sin. I look at sin in a different way. I feel guilty and terrible about it. I confess my sin to God because I'm truly sorry and repentant and He forgives me. I start again with a clean slate because God chooses to forget my sins. I have faith that He forgives me. I still can't earn salvation because God gives it by grace.


Depends on the nature of the faith. Going back to the Genesis example, if someone were to advocate a literal 7 day creation despite all the evidence to the contrary, then yes, science and faith would be mutually exclusive.
I don't believe in the literal translation of Genesis. Like I mentioned it before, I don't believe that a day to God is the same as a day to us. I don't believe that a day to God is like a thousand years to us. I believe it is more than that. God is not ruled by time.

[Doddibot]

Because I have faith in that He's not. Do you actually feel comfortable in assuming that God is a liar???
What I feel comfortable with and what is true are quite often two different things.

I don't believe in the literal translation of Genesis. Like I mentioned it before, I don't believe that a day to God is the same as a day to us. I don't believe that a day to God is like a thousand years to us. I believe it is more than that. God is not ruled by time.
Reindeer911 could have said the following and the point would have been the same:

Depends on the nature of the faith. Going back to the Genesis example, if someone were to insist that humans evolution did not occur despite all the evidence to the contrary, then yes, science and faith would be mutually exclusive.

[urisStar]

No. But God knows what your motivation is, and knows if your repentance is genuine or not. Just because people are stupid enough to be fooled doesn't mean God is. Someone that plans on using Christ as an insurance policy doesn't really accept Christ at all. But, that doesn't mean that you are prevented from accepting Christ late in life, and having it be for real. In fact, Paul, perhaps Christ's greatest apostle, was orginally a persecutor of Christians. He not only denied Christ, he flat out mocked Christians...but, he still became God's instrument. Using Christ as an insurance policy reminds me of a saying I once saw:

Many of those who plan to seek Christ at the 11th hour die at 10:30.

But, we are getting really off track from Genesis, so I am not going to comment on Christ in this thread again, unless it pertains to the Creation story.

That went right over your head! My point was at the eleventh hour, they not only accepted but also produced fruit for one hour and was rewarded the same as those with fruit for a longer period of time. If professed believers bear not these fruits of the divine spirit in their lives, they are dead/fruitless; the Spirit of Truth is not in them; they are useless branches on the living vine, and they soon will be taken away. There are plenty of fruitless examples.

Lets talk about Adam and Eve, it also shows that even in a state of immortality the possibility is still there to be tempted by one’s own lust. :D

[Doddibot]

While Adam and Eve lived in the Garden, they were allowed to eat from the tree of life. Whether they ever did is immaterial for while they were in Eden the Tree of Life was available, hence, they were for all practical purposes immortal.
I guess that is a fair interpretation, but we would need to assume that Adam and Eve actually did eat of the Tree and that the Tree of Life had to be eaten constantly to obtain immortality (neither is mentioned in the text).

But say we do assume that, why would it be that God, seemingly, realises in Genesis 3:22-24 that immortality would bad, and therefore banishes Adam and Eve to keep them from the tree, and guards Eden with Cherubims and a flaming sword?

[Charmaine06]

That went right over your head! My point was at the eleventh hour, they not only accepted but also produced fruit for one hour and was rewarded the same as those with fruit for a longer period of time. If professed believers bear not these fruits of the divine spirit in their lives, they are dead/fruitless; the Spirit of Truth is not in them; they are useless branches on the living vine, and they soon will be taken away. There are plenty of fruitless examples.

Lets talk about Adam and Eve, it also shows that even in a state of immortality the possibility is still there to be tempted by one’s own lust. :D
There wouldn't be an 11th hour for that person if the person died at 10:30, so the time would have run out before the person had time to accept Christ and repent. Choosing to accept Christ later isn't sincerity. Putting if off just before you die is not going to get it. God knows a person's heart. You can't just get right with God on Sundays and then go back to your "old life." Getting right with God just before you die because you chose to put it off until then isn't sincerity at all and isn't the same as someone choosing now and truly repenting. No one knows exactly when he/she will die so it's best to accept now. Later may never come. Also, you can't say whether a person "bore fruit" or not unless you know that person. Online doesn't count. I know that the Holy Spirit is in me and no one can tell me any different.

What I feel comfortable with and what is true are quite often two different things.
So which is it: You're calling God a liar or you believe that God may be a liar?

Reindeer911 could have said the following and the point would have been the same:
No, it's not the same. All I see is parts of skeletons. That doesn't mean that we evolved from that or evolved at all. That's not proof of evolution. Adam and Eve didn't evolve. They were created just how they are - as human.

[banshee]

I guess that is a fair interpretation, but we would need to assume that Adam and Eve actually did eat of the Tree and that the Tree of Life had to be eaten constantly to obtain immortality (neither is mentioned in the text).

