Are You Ready?

[Viper09]

There is no solid evidence of a global flood. At best there is proof of local floods in various regions. However, it is good to note that in every mythology throughout the world there is always a story about a flood.

Second, do yourself a favor Pacem and actually study the other religions before you go putting them down. The stories in the texts of the 3 monotheistic religions are very similar. The little differences are easily linked to the fact that they are authored by different people.

As previously mentioned, I think, all three even believe in the Old Testament. The only disagreement is over the New Testament which is simply a collection of writings of accounts that was put together in the early century by a group of people.

 

[Pacem]

Then let me submit to you:

Noah's Ark
Let me first tell you about the Ark itself. The story itself is actually quite believable after considering the logic behind it.

Noah's Ark is one of the most difficult Bible stories for people outside the faith to understand. From their perspective this is understandable. But to claim defiantly that anything is untrue, false or a fairytale without establishing why it's false is foolish at best. Without any evidence or reasoning to back up such a claim, it merely becomes personal opinion.
There are many reasons, however, to believe the Biblical story of the ark/flood as both accurate and true. Was I there? No. Did God Himself tell me? Yes, thruogh His living Word. Here's how it's true.
The pictures of Noah's Ark that you may have seen in childrens' stories of a tug-boat size vessel is not the actual size of the boat. Using the measurments as found in the Bible, the ark was comparable to many large, modern-day ocean liners. It had three decks, capable of holding the many animals that God brought to Noah, with ample room for both food and other provisions. But how could the ark hold all the species of animals of the entire earth?
A common mistake is confusing the word "species" with "kind." In the Bible, two and seven of every "kind" of animal (clean and unclean) went into the ark. But not every "species" needed to be there.

Here's an analogy that will help to illustrate this:
Imagine you are driving along the highway. All around you, you notice different vehicles... cars, trucks, etc. What does this have to do with the ark animals? There are many different models of vehicles, from very fast sports models to sub compacts; pick-up trucks to huge semi's, etc. But, for all the different models of cars, it is only one "kind" of vehicle. For the many models of trucks, only one "kind" of vehicle. Now, take this and compare it to the animals on the ark. There are many different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, birds, etc. but only ONE KIND of animal for each. If two of the horse kind were brought onto the ark, breed would not matter. It could be one Arabian and one draft horse, they would still both belong to the same "kind" of animal.
Considering all this, it would drastically reduce the number of actual animals needed for the ark, along with many of them possibly as young or in egg form, further increasing the space.

Further, there is much evidence in the sedimentary and fossil record of a vast, world-wide flood. Findings show trees standing perfectly upright, fossilized, penetrating through supposed millions of years of multiple layers of strata, and numerous fossil skeletons that are half in one layer, half in another. Dinosaur eggs have been found, as you well know, arranged in nests as they would be naturally. But what is not normally considered, as is the case in all the examples in this paragraph, that there was rapid deposition of sedimentary materials. This had to have happened very quickly, and not over ages of time, since the eggs would not have lasted that long, a tree would not have lasted countless generations, with soil and sediment gradually building up around it, slowely buring it over millions of years... and an animal would not stay intact as a skeleton the way it did, half in one strata and half in another, if only one half was buried millions of years ago, and the other half buried millions later. I will be bold and suggest a rapid flood (Noah?).

There is also a sedimentary layer of earth called the Austin Chalk, a single sedimentary layer of limestone that covers the entire globe, which could have only been laid down by a world wide flood event.
Further, the very fact that all the religions of the world today have a flood story does not take away from the validy of such a story at all. This fact is no coincidence, and actually backs up the Bible's account.
In the Bible after the flood, man's population grew to great numbers. This population was concentrated in one area because the people had no reason to move on to other areas. It was only after the tower of Babel incident that the people scattered to other regions, carrying the stories of the flood with them that were handed down. It was only after a very long time that this account became varied and distorted in the various groups of people that continued to grow and develope.
For this reason, the religions of today all having similar flood stories is actually a long-lasting proof of a common source.

 

[Pacem]

Second, do yourself a favor Pacem and actually study the other religions before you go putting them down. The stories in the texts of the 3 monotheistic religions are very similar. The little differences are easily linked to the fact that they are authored by different people.

As previously mentioned, I think, all three even believe in the Old Testament. The only disagreement is over the New Testament which is simply a collection of writings of accounts that was put together in the early century by a group of people.

