[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism and Evolution; some essential differences

[Barbarian]

That's how Paul presented the serpent...literal and historical

Show us where St. Paul said that account was "literal and historical." You know that he didn't.

Do you think that the story of Abraham and Issac was literal and historical?

 

[Barbarian]

Adam and Eve were spared that day....they did die spiritually.

They died that day spiritually, as God said that they would. That was the serpent's deception. God was speaking of a spiritual death, not a literal one. The Serpent presented as a literal death, not a spiritual one.

..and physically they began to die....

That's not what God said, is it? He said they would die the day they ate from the tree. Nothing about "you will begin to die." That is a modern revision.

 

[Barbarian]

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

She is the mother of all living humans. Still consistent with orthodox belief. Do you see why this is such a problem for your new doctrine?

 

[Barbarian]

Do whales have nostrils?

Yep. they aren't on the end of their snouts, but they are indeed nostrils. In fact, there is a very nice series of whales showing how their nostrils moved farther back on their heads over time. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[Barbarian]

That's how Paul presented the serpent...literal and historical

2 Cor 11:3. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

The solution is easy. Forget you new interpretation and just accept Jesus as He is. It doesn't matter to your salvation whether you're a creationist or not. But if you make an idol of your new doctrine, then you are removing yourself from Christ.

Don't do that. Be a creationist if you like. But don't pretend it's an essential doctrine for salvation. That is the way you put yourself in danger of losing eternal life.

 

[Cygnus]

Show us where St. Paul said that account was "literal and historical." You know that he didn't.

Do you think that the story of Abraham and Issac was literal and historical?

I've been waiting for you to show all of us why it is presented as literal and historical acording to all literature definitions...but you insist it never happened as was a parable...the at the same time act as if it did happen but must apply extra biblical meaning to the scripture.

As to Abraham and Issac, absolutly literal and historical. That's the way both the OT and NT present it. Why would I doubt it?

 

[dirtfarmer]

The solution is easy. Forget you new interpretation and just accept Jesus as He is. It doesn't matter to your salvation whether you're a creationist or not. But if you make an idol of your new doctrine, then you are removing yourself from Christ.

Don't do that. Be a creationist if you like. But don't pretend it's an essential doctrine for salvation. That is the way you put yourself in danger of losing eternal life.

hello Barbarian, dirtfarmer here

It is my belief that interpreting Genesis as a "creationist" gives an understanding of how sin entered the world. You being a non-creationist, how do you explain how sin came into the world?

 

[Cygnus]

hello Barbarian, dirtfarmer here

It is my belief that interpreting Genesis as a "creationist" gives an understanding of how sin entered the world. You being a non-creationist, how do you explain how sin came into the world?

God selected two people out of the population...named them Adam and Eve, gave them souls, they sinned...and somehow all the people who didn't have sould died out and only Adam progeny remains. As you know, many x-tra biblical additions are needed for this to work....then more are needed to answer the contradictions that this Theo-Evo "doctrine" creates.

 

[brujaq]

Show us where St. Paul said that account was "literal and historical." You know that he didn't.

Do you think that the story of Abraham and Issac was literal and historical?

Yes , without a doubt. The proof is the covenant Genesis 17:9-14 ... Bwahahaha, you think a grown man and all of his family and adopted in Jewish males for generations even today would take a knife to their foreskin and still today if it weren't literal and historical ?