But say we do assume that, why would it be that God, seemingly, realises in Genesis 3:22-24 that immortality would bad, and therefore banishes Adam and Eve to keep them from the tree, and guards Eden with Cherubims and a flaming sword?But he didn't make a decision regarding Adam and Eve's mortality in Gen 3:22-24. With GEN 3:22 left incomplete, God is pointing to the Tree of Life and showing Adam and Eve the life in paradise they surrendered. God told Adam in Gen 2:17 that his punishment would be death (see how that came back around? ;) ). The decision was made by Adam and Eve when they chose to snack from the wrong tree. Sure, the details are fuzzy - Genesis is liturgical not literal - but based on the text the logical assumption is that the effect of the Tree of Life is transitory. If the effect was eternal, then the threat of punishment would have been meaningless and Adam and Eve would never die.

[Reindeer911_SC]

There wouldn't be an 11th hour for that person if the person died at 10:30, so the time would have run out before the person had time to accept Christ and repent. Choosing to accept Christ later isn't sincerity. Putting if off just before you die is not going to get it. God knows a person's heart. You can't just get right with God on Sundays and then go back to your "old life." Getting right with God just before you die because you chose to put it off until then isn't sincerity at all and isn't the same as someone choosing now and truly repenting. No one knows exactly when he/she will die so it's best to accept now. Later may never come. Also, you can't say whether a person "bore fruit" or not unless you know that person. Online doesn't count. I know that the Holy Spirit is in me and no one can tell me any different.

I see... So if I'm reading this correctly, a person who becomes saved at 10:30 is screwed because they are insincere, but if that same person were to become saved at 10:29, they got their ticket to ride. Also the intention is not enough, but it's really the intention behind the intention that matters. Also one can not be a Sunday Christian, but they could bomb an abortion clinic on Wednesday, and as long as they are sorry they are good to go. On the other hand, a person who spends their life trying to help other people and otherwise leads an exemplary life but is not a Christian or goes to the wrong church is going to roast in hell. Have I got this about right?

No, it's not the same. All I see is parts of skeletons. That doesn't mean that we evolved from that or evolved at all. That's not proof of evolution. Adam and Eve didn't evolve. They were created just how they are - as human.


Now I'm confused... on one hand you are suggesting that we shouldn't take the use of the term "day" in Genesis literally (or the 1000 year analogy) because time is meaningless to God, but on the other hand we should take everything else in Genesis 1 literally even if there is evidence to the contrary?

[Doddibot]

So which is it: You're calling God a liar or you believe that God may be a liar?
Neither. I don't even think God is, at all. But I'm saying to you that you cannot (sensibly) believe something just because it is comfortable. You have to have a better reason than that.

No, it's not the same. All I see is parts of skeletons. That doesn't mean that we evolved from that or evolved at all. That's not proof of evolution.
All you may see is a part of a skeleton, but to a palaeoanthropologist, those are very informative as 'snapshots of the past'. And those skeletons are often not like modern humans, and older ones have more ape-like characteristics. Exactly the sort of evidence that evolutionary biologists said should be found.

[Doc Doofus]

Charmaine, is it possible Adam and Eve were humans that were furry and had tails? If not, why not?

[urisStar]

Wouldn't it be better to say 'stating things I think you have no understanding about' or 'stating things you probably have no understanding about'? You have no idea of what I understand just because you don't agree with my beliefs. I read God's word and I understand most of what I read. I'm only saying what's in the Bible. I didn't make up any of it. If God says there is only one path to salvation, then how can I say that there is more than one or a different one? I'd be making that up; that's not what I've done. I'm not a new Christian either. I was brought up in the Christian faith and was baptized when I was about 13. I knew what I was doing and I knew what sin was. I haven't given out misinformation because you don't believe it or don't agree with it. You have your beliefs and so do I. You don't have to accept mine and I don't have to accept yours. No one has the right to judge.

I have no issues with your belief as it is your belief, that is the great thing with belief, they are personal between one and God!

You are not balanced in your repeating/quoting what the bible is saying as you are not rightly dividing the Word and by not attempting to make the message balance as God has, it is misleading/misrepresenting/misinformation. When presenting half of the truth to validate our special agenda without the other half, it lacks balance and can’t be pass off as if it is complete truth. Scriptures need to be "diligently" searched to discover the whole truth. Truth is not give to those who think that they already have the truth but to those who are earnestly seeking it. Only when truth is found will you be able to know for sure. There is only one relation to revealed truth: believing it.

There wouldn't be an 11th hour for that person if the person died at 10:30, so the time would have run out before the person had time to accept Christ and repent. Choosing to accept Christ later isn't sincerity. Putting if off just before you die is not going to get it. God knows a person's heart. You can't just get right with God on Sundays and then go back to your "old life." Getting right with God just before you die because you chose to put it off until then isn't sincerity at all and isn't the same as someone choosing now and truly repenting. No one knows exactly when he/she will die so it's best to accept now. Later may never come. Also, you can't say whether a person "bore fruit" or not unless you know that person. Online doesn't count. I know that the Holy Spirit is in me and no one can tell me any different.


You seem to have taken my post as if it was directed personally at you for whatever reason, but so be it.

I did not make up that story, it came from the mouth of Jesus, in the story where He ended it with “So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.” My point was regardless of if you accept Jesus, without the fruit being one with the acceptor; no matter what they claim; if they are fruitless they will be removed from the vine.