To counter this, I will repeat what I have mentioned before. The Bible as it stands has a 100% perfect track record for being correct in everything it says, and that includes historical accounts, prophecy, places and events. No other religious text in all of history can even come close.

Physician, study for yourself. The Bible has time and time again proven itself, while the rest fail. Again, you can be sincere in your beliefs, but you can be sincerely wrong.

 

[Pacem]

Its the difference between correctness and truth.

Is not correctness and truth the same thing?
Also, is not incorrectness and falsehood the same thing?
The former deals with what is, the latter deals with what isn't.
Adam and Eve were definately historical characters. To say they are not is to suggest evidence to the contrary.
Since evolution falls sadly short in this area, there is no other option.

 

[Viper09]

To counter this, I will repeat what I have mentioned before. The Bible as it stands has a 100% perfect track record for being correct in everything it says, and that includes historical accounts, prophecy, places and events. No other religious text in all of history can even come close.

Physician, study for yourself. The Bible has time and time again proven itself, while the rest fail. Again, you can be sincere in your beliefs, but you can be sincerely wrong.

Again, you can be sincere in your beliefs, but you can be sincerely wrong.

Same can be said for everyone here, me and even you.

But anyways, the historical texts of the Christian Bible is just as accurate as the historical texts in the Qur'an and obviously the Hebrew Bible.

Again, do some reading into other religions.

 

[The Fallout]

Again, you can be sincere in your beliefs, but you can be sincerely wrong.

Same can be said for everyone here, me and even you.

But anyways, the historical texts of the Christian Bible is just as accurate as the historical texts in the Qur'an and obviously the Hebrew Bible.

Again, do some reading into other religions.

While Pacem seems respectable at least. There is NO deterring him from his belief. I don't bother getting into it all, but I just like to hear his opinion because at least he gives it in a respectable tone. Other than that though, trying to convince him he is wrong is pretty futile lol

 

[Nestorius]

Is not correctness and truth the same thing?
Also, is not incorrectness and falsehood the same thing?
The former deals with what is, the latter deals with what isn't.
Adam and Eve were definately historical characters. To say they are not is to suggest evidence to the contrary.
Since evolution falls sadly short in this area, there is no other option.

If you aren't asserting Adam lived 930 years, the genealogies are correct, and man has only walked the Earth for 6000 years or so, then you are misusing the term 'correct' in my opinion.

Facts in a work like the Illiad can also be correlated 'correctly' with history and archeology, but discovering this sheds nothing on the higher truth of that story. Same with the Genesis account.

 

[Pacem]

Again, you can be sincere in your beliefs, but you can be sincerely wrong.

Same can be said for everyone here, me and even you.

But anyways, the historical texts of the Christian Bible is just as accurate as the historical texts in the Qur'an and obviously the Hebrew Bible.

Again, do some reading into other religions.

Apparently you need to do some reading as well, friend.

The prophecies in the Qur'an are not 100% correct as they are in the Christian Bible. The only prophecies that had ever been fulfilled in them are the self-fulfilling prophecies of Mohammed, in which he basically told people what he was going to do.

In the Mormon religion, their religious texts fall dreadfully short in this area and many others. The people, places and events in the Mormon religious texts have never been able to be verified in even one single detail, as even the Smithsonian Institute had said in an official letter.

These are but a couple of examples.

If you still think the Qur'an is a reliable religious text, then read my next post.

 

[Pacem]

These are just a few areas where the Qu'ran is in error:

Let us go over each of the passages in the Bible that would seem to reference Mohammed in the Koran, shall we?

Deuteronomy 18:15-18
15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.
16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.

This is the promise God had made to Moses, and a passage the muslims believe as a prophecy fulfilled in Mohammed, of whom the Koran claims when it refers to "The unlettered Prophet," and also the muslims claim is also mentioned in their own [scriptures], in the Law and the Gospels (Surah 7:157).

This prophecy could not be a reference to Mohammed for several reasons.

1. The term "brethren" refers to Israel, not to their Arabian antagonists. Who would God raise up for Israel a prophet from their enemies?

2. In this very context, the term "brethren" means fellow Israelites. For the Levites were told:

Deuteronomy 18:2
They shall have no inheritance among their brothers; the LORD is their inheritance, as he promised them.

