Where did life begin? (Merged)

Do you believe we have a creator, aka "God"?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#2,754
#2,754
Bjorn_Yesterday said:
That's what it says. Time to dust off your Bible.
Click to expand...

I have it open right now, three different translations and two different lexicons. You ready to get dragged into it after being the one to accuse it of contradictions?

1:1 - 2:3 is the description of the creations of the heavens and earth.

2:4 describes it as a description of such.

From there, we get what you call a second creation story--which is technically correct, as it is a a more intimate and detailed description of God's creation and care for humanity.

It describes his creation of the garden that He provided for us (as opposed to the previous gross description of all the land and plant kingdom). Then it describes the creation of man. Then his responsibility to tend the garden that was given him.. Then his naming of the animals that had already been created. Then the creation of the woman.

There is no contradiction.

There was the description of the heavens and earth, animal kingdom, plant kingdom and humanity.

Then there was a detailed description of humanity, our specific planned home and our specifically planned purpose.

It's kind of like a call-out pane on a blueprint. You have the gross numbers and general big picture. Then there's call-out panes for more needed details. Do they contradict? Not usually. Do they add more detail? Sure.
 
#2,756
#2,756
Orange_Crush said:
I have it open right now, three different translations and two different lexicons. You ready to get dragged into it after being the one to accuse it of contradictions?

1:1 - 2:3 is the description of the creations of the heavens and earth.

2:4 describes it as a description of such.

From there, we get what you call a second creation story--which is technically correct, as it is a a more intimate and detailed description of God's creation and care for humanity.

It describes his creation of the garden that He provided for us (as opposed to the previous gross description of all the land and plant kingdom). Then it describes the creation of man. Then his responsibility to tend the garden that was given him.. Then his naming of the animals that had already been created. Then the creation of the woman.

There is no contradiction.

There was the description of the heavens and earth, animal kingdom, plant kingdom and humanity.

Then there was a detailed description of humanity, our specific planned home and our specifically planned purpose.

It's kind of like a call-out pane on a blueprint. You have the gross numbers and general big picture. Then there's call-out panes for more needed details. Do they contradict? Not usually. Do they add more detail? Sure.
Click to expand...

Well, they contradicted this time...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,759
#2,759
Bjorn_Yesterday said:
Well, they contradicted this time...
Click to expand...

As discussed. They don't. I just explained why, as one describes the timeline of the heavens, earth and the earth's contents. The other describes the timeline of the creation of the garden of Eden and humanity in it.

One is a timeline within the other timeline. You can either defend your assertion of contradiction or not. But to assert is not to establish.
 
#2,760
#2,760
And that is no way an endorsement of Kent Hovind, although I do like some of his stuff.
What say you now Bjorn?
 
Last edited:
#2,762
#2,762
BigO95 said:
Exercise is