The rest of what is stated is just silly as it seems like it is all for attention. The reason you know what you got is because you should know what you got. Where it gets strange is when you try to assume you know what others got because you want everyone to be an “arm” like you when they may be another part of the body like a “leg” or a “foot”. We are not called to follow after each other but after the Father in the way He has called us to follow Him. That is why you keep your eyes on Jesus and stop trying to take a peek to see if others are called to do it just like you. :trix:

[Charmaine06]

I see... So if I'm reading this correctly, a person who becomes saved at 10:30 is screwed because they are insincere, but if that same person were to become saved at 10:29, they got their ticket to ride. Also the intention is not enough, but it's really the intention behind the intention that matters. Also one can not be a Sunday Christian, but they could bomb an abortion clinic on Wednesday, and as long as they are sorry they are good to go. On the other hand, a person who spends their life trying to help other people and otherwise leads an exemplary life but is not a Christian or goes to the wrong church is going to roast in hell. Have I got this about right?
Davious made this statement:
Using Christ as an insurance policy reminds me of a saying I once saw:
Many of those who plan to seek Christ at the 11th hour die at 10:30.
If someone plans to seek Christ at 11:00, then that person couldn't have been saved at 10:30. That person could only be saved after he/she accepted Christ at 11:00 or sometime after. If that person died at 10:30, obviously that person didn't make it to 11:00 (when that person planned to seek Christ), therefore never accepting Christ, never receiving salvation.

Accepting Christ is not a ticket. Viewing it as a ticket is not sincerity at all. It's not a "ticket to ride". It's not a ticket, period. Loving a person for the purpose of getting something good out of that person is not true love. Would you truly love someone that you didn't really know because that person could keep you out of prison or win a case in court for you, in other words be your ticket out of something really bad? Would you call that love? If not, then why would God consider that love? He wouldn't. Seeking God for the purpose of keeping a person out of hell isn't true acceptance/true seeking. That person would be doing that only to get what he/she wanted out of God. That wouldn't matter whether it was early on in life or at the very end of life.
If a person is insincere, then that person is not saved.
A "Sunday Christian" is not a true Christian, because a true Christian would serve God every single day after accepting Him. It's not something you can do one day a week. It's a lifetime committment after accepting Him. If you were married (I don't know if you are or not), then would you want your spouse to love you only once a week? Only be faithful to you once a week but return to infidelity the rest of the week? Would you consider that spouse faithful to you? If not, then why would God?
Being sorry and repentant are 2 different things. I could sin, confess my sins to God, and say I'm sorry to God. I could later do the same thing and repeat the same steps with God. I could do it again and again and repeat the same steps. That's not being repentant. Being repentant means being deeply sorry and remorseful for committing sin. It means that you want to turn away from ALL sin with a total change of mind. You would have a deep regret for committing those sins with a change of heart. You would try your best to not ever commit that sin and any sin again. You would live for God. You would turn away from the ways of this world and follow the ways of God. Anybody could simply say they're sorry, but not have a change in heart and mind. So just being sorry isn't going to get it. You have to be truly repentant.
You "spoke" of a person spending their life trying to help other people and otherwise leading an exemplary life. The Bible says that no one can earn salvation. You're basing salvation on works, but the Bible says salvation is given by grace. Davious correctly mentioned the criminal hanging on the cross receiving salvation. He received salvation because He accepted Christ. He accepted Christ by believing that Jesus was who He really was and is - the Son of God, the Savior. He had faith in Jesus and that's what it takes to receive salvation - faith. Salvation was given to the criminal on the cross because of faith. He didn't earn it. If it was based on works, then he wouldn't have received salvation. But because he believed in/had faith in Christ, he was saved. By his acceptance of Christ, he had to have truly repented of his sins in his heart. God knows our hearts. Salvation is not earned by works. It's not earned by works plus given by grace. It's only given by grace. It it was based on works, then what is the sense of there being grace?

Forget the titles. The Bible says that Christ is the only path of salvation. That's saying that if you don't accept Christ, then there is no other way that you can saved. No matter whether you're Jewish, Muslim, Budhist, etc., if you don't accept Christ, you can't be saved. Going to church won't save you. Only Jesus can and He's everywhere. You can obey the commandments to the "t" (which is impossible), but if you don't accept Christ, you won't be saved. You can be a kind, loving, church-going, philanthropist, volunteer, etc., but if you don't accept Christ, then you won't be saved. This is not my decision. I have no say in this. I'm only repeating what's in the Bible, which is God's word. God's standard is what's important; not man's. What's considered good to humans is not good in God's eyes because 'we all fall short.'

Now I'm confused... on one hand you are suggesting that we shouldn't take the use of the term "day" in Genesis literally (or the 1000 year analogy) because time is meaningless to God, but on the other hand we should take everything else in Genesis 1 literally even if there is evidence to the contrary?
What exactly is everything else?

Neither. I don't even think God is, at all. But I'm saying to you that you cannot (sensibly) believe something just because it is comfortable. You have to have a better reason than that.
I never said that I believe in God because it's comfortable. I believe because I have faith.

All you may see is a part of a skeleton, but to a palaeoanthropologist, those are very informative as 'snapshots of the past'. And those skeletons are often not like modern humans, and older ones have more ape-like characteristics. Exactly the sort of evidence that evolutionary biologists said should be found.
Still not proof in my eyes.