3. Elsewhere in this book the term "brethren also means fellow Israelites, not a foreigner. God told them to choose a king "from among your brethren," not a "foreigner." Israel has never chosen a non-Jewish king.

4. Mohammed came from Ishmael, as even Muslims admit, and heirs to the Jewish throne came from Isaac. When Abraham prayed:

Genesis 17:18
And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"
God emphatically replied:
Genesis 17:20-21a
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.
21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." (emphasis added)
And later, God repeated His promise to Abraham:
Genesis 21:12
But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. (emphasis added)
5. The Koran itself states that the prophetic line came through Isaac, not Ishael:
Surah 29:27
And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed...
The Muslim scholar Yusuf Ali adds the word "Abraham" and changes the meaning as follows:
We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained Among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation.
By adding Abraham, the father of Ishmael, he can includ Mohammed, a descendent of Ishmael, in the prophetic line! But Abraham's name is not found in the original Arabic text.

6. Jesus perfectly fulfilled this verse, since
a. He was from among His jewish brethren:
Galatians 4:4
But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son,
born of a woman, born under law,

b. He fulfilled Deuteronomy 18:18 perfectly:
Deuteronomy 18:18
I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them
everything I command him.
Jesus Himself said:
John 8:28
So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man,
then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and
that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the
Father has taught me.
And:
John 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father
who sent me commanded me what to say and how to
say it.

c. He called Himself a "prophet":
Luke 13:33
In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and
the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside
Jerusalem!
The people considered him a prophet:
Matthew 21:11
The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from
Nazareth in Galilee."
Luke 7:16
They were all filled with awe and praised God. "A great
prophet has appeared among us," they said. "God has
come to help his people."
John 4:19
"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a
prophet.
John 6:14
After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did,
they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to
come into the world."
John 7:40
On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely
this man is the Prophet."
John 9:17
Finally they turned again to the blind man, "What have
you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened."
The man replied, "He is a prophet."

As the Son of God, Jesus was:
• Prophet (speaking to men for God)
• Priest (speaking to God from men): Hebrews 7-10
• and King (reigning over men for God): Revelation 19-20
7. Finally, there are other characteristics of the "Prophet" to come that fit only Jesus, not Mohammed, such as, He spoke with God "face to face" and He performed "signs and wonders."
_____________________________________________

Deuteronomy 33:2
He said:
"The LORD came from Sinai
and dawned over them from Seir;
he shone forth from Mount Paran.
He came with myriads of holy ones
from the south, from his mountain slopes.

Islamic scholors today believe that this verse predicts the visitations of three people: Moses (on Sinai), another to "Seir" through Jesus, and a third in "Paran" (Arabia) through Mohammed who came to Mecca with an army of "ten thousand."

Let us break down this notion for a moment.

Firstly, this claim can be easily answered by looking at a Bible map. Paran and Seir are near Egypt in the Sinai peninsula, not in Palestine where Jesus m inistered. Nor was Paran near Mecca, but hundreds of miles away near southern Palestine in the north eastern Sinai.

Furthermore, this verse is speaking of the "LORD" (not Mohammed) coming. And He is coming with "ten thousands of saints," or "myriads of holy ones," not ten thousand soldiers, as Mohammed did.

Deuteronomy 33:2 (KJV)
And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

There is absolutely no basis in this text for the Muslim claim here.

Finally, this prophecy is said to be the one "with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death"

Deuteronomy 33:1
This is the blessing that Moses the man of God pronounced on the Israelites before his death.

If it were a prediction about Islam, which has been the constant enemy of Israel, it could scarcely have been a blessing to Israel. In fact, the chapter goes on to pronounce a blessing on each of the tribes of Israel by God, who "will thrust out the enemy".

Deuteronomy 33:27
The eternal God is your refuge,
and underneath are the everlasting arms.
He will drive out your enemy before you,
saying, 'Destroy him!'
_____________________________________________
Deuteronomy 34:10
Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

This is another verse that is used to argue that Jesus could not have been the predicted prophet, but was instead Mohammed.

Again, several things should be considered here.
1. The word "since" here means since Moses' death to the time this last chapter was written, most likely by Joshua. Even if Deuteronomy was written much later as some critics argue, it would still have been written many centuries before the time of Christ, and therefore, would not eliminate Him.

2. Jesus was the perfect fulfillment of this prediction of the prophet to come, not Mohammed (see comments above on Deut. 18).