Charmaine, is it possible Adam and Eve were humans that were furry and had tails? If not, why not?
Not possible in my eyes. Do humans have fur and tails now? I don't believe that anything has changed since then - humans then as they are now.

I have no issues with your belief as it is your belief, that is the great thing with belief, they are personal between one and God!
Can I, as a Christian, actually live my life not caring about my "brother"? Shouldn't we be witnesses to each other? If I'm supposed to love my neighbor, then shouldn't I care about their salvation as well as mine? If I didn't, then that wouldn't be considered love because I wouldn't care whether they had salvation or not. I know it's not depended on me, but I still care.

You are not balanced in your repeating/quoting what the bible is saying as you are not rightly dividing the Word and by not attempting to make the message balance as God has, it is misleading/misrepresenting/misinformation. When presenting half of the truth to validate our special agenda without the other half, it lacks balance and can’t be pass off as if it is complete truth. Scriptures need to be "diligently" searched to discover the whole truth. Truth is not give to those who think that they already have the truth but to those who are earnestly seeking it. Only when truth is found will you be able to know for sure. There is only one relation to revealed truth: believing it.
How exactly have I not rightly "divided the Word" as you cay and making it imbalanced? What have I included but left out? I have sought out the truth and I have it. I believe this without any doubt whatsoever.

You seem to have taken my post as if it was directed personally at you for whatever reason, but so be it.

I did not make up that story, it came from the mouth of Jesus, in the story where He ended it with “So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.” My point was regardless of if you accept Jesus, without the fruit being one with the acceptor; no matter what they claim; if they are fruitless they will be removed from the vine.
What is this fruit according to you? Works? If so, then works can't earn salvation. The Bible says so. As far as many being called, but few chosen: many people will hear the word, but only few will accept it, truly accept Christ. Good works are produced by truly accepting Christ, but these good works won't earn salvation.

The rest of what is stated is just silly as it seems like it is all for attention. The reason you know what you got is because you should know what you got. Where it gets strange is when you try to assume you know what others got because you want everyone to be an “arm” like you when they may be another part of the body like a “leg” or a “foot”. We are not called to follow after each other but after the Father in the way He has called us to follow Him. That is why you keep your eyes on Jesus and stop trying to take a peek to see if others are called to do it just like you. :trix:
Why is it ok for you call what I've said 'silly' and that be ok? I state none of this for attention. Why would it be fair for someone to receive salvation by using God for a "free ticket" into heaven? That person doesn't love God. Every saved person is not and will not be the same. We all have different gifts, but there is only one salvation and only one path; not several or another. I don't expect others to serve God as I do. I know what I've read and I understand it. If you don't like something in the Bible, you can't get angry with me. You'll have to take that up with God.

[urisStar]

I have no issues with the bible that have not been made clear.

There are times when caring for your brother stop being caring and turn into something else when you are told by your brother, “I got this” (directly from the Source) and you just don‘t get it or think you can do it better than the Source! Sometimes it is better if your brother see something different about you and actually ask you what is your secret for your good living, tell me all about it because I just have to get it.

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. It is included with the gift of salvation and it is not optional. It's the flavoring that makes christians sweet, just like Jesus. :Pint:

Can't be bothered with the rest of your post as it is redundant :mag:

I could not be angry with you, I don't even know you! :lol:

[Doddibot]

I never said that I believe in God because it's comfortable. I believe because I have faith.
Never said anything to the contrary. I said (or implied) you believe God is not a liar just because you think it's more comforting.

Still not proof in my eyes.
There is no such thing as proof in science. Only in mathematics can there be proof. In science, the Theory of Evolution is just as proven as Nuclear Theory and the Theory of Gravitation. That is, they are not proven facts - they could be found to be wrong tomorrow. But they have all stood up to decades (if not centuries) of criticism and no new evidence has so far proven them to be false. Therefore, they are as 'proven' as you can be in science.

Not possible in my eyes. Do humans have fur and tails now? I don't believe that anything has changed since then - humans then as they are now.
And your evidence for that is? Just faith, as usual?

[Charmaine06]

I have no issues with the bible that have not been made clear.

There are times when caring for your brother stop being caring and turn into something else when you are told by your brother, “I got this” (directly from the Source) and you just don‘t get it or think you can do it better than the Source! Sometimes it is better if your brother see something different about you and actually ask you what is your secret for your good living, tell me all about it because I just have to get it.
Never said that.
Well, I guess Christians are supposed to selfish and not caring about others then. Forgive me for caring. I was wrong.

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. It is included with the gift of salvation and it is not optional. It's the flavoring that makes christians sweet, just like Jesus. :Pint:
So, are you a Christian? Are you saying you possess these things?

Never said anything to the contrary. I said (or implied) you believe God is not a liar just because you think it's more comforting.
Nope. Nope. Nope. It's not more comforting. I just know He's not.

There is no such thing as proof in science. Only in mathematics can there be proof. In science, the Theory of Evolution is just as proven as Nuclear Theory and the Theory of Gravitation. That is, they are not proven facts - they could be found to be wrong tomorrow. But they have all stood up to decades (if not centuries) of criticism and no new evidence has so far proven them to be false. Therefore, they are as 'proven' as you can be in science.
Still not proof.


And your evidence for that is? Just faith, as usual?
Don't need evidence. Adam and Eve weren't primates, didn't evolve from primates. I know this. There's no proof and science has many faults. God doesn't have any. I'm not an animal and I didn't come from animals. Humans were never primates. It's not in the Bible and I don't believe it.

[Reindeer911_SC]

Davious made this statement:

If someone plans to seek Christ at 11:00, then that person couldn't have been saved at 10:30. That person could only be saved after he/she accepted Christ at 11:00 or sometime after. If that person died at 10:30, obviously that person didn't make it to 11:00 (when that person planned to seek Christ), therefore never accepting Christ, never receiving salvation.

That's not what I'm talking about Charmaine. Let's make an analogy... a murderer is on death row, and they know they are going to be executed next Tuesday. Because they know good and well they are going to die, they decide the night before to accept Jesus as their savior. According to what you are saying, that's not good enough because it shows insincerity on their part. Is this not correct?

Accepting Christ is not a ticket. Viewing it as a ticket is not sincerity at all. It's not a "ticket to ride". It's not a ticket, period. Loving a person for the purpose of getting something good out of that person is not true love. Would you truly love someone that you didn't really know because that person could keep you out of prison or win a case in court for you, in other words be your ticket out of something really bad? Would you call that love? If not, then why would God consider that love? He wouldn't. Seeking God for the purpose of keeping a person out of hell isn't true acceptance/true seeking. That person would be doing that only to get what he/she wanted out of God. That wouldn't matter whether it was early on in life or at the very end of life.
If a person is insincere, then that person is not saved.

Well, I suppose that answers the first question. So it really has nothing to do with the intention then, but the intention behind the intention. So would that mean that if a Pastor were to preach hellfire and brimstone as a means of gaining converts, that those people wouldn't be truly saved because they did it out of fear of what might happen to them? That being the case, they are accepting God out of fear of eternal torment, not out of love. Love and fear are polar opposites of each other, and a person can not love something if they truly fear it.

A "Sunday Christian" is not a true Christian, because a true Christian would serve God every single day after accepting Him. It's not something you can do one day a week. It's a lifetime committment after accepting Him. If you were married (I don't know if you are or not), then would you want your spouse to love you only once a week? Only be faithful to you once a week but return to infidelity the rest of the week? Would you consider that spouse faithful to you? If not, then why would God?

Most people would consider only one act of infidelity to consider the spouse unfaithful. In fact, that's both a sin and a capital crime in the Bible. Yet many people marry for anything but love. Maybe it's a prearranged marriage, maybe it's for companionship, or perhaps for some other mutual advantage. I know people who have stuck it out in a marriage even though the love died out long ago.

If I truly love my wife and consider her a friend, I would probably consider it a non-issue. Firstly, I wouldn't own her... people are not possessions. I also don't believe that true love is meant to be exclusive. Please don't mistake love with sex in the last sentence. Second, I would have to recognize in myself that I am not perfect, and if I am to be true to myself, then I would need to ask what I am doing to drive her to seek relations with another. Third, what would be the advantage of destroying the relationship?

Jesus along with many other Masters were very clear about the lessons of forgiveness. To me it would be terribly hypocritical for anyone, much less God, to be selective in who they are going to forgive.

Being sorry and repentant are 2 different things.

They are? Let's see if that's true...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/repentant

Adj. 1. repentant - feeling or expressing remorse for misdeeds

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sorry

Adj. 1. sorry - feeling or expressing regret or sorrow or a sense of loss over something done or undone

Perhaps I'm wrong, but they seem to be saying much the same thing.

I could sin, confess my sins to God, and say I'm sorry to God. I could later do the same thing and repeat the same steps with God. I could do it again and again and repeat the same steps. That's not being repentant.

Seems logical, but at the same token that's an awfully high goalpost you are setting for yourself. Can you truly say that you have never lied, gossiped, been judgmental, or self-righteous more than once in your life? If so, then can you truly say that you are sorry/repentant for your sins?

Being repentant means being deeply sorry and remorseful for committing sin. It means that you want to turn away from ALL sin with a total change of mind. You would have a deep regret for committing those sins with a change of heart. You would try your best to not ever commit that sin and any sin again. You would live for God. You would turn away from the ways of this world and follow the ways of God. Anybody could simply say they're sorry, but not have a change in heart and mind. So just being sorry isn't going to get it. You have to be truly repentant.
You "spoke" of a person spending their life trying to help other people and otherwise leading an exemplary life. The Bible says that no one can earn salvation. You're basing salvation on works, but the Bible says salvation is given by grace. Davious correctly mentioned the criminal hanging on the cross receiving salvation. He received salvation because He accepted Christ. He accepted Christ by believing that Jesus was who He really was and is - the Son of God, the Savior. He had faith in Jesus and that's what it takes to receive salvation - faith. Salvation was given to the criminal on the cross because of faith. He didn't earn it. If it was based on works, then he wouldn't have received salvation. But because he believed in/had faith in Christ, he was saved. By his acceptance of Christ, he had to have truly repented of his sins in his heart. God knows our hearts. Salvation is not earned by works. It's not earned by works plus given by grace. It's only given by grace. It it was based on works, then what is the sense of there being grace?