3. This could not refer to Mohammed, since the prophet to come was like Moses:

Deuteronomy 34:11
who did all those miraculous signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land.

Mohammed, by his own confession, did not perform signs and wonders like Moses and Jesus (Surah 17:90-93).

4. The prophet that is to come was like Moses who spoke "face to face" with God (see Deut. 34:10 above). Mohammed never even claimed to speak to God directly, but got his revelations through angels (Surah 2:97).

But Jesus, like Moses, was:
a. a direct mediator:
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus,
Hebrews 9:15
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant,
that those who are called may receive the promised
eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom
to set them free from the sins committed under the first
covenant.
b. who communicated directly with God:
John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who
is at the Father's side, has made him known.
John 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who
sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.
_____________________________________________
Psalm 45:3-5
3 Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one;
clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.
4 In your majesty ride forth victoriously
in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness;
let your right hand display awesome deeds.
5 Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king's enemies;
let the nations fall beneath your feet.

This is another verse that is viewed by Muslims as another prophecy of Mohammed.
Since this verse speaks of one coming with the "sword" to subdue his enemies, it is viewed as a prediction of Mohammed, who was known as "the prophet of the sword," and claim Jesus could not possibly have been foretold here, since He never came with a sword, and site verses like the following in support:

Matthew 26:52
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him (Peter), "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

But this contention fails for three reasons:
1. The very next verse in Psalms identifies the person spoken of as "God":
Psalm 45:6
Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
whom Jesus claimed to be:
John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John 10:30
I and the Father are one."
But Mohammed denied he was God, saying he was only a human prophet.

2. The New Testament affirms that this passage refers to Christ:
Hebrews 1:8
But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

3. Although Jesus did not come the first time with a sword, He will at His second coming:
Revelation 19:11-16
11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war.
12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.
13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.
15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.
16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
_____________________________________________
Isaiah 21:7
When he sees chariots
with teams of horses,
riders on donkeys
or riders on camels,
let him be alert,
fully alert."

The claim here is that the rider of the donkeys is Jesus and the rider on camels to be Mohammed, which is believed to have superseded Jesus. However, this passage is actually speaking of the fall of Babylon:
Isaiah 21:9
Look, here comes a man in a chariot
with a team of horses.
And he gives back the answer:
'Babylon has fallen, has fallen!
All the images of its gods
lie shattered on the ground!' "

and the news of its fall that was spread by various means, mainly horses, donkeys and camels.
_____________________________________________
Habakkuk 3:3
God came from Teman,
the Holy One from Mount Paran.
Selah
His glory covered the heavens
and his praise filled the earth.

This verse is also used to point out the coming of Mohammed, and use it in connection with Deut. 33:2 (see above). Mentioned earlier above about Deuteronomy 33:2, Paran is nowhere near Mecca, but hundreds of miles away. The verse here is speaking of "God" coming. The "praise" couldn't refer to Mohammed because the subject of both "praise" and "glory" is God ("His"), and Mohammed is not God. *

* Subject matter compiled largely with the help of "When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties" by Norman L. Geisler/Thomas Howe, and can be purchased at Amazon.com.

Reading? I have done some reading...

 

[Pacem]

After all this... it is not possible that the God is Islam is the real God of the Bible that created us. There are just too many differences.

Another illustration of this is that in Islamic faith there is a sort of fatalism, that whatever happens, their god willed it to happen, whether good or bad. To take that a step further, their god is literally the author of both good AND evil, in cases intentionally and willfully leading people astray so they go to hell.

The true God of the Bible is not like that. God is only the author of good, and the author of our faith, wanting everyone to come to Him. Evil still undeniably exists, but it is through us that it exists, and through the efforts of the evil one (Satan).

 

[Pacem]

While Pacem seems respectable at least. There is NO deterring him from his belief. I don't bother getting into it all, but I just like to hear his opinion because at least he gives it in a respectable tone. Other than that though, trying to convince him he is wrong is pretty futile lol

Thank you, Fallout.

I do try to be respectful at all times of people and what they believe. I never try to bash anyone to bring them down, and I pray people treat me in return the same way.
I do not feel that I am being bashed here. In fact, I am quite enjoying this logical discussion.

 

[The Fallout]

Thank you, Fallout.