You do realize that you are contradicting yourself, don't you? On one hand you are saying that salvation is given by grace, not by works, and that is all that is necessary. On the other hand, you are judging others by saying Sunday Christians are not true Christians based upon your perception of their works, or that other people aren't saved because the intention behind their intention is not the correct one. How do you know?

It still doesn't really reconcile how someone can claim to be saved, later bomb an abortion clinic, and still get their ticket to heaven while the kind, loving, philanthropist is condemned to hell because maybe he was a Buddhist. Not only does that sound terribly fickle, but also cruel in that the non-believers are condemned to eternal torment. Why would I want to follow a God like that?

What exactly is everything else?


Oh, things like the earth being created on the first day, plants on the third day, and the sun/moon being created on the fourth day when we know that sequence of events is impossible.

[GothPunk]

Never said that. Don't need evidence. Adam and Eve weren't primates, didn't evolve from primates. I know this. There's no proof and science has many faults. God doesn't have any. I'm not an animal and I didn't come from animals. Humans were never primates. It's not in the Bible and I don't believe it.
How do you know this? This is a debate forum, and debates move forward through providing relevent examples and evidence. You however do not provide any reasoning or examples for your 'knowledge', and somehow just expect us to have faith in your words.

You very arrogantly claim that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one, when in fact a text to be used for personal guidance is open to many interpretations.

You can scream as loud as you want, you're still an animal and a primate. It is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

It is not an admirable trait to stoicly deny facts because you falsely deem them an attack upon your faith. You have said that:
Sorry. Still don't believe it. I don't believe information regarding God that comes from atheists/agnostics/unbelievers. All they want to do is disprove the existence of God. I just don't buy it.
You are kidding right? That is not what science is about. Science is about using our senses to understand the world around us. You assume that all scientists are atheists and agnostics, which is simply not true. Have you personally met every single atheist and agnostic in the world, to be able to make such a sweeping statement about them as a group? Your statement is an example of the worst kind of dogma - you refuse to budge in the face of blinding evidence because in your twisted logic evolution and science as a whole contradicts your faith, which it doesn't really.

Science offers you a better understanding of the world around us. This is what Genesis was all about too, it was about giving simpler people a better understanding of the world and themselves, and how everything came into being. You yourself have stated before that the Bible cannot all be true, because it was written down by men, who may have gotten things wrong. With a text like the Old Testament which has undergone many translations, ommissions and deletions, can you honestly say that the entire Book of Genesis is supposed to be taken literally? You say that the days in mentioned in Genesis are not actually 'days', but 'God days', which last ~1000 human years. Taking the Bible literally, it seems to allude that the Earth is a flat circle, and not a sphere. Do you believe the Earth is flat? No of course you don't, because you know that those parts are also not supposed to be taken literally.

Genesis is not a scientific treatise, stop pretending it is. It says your God created the Universe and people, isn't that all that should really matter to you? Science tells us that the universe in it's present form was not created in 7 days, or 7000 years, but across billions of years. This is not science manipulating facts to disprove God, they are just facts.

I'm not making any assumptions. I'm stating the truth that humans are and never were primates.
No primate can speak. Only humans can speak. Therefore humans aren't primates.
God can speak. God is not a primate. There's nothing difficult to understand about that.

No one said that God is a primate, only that humans are. Well, some primates can speak, humans can, oh and Neanderthals and Homo erectus certainly could too. Did you know that? See the thing is, you say that you understand human evolution, but I don't think that you do. If you did, you'd believe it, because it's pretty obvious. Your definition of what is human is also terribly limited. Is a fetus or a young child not a human, because they can't speak? Well, let's change the definition to potential to speak. But wait, what about disabled people who can't speak, are they not humans? Are you saying deaf people aren't human? Well, I guess they do have language. But did you know that they've also taught sign language to other primates, like gorilla's and orangutans? And they do speak you know, just because you can't understand their language does not mean they can't speak.

You do realise that humans are still evolving right? How then do you explain the fact that Inuit people are biochemically better adapted to the Artic cold, the variations in human skin colour, resistance to Malaria, Lactose tolerance and high altitude adaptations? Humans evolved these characteristics, how else can you explain them? Genesis certainly holds no answers if it is to be taken literally.

Besides, why do you accept that other animals have evolved, and not humans? You do realise that we use the same techniques to discover the evolutionary relationships between other animals as we do between humans and other primates. Fossils are just one facet of the wealth of evidence; we share pseudo-genes, near identical nuclear DNA sequences, anthropological similarities, similar prehistoric distibution patterns and near identical biochemistry. The reason why none of this is in the story of Genesis is because nobody knew about stuff like this back then, they wouldn't have been able to understand.

Your relationship with science comes across as completely fallacious. If it were not for our understanding that humans evolved via rodents (like mice) via lesser primates up to present day higher primates, we would not be able to make such great leaps and bounds in genetic medecine. We do not use mice in laboratories for the hell of it; virtually all mouse genes have human homologues, because we evolved from them. But of course, when we come up with a cure for cancer due in part to our knowledge of human evolution, I doubt you'll have such a problem with facts then.

Seeing as your God is all knowing, couldn't he have just triggered life on Earth knowing that in a few billion years humans would evolve? As an omnipotent being, he wouldn't even need to guide evolution, he'd just know, right?