I do try to be respectful at all times of people and what they believe. I never try to bash anyone to bring them down, and I pray people treat me in return the same way.
I do not feel that I am being bashed here. In fact, I am quite enjoying this logical discussion.

Just know you seem to be a rare exception to the rule. At least from what I have experienced. So thank you for that.

 

[Nestorius]

Is not correctness and truth the same thing?
Also, is not incorrectness and falsehood the same thing?
The former deals with what is, the latter deals with what isn't.
Adam and Eve were definately historical characters. To say they are not is to suggest evidence to the contrary.
Since evolution falls sadly short in this area, there is no other option.

I try to answer again.

Correctness and truth are not the same thing.

Correctness deals with facts and validity. Its range is more limited than truth.

There is no evidence Adam and Eve were definite historical characters.

Evolution points to the contrary with a fossil record dating hundreds of thousands of years.

The truth of Adam and Eve is the story.

Treating the Adam and Eve story as a real physical event that occurred 6000 years ago as described in the narration of Genesis is to make an idol out of it in my opinion.

 

[Pacem]

In all honesty, you cannot use evolution as a valid argument against the historical validity of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, simply because most everything about evolution has been found out to be false (though it is still taught as fact which perplexes me).
Like I posted before, all of the missing links have been found not to be, polystrate fossils blow out of the water dating of "millions of years" of strata... and if evolution and strata dating were correct, fossil skeletons found half in one layer and half in another simply would not exist found in their current state, but they do.

So, to say Adam and Eve did not exist, using evolution as the reason for such a claim does not hold any water.

In the words of Sherlock Holmes:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. " – Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of Four

 

[Nestorius]

In all honesty, you cannot use evolution as a valid argument against the historical validity of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, simply because most everything about evolution has been found out to be false (though it is still taught as fact which perplexes me).
Like I posted before, all of the missing links have been found not to be, polystrate fossils blow out of the water dating of "millions of years" of strata... and if evolution and strata dating were correct, fossil skeletons found half in one layer and half in another simply would not exist found in their current state, but they do.

So, to say Adam and Eve did not exist, using evolution as the reason for such a claim does not hold any water.

In the words of Sherlock Holmes:

No, are really denying the existence of evolution? No dinosaurs either?

Do you believe the genealogy tables of the Old Testament are correct in calculating man's time on the Earth as 6015 years or so?

 

[Pacem]

No, are really denying the existence of evolution? No dinosaurs either?

Do you believe the genealogy tables of the Old Testament are correct in calculating man's time on the Earth as 6015 years or so?

Dinosaurs existed for sure. But the fact of their previous existance does not necessarily prove evolution. Where you see dino skeletons jumbled together, both predator and prey alike in the same heap (not likely to happen while they were alive since prey prefers to be far away from the predator), usually denotes a mass flood event. Even in small floods today, you see debris and bodies jumbled up together in small masses here and there.
Given on top of that, that the flora/fauna seperated by us by "millions" of years, are found in the same heap. Even flora from different climate zones are found in the same mass.

Evolution as described by the major contemporaries of secular science does not exist (for there is still no true evidence to support such claims), but however, micro-evolution DOES exist.

Some argue that micro-evolution, given enough time, produces macro-evolution to produce new species. While macro-evolution is not an observable phenomina, micro-evolution is. Thusly, micro-evolution (especially in reguards to Darwin's finches), has been observed to revert said species to its origional state over time, and not continue to produce any new species. The beaks of the finches did change yes, but then reverted back to their origional form over time.



It should also be pointed out that micro-evolution always uses genetic information already in existance and never creates new information.

 

[Nestorius]

But you are avoiding the time-frame question. Let's say you are correct that macro-evolution does not exist and man has always had the same form as long as he has existed. How long has he existed? Thousands of years? Tens of thousands? Or hundreds of thousands of years? What does the Bible say?

 

[Pacem]

I do believe that it is at the very least 6000 years, and at most 150,000 years.
I believe it at most to be 150,000 years, because even in the Biblical accounts it does not give a totally detailed timeline, but it gives us enough to calculate from how long people lived back in those days, and gives us for the most part great geneology records. There are a couple of exceptions that I can think of, one is that it does not say how old Adam was before Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel, nor how long Cain lived (if I remember correctly) before he had children.

There are even pre-flood records unearthed, independant of the Bible, that tell of people living at least that long or longer.

I should note that I believed in the max 150k scenario before I ever heard of the "genetic Adam and Eve" findings.

 

[Nestorius]

No need to know Cain's info.

Genesis 5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

And so the genealogical tables proceed from there... giving the age of man on Earth somewhere around 6000 years.

 

[Pacem]

Ahh... good call.

 

[Nestorius]

Reductio Ad Absurdum, the geneological tables are therefore incorrect as factual history.

The creation story of Genesis is not the history of the world of the flesh but of the spirit.

 

[Pacem]

That might be true if it were not for the description of the creation of the world.
Hence it is a story of the world, since it also describes the creation of same.

 

[Viper09]

Apparently you need to do some reading as well, friend.

The prophecies in the Qur'an are not 100% correct as they are in the Christian Bible. The only prophecies that had ever been fulfilled in them are the self-fulfilling prophecies of Mohammed, in which he basically told people what he was going to do.

In the Mormon religion, their religious texts fall dreadfully short in this area and many others. The people, places and events in the Mormon religious texts have never been able to be verified in even one single detail, as even the Smithsonian Institute had said in an official letter.

These are but a couple of examples.

If you still think the Qur'an is a reliable religious text, then read my next post.

When it comes to prophecies that all comes down to the person who interprets them. As for the Mormon religion...no I am not talking about their texts, that text is for someone else to discuss.

But what I refer to are the historical stories, contexts that can be proven. Such as cities, battles, people in the stories, etc. I don't argue over prophecies because that comes down to who believes them how they interpret it. Ones beliefs over prophecies typically can never be swayed as that is at the core of their belief.

Yet still, I see all 3 monotheistic religions as different ways of worshiping the same God. Different cultures that have different traditions of worshiping the same God. It is always natural to have differences.

Edit: By proven I refer to through processes such as Archaeology

 

[Pacem]

And I respect that.

However, I must point out at this time, that if people worship in such different ways that it changes the definition of what God truely is, then what they worship stops being the true God and starts being in effect an "idol" or a false God. Hence, what they worship is not the same God that true believers worship.

 

[Nestorius]

That might be true if it were not for the description of the creation of the world.
Hence it is a story of the world, since it also describes the creation of same.

In the beginning God created Heaven AND Earth. If the author meant Sky, he would have said that, but he said Heaven, which means he's talking about the creation of the forms. Did you not just say yourself that beings can not change their forms in evolution? Well this is the account of how they came about.

Otherwise how could Genesis 1:27 say

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

,

then after Adam was in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:21-22 say

21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

That's how it reads to me. They weren't interested in a physical genesis of the universe as they had more important ideas which they were trying to convey.

 

[Pacem]

The summery of all that is that "God created". The author does indeed say sky or "firmament" but that takes place later on.

"Male and female He created them" is definately true and holds the same validity. God only used different methods for the creation of them. For Adam it was from dust (which we all are compared to God, and even science proves since they say we're made of stardust), and for Eve it was from what was already existing, Adam's rib. This does not give credence to evolution, since even according to that theory, a new animal can evolve from a single bone. It was God that did the work.

 

[Nestorius]

God created Man and Women on the six day in Genesis 1:27.

But then in Genesis 2:7, after the seventh day "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Then see Genesis 2:22

So did God create Adam and Eve on the six day or after the seventh?

 

[Pacem]

This is a combining of both Genesis chapters 1 and 2.
Combined in this fashion, they tell the entire story as it happened. I have marked in this post where chapter 1 begins, then chapter 2 takes over, then back to chapter 1 again and so on. This is so that you can see that both chapters actually compliment each other, and not contradict. Both chapters are combined in verse order (not mixed and matched) with the exception of the very beginning and very end, which you will see why below.

Here it is:
THE COMBINED CREATION STORY (GENESIS CHAPTERS 1 & 2)
-------
Gen 2
-------
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
-------
Gen 1
-------
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And 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.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And 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.
25And 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.
-------
Gen 2
-------
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,

NOTE: <God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass..." etc. That does not necessarily mean everything sprung up immediately. It could have taken a few days for the variety of plants God created to grow out of the ground.>

6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
-------
Gen 1
-------
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
-------
Gen 2
-------
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.
11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold.
12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.)
13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.
14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

NOTE: <Here, God could have made the plants in the Garden grow a lot faster than elsewhere on earth, for the sake of the man and the woman He was going to put in it.>

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
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 surely die."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air <earlier on>. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
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.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
-------
Gen 1
-------
28And 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.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And 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 completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

To explain:
Genesis 2 does have in the beginning that God rested from the work He had been doing. Then it goes back and gives the details behind the account of Genesis 1, giving a more detailed view.