There is no such thing as proof in science. Only in mathematics can there be proof. In science, the Theory of Evolution is just as proven as Nuclear Theory and the Theory of Gravitation. That is, they are not proven facts - they could be found to be wrong tomorrow. But they have all stood up to decades (if not centuries) of criticism and no new evidence has so far proven them to be false. Therefore, they are as 'proven' as you can be in science.

Well, they couldn't be found wrong per se, as the previous observations upon which they stand would still hold. What would happen would be that there would be new information and the Theories would adapt to them. However, it is so highly unlikely that fission of a Helium atom will give two atoms of Iron, that planets will start floating aimlessly apart from each other and that new organisms will just appear out of nowhere that for all intents and purposes we have 'proof'.

This is called being anti-dogmatic. I do not believe that religion and science are (necessarily) mutually exclusive, however literal dogmatic interpretations of Genesis does cause conflict.

[urisStar]

Never said that.
Well, I guess Christians are supposed to selfish and not caring about others then. Forgive me for caring. I was wrong.

So, are you a Christian? Are you saying you possess these things?

God do not force Himself on anyone, so why would Christians think that He give them special rights over His creation of free will to all? Instead of using the word selfish, respectful to other’s will would be a good substitute. Remember one plant, another water and it is the Holy Spirit is the one that give birth to the tree. The planter can’t continue to plant, dig up the seed, plant it again continuing that process forever and expect the seed to grow; no matter their intent. Same thing with watering, continuing to water and water will only kill the seed; regardless of intent. Just like with Adam and Eve, God always have a plan and you only bring failure when you try to help God or think your plan is better than His.

No, I am not a christian, I was spiritually liberated when I understood the work Jesus did on the cross for me and so I had to make the decision if I wanted to take on the mark of the beast or the seal of God and speaking the truth was no longer an acceptable substitute for doing the truth. If I was to have the peace, love and justice that Jesus promised to me and did delivered, it had to include me denouncing injustice and whatever would hinder that precious peace. As I got closer and closer to God through the Word, I became aware that christianity was a contradiction to what the Holy Spirit was teaching me and so I made the decision to cherish what Jesus did for me and in that spirit of thought I could not disrespect the Holy Spirit and exchange/trade Her in for an earthly/man teacher nor hand over the liberty wherein I was set free and invited to be a son of God and joint heir with Jesus over to an organization/earthly system/church that had no resemblance to my Big Brother. I could go on and on but this is enough to answer your question. Just remember, you asked! :D

This is called being anti-dogmatic. I do not believe that religion and science are (necessarily) mutually exclusive, however literal dogmatic interpretations of Genesis does cause conflict.

This is true, on so many other levels is this a conflict (not just literal), it would make your head spin! :soul:

[Rabid]

Adam and Eve weren't primates, didn't evolve from primates. I know this. There's no proof and science has many faults. God doesn't have any.

How do you know they weren't primates? You weren't there; you can't be 100% certain. Science has numerous faults, correct, but so did those who wrote the Bible. How can you be so certain that they didn't embellish the facts or full-out make up the story altogether? How can you be so sure that what they wrote was the whole truth; has it occurred to you that maybe they left something out?

Just because the fact that humans may have evolved from primates isn't in the Bible, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Maybe those who wrote it left something out. I had pizza for lunch today; that's not in the Bible. Does that negate the fact that it happened? Just because there's no Biblical proof doesn't mean that there's a lack of scientific proof; science is fallible, yes, but everything points toward evolution. Maybe someone just forgot or intentionally didn't write it down.

No primate can speak. Only humans can speak. Therefore humans aren't primates.

Hence evolution. Primates can't speak, but when they evolved, they somehow gained the ability.

I'm not an animal and I didn't come from animals. Humans were never primates. It's not in the Bible and I don't believe it.

Humans are animals; mammals, to be exact. We can't prove that we evolved from primates, but we have animal instincts, animal physical features... denying that humans are animals is like saying the sky isn't blue. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean that it's not true. You're right that this wasn't in the Bible because the term mammal and the classification of mammalia didn't exist. How could it have been in the Bible? If there was a God, wouldn't it have made more sense to reveal this later when technology and science could support such claims?

[hszmv]

Of course, we could also look at the fact that humans and chimpanzees share about 94% DNA. There's reasonable proof to conclude that it could be possible for a human/chimp hybrid (if one could get past the ewness factor that is).

And a horse is a horse of course, but of course, it shares something like 90% of its DNA with humans, which of course are not horses or zorses (zebra/horse hybrid). And to top it off, at 55%, we have more genetically in common with a mushroom (which is a fungus) then a 44% genetically identical sea urchine (which is an animal). Not to mention that in all living creatures, there are certain genes in certain sections of DNA that are identical to any other living creatures.

So, a poorly translated book, that was a copied version of a story told orally to one localized area about a tale of a place that doesn't exist is more reliable then DNA proof that our local cousins are apes, which are primates, which in turn are animals? How do you figure that again?

[Reindeer911_SC]

Of course, we could also look at the fact that humans and chimpanzees share about 94% DNA. There's reasonable proof to conclude that it could be possible for a human/chimp hybrid (if one could get past the ewness factor that is).

There certainly has been much speculation about a certain chimp named Oliver who has displayed some very human characteristics as to whether or not he might be a humanzee.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/cd/Humanzee2.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/8/8f/Humanzee-smaller.jpg

[RitaGirl]

1.Because God understood choice. He didn't create humans as robots, who were only capable of following God beause they were forced to. By giving them the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and telling them they can eat from all but this tree, it gives them a choice to either obey God, or to not obey God. He gave them free will, and the tree is an expression of that. If you don't have the option to disobey God, and are compelled to worship God, where is the choice, and what is the value of that worship?


2.What are your reference points? Genesis 1.1 and 1.2? Meaning Genesis chapter 1, verse 1 and chapter 1, verse 2? or are you doubling the chapters, and the first 1s are redundant, meaning Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2? But, either way, let me answer this...I suspect that the first 1s are unnecessary, as I think I found the verses you are referring to...Genesis 1:26, (New International Version, or NIV)



and this is most likely the verse that you are wanting to say contradicts the creation account in Chapter 2. However, its really just a simple story device. Chapter 1's account of human creation is the bare basic outline...Chapter 2 tells us in more detail how it actually happened. Chapter 2's account isn't an additional creation, its merely an attempt to explain verse 26 of Chapter 1 a little more clearly, thats all. Chapter 1 is a rough outline of the Creation story, Chapter 2 just explains part of Chapter 1 better. Its like if you had a blog, and you mentioned among a host of other things, you got a new job, without going into detail...then the next day, you come back, and write another blog, explaining the job, what it is, what your responsibilities are, etc...It wouldn't mean you got two jobs, because you wrote about it twice, it merely indicates that you didn't think just mentioning the new job was sufficient enough in the first blog, and decided to explain it a little better later.

I am having trouble finding the verse where it states that either Adam or Eve were created on the 7th day, while God was resting however...

and, this is to explain the ribs/side issue...Genesis Chapter 2, verse 21, 22 (again, NIV):



The Bible Gateway online site may not include the various footnotes a real Bible might...I am using a physical NIV Bible, not an online source...there are footnotes that explain a slight problem in the translation..in 21, the footnote indicates "or took part of the man's side" as a footnote to ribs, and in 22, it suggests "part" in place of rib. So, the following would also be a translation of those verses...



very minor issue regarding the translation of the original Hebrew word, not a contradiction. Substituting the alternate suggestions changes the meaning of the two verses in no way whatsoever. Its just a minor linguistical nuance, that's all.

Davious I agree with you.
That was a good way of explaining it.

[Doc Doofus]

Humans were never primates. It's not in the Bible and I don't believe it.

Ah, but Genesis doesn't contradict it, either. In fact, Genesis doesn't address that at all.

My point is this: Even if you take the MOST LITERAL and ABSOLUTE interpretation of Genesis, as Charmaine appears to be taking, there is still nothing in Genesis that precludes Adam and Eve being more like monkeys than modern humans Now, that's not the position I would take. (I take Genesis figuratively.) But even an honest and thoughtful fundamentalist would have to admit there is nothing to preclude this possibility.

As to the idea that humans then are the same as human now... I can point out how false that is very easily by again pointing to Genesis. In particular, the length of the lives of the first generations of Adam are very long, into the hundreds of years. Why is that? Well, there could be something rather magical at work here. You could say that maybe years were shorter, or God made people live longer, or whatever. But clearly the early humans of Genesis, as reported, did not have the normal human lifespan. Thus, we know humans have changed at least in that regard.

Plus, according to Genesis, there were other genes entering the pool from intercourse with angels.

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. . . .There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, that they bare CHILDREN to them, the same became MIGHTY MEN which were of old, men of renown" (Gen.6:1-4).

So according to the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis, there were significant changes in the size of humans by outbreeding. Did these genes alter anything else? Perhaps hair or length of tail or power of mental faculties? We don't know. But the device was definitely there to introduce significant genetic change into the physical appearance of the human race.

So then, if that could be true, why not something more trivial, like a change in whether humans had tails or whether they had fur?

And if you accept that, then many other changes were possible within this framework, and still totally consistent with the most literal interpretation of the Bible. Thus, to argue from faith that it couldn't be true is, well, not an argument by faith but just stubbornness.

[Doddibot]

Of course, we could also look at the fact that humans and chimpanzees share about 94% DNA. There's reasonable proof to conclude that it could be possible for a human/chimp hybrid (if one could get past the ewness factor that is).
I don't know if it would be that easy. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but chimps (and other apes) have 24 pairs. Therefore, though a chimpanzee's sperm could fertilise a human egg (or vice versa), their genetic material couldn't (or at least it's highly likely they wouldn't) fuse during the first round of mitosis.

[hszmv]

Actually, it is theoretical (there has been no documented case of a human/chimp offspring). A zorse or a liger (lion and tiger) are born by parents that are just about equal genetically, but with different chromosomes. I never said it would be viable for reproduction, just that the theory exists that we could have Humanzees. Chimps also have a close pair of chromosos (plus or minus a pair, If I remember my Prof's lecture about this).

[Doc Doofus]

Well, there's a way to find out of it's possible. If you're willing to risk getting fleas, that is...