Genesis 1 is an overview while Genesis 2 is in the immortal words of the late Paul Harvey, "the rest of the story".

 

[Nestorius]

As if it were two holy texts, likely the creation myths of Judea and Israel put together as Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 but not combined. But I'd have to think those texts were not combined for a purpose otherwise the original arrangers could have done what you just did, and arrange the texts to tell that account.

 

[Pacem]

This true story was not meant to be combined, but I did so in order to show you that there is no error in the text. Both stories, the overview and the detailed account, are complete and accurate in and of themselves. And together they give the complete picture.

So in answer to your origional question, God created Adam and Eve BEFORE the 7th day when He rested.

 

[Nestorius]

This true story was not meant to be combined, but I did so in order to show you that there is no error in the text. Both stories, the overview and the detailed account, are complete and accurate in and of themselves. And together they give the complete picture.

So in answer to your origional question, God created Adam and Eve BEFORE the 7th day when He rested.

Funny how now I am arguing a literal interpretation and you are rationalizing the text.

 

[Viper09]

And I respect that.

However, I must point out at this time, that if people worship in such different ways that it changes the definition of what God truely is, then what they worship stops being the true God and starts being in effect an "idol" or a false God. Hence, what they worship is not the same God that true believers worship.

To you maybe. But God is still God no matter what way you wish to worship Him. It can be completely different from how you worship Him but that doesn't change who He is. Allah, Yahweh, God, nothing more than a cultural and language difference in translation. All the same God in the end.

 

[Pacem]

Funny how now I am arguing a literal interpretation and you are rationalizing the text.

lolz...
The point is, the beginning of Genesis 2 is the end of the outline story of Genesis 1. Then, it goes into more detail with the rest of Genesis 2, flashing back on Genesis 1 and filling in details.

Both chapters have a purpose on their own, and both tell complete stories on their own. At the same time, as with the Gospels, put together they tell the complete story.
There is no rationalizing here, that is simply the way it is.

 

[Pacem]

To you maybe. But God is still God no matter what way you wish to worship Him. It can be completely different from how you worship Him but that doesn't change who He is. Allah, Yahweh, God, nothing more than a cultural and language difference in translation. All the same God in the end.

The main reason why it is not the same god worshipped by all, is that God cannot contradict Himself.

God cannot say in one faith that Jesus is the only way to Him, while in another faith that the good deeds you do here on earth can earn you salvation (a way other than Jesus).

In the same way, the same God cannot in one faith hate the very sight of sin and evil, and in another faith be the direct author of it, causing ppl to sin.

Now we can take this to the extreme and say even the hindu god is the same God that Christians believe in basically, just viewed differently. Or, that all of the gods of old are the same God, for example, the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity.
There are too many contradictions here.

Therefore, since there are so many contradictions in so many different faiths and religions, not all of them can be true.

 

[Viper09]

The main reason why it is not the same god worshipped by all, is that God cannot contradict Himself.

God cannot say in one faith that Jesus is the only way to Him, while in another faith that the good deeds you do here on earth can earn you salvation (a way other than Jesus).

In the same way, the same God cannot in one faith hate the very sight of sin and evil, and in another faith be the direct author of it, causing ppl to sin.

Now we can take this to the extreme and say even the hindu god is the same God that Christians believe in basically, just viewed differently. Or, that all of the gods of old are the same God, for example, the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity.
There are too many contradictions here.

Therefore, since there are so many contradictions in so many different faiths and religions, not all of them can be true.

Again, all through interpretations.

 

[Nestorius]

lolz...
The point is, the beginning of Genesis 2 is the end of the outline story of Genesis 1. Then, it goes into more detail with the rest of Genesis 2, flashing back on Genesis 1 and filling in details.

Both chapters have a purpose on their own, and both tell complete stories on their own. At the same time, as with the Gospels, put together they tell the complete story.
There is no rationalizing here, that is simply the way it is.

Sure, we know its two texts, and your explanation was awesome. I never expected that, but it makes perfect sense. Yet reading the Bible literally, there must be a LITERARY reason why the text reads so Man is created twice. The Old Testament is a work of literature, surely you agree? It may be other things, but it is also this.

 

[Pacem]

Again, all through interpretations.

What other interpretation is there for "No one comes to the Father except through me."? These are the words of Jesus himself. Now if Jesus was right, then clearly all other assumed ways to God are false.

Being as point blank as his words are here, there is no room for interpretation.

 

[Pacem]

Sure, we know its two texts, and your explanation was awesome. I never expected that, but it makes perfect sense. Yet reading the Bible literally, there must be a LITERARY reason why the text reads so Man is created twice. The Old Testament is a work of literature, surely you agree? It may be other things, but it is also this.

Yes, there is a reason. The same reason other things in both chapters are repeated, cause 2 gives a more in-depth story.

 

[Aran]

I like to believe you're the best troll on Stratics, because otherwise I'm terrified that there may be more of you.

 

[Nestorius]

Yes, there is a reason. The same reason other things in both chapters are repeated, cause 2 gives a more in-depth story.

You've convinced me there now that I have thought about it.

What do you think the correct way of understanding Time in "And there was evening and there was morning" of Genesis 1? The event marked by the sun rising and setting over the surface of the Earth at a given location?

Would a pious Judean Priest living in the Assyrian era understand the meaning of an evening and a morning in a holy scripture as everyday sunrises and sunsets?

I believe Genesis Chapters 1 to 3 reads more correctly if events are not occurring in everyday Time. Its only in the expulsion from the Garden that Adam and Eve become mortal and guilty, in other words, temporal.

 

[The Fallout]

I like to believe you're the best troll on Stratics, because otherwise I'm terrified that there may be more of you.

lol watch Jesus Camp, you'll **** bricks.

 

[Aran]

No thanks!

 

[The Fallout]

No thanks!

Just to give you an idea that I know you don't want. The camp brought out a cardboard cut out of G.W. Bush and made the kids like praise him and pray to him. Oh my country is great

 

[Viper09]

lol watch Jesus Camp, you'll **** bricks.

Creepy movie.

But yeah, can't explain a belief different from his own without him throwing out passages trying to tell you that you're completely wrong because it's different from his own. Which sucks because I don't mind sharing my own beliefs. I try not to impose my beliefs while explaining. The only plus side is that he does it in at least a partially kind way...there are worse people out there.

 

[Mishkam]

Six thousand years later.

BAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

shouldnt you be wearing a helmet???

 

[Mishkam]

Quite simply because, while the people of other religions sincerely believe... even just as sincerely as Christians... that their way is right... you can be sincere about something and be sincerely wrong.

wow... judge not you self righteous twunt.

 

[Mishkam]

In all honesty, you cannot use evolution as a valid argument against the historical validity of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, simply because most everything about evolution has been found out to be false (though it is still taught as fact which perplexes me).
Like I posted before, all of the missing links have been found not to be, polystrate fossils blow out of the water dating of "millions of years" of strata... and if evolution and strata dating were correct, fossil skeletons found half in one layer and half in another simply would not exist found in their current state, but they do.

So, to say Adam and Eve did not exist, using evolution as the reason for such a claim does not hold any water.

dayum... there's buckets of fail in this post.
short of the sherlock holmes quote... there aint an ounce of correct in that post!

 

[Mishkam]

To counter this, I will repeat what I have mentioned before. The Bible as it stands has a 100% perfect track record for being correct in everything it says, and that includes historical accounts, prophecy, places and events.

well that's just blatantly wrong.

No other religious text in all of history can even come close.

the only reason the accounts given in the bible seem to agree with each other so completely is that it was edited to be that way. Ever hear of the council of Nicea????

Physician, study for yourself. The Bible has time and time again proven itself, while the rest fail. Again, you can be sincere in your beliefs, but you can be sincerely wrong.

no.. the bible has time and time again been proven wrong... and the religious tweak the meaning to fit what smarter men have proven.

in religion it is law until proven wrong, then it becomes metaphor.

 

[Pacem]

no.. the bible has time and time again been proven wrong... and the religious tweak the meaning to fit what smarter men have proven.

in religion it is law until proven wrong, then it becomes metaphor.

Can you give some examples of where it's been proven wrong?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

 

[Mishkam]

I do believe that it is at the very least 6000 years, and at most 150,000 years.

then you're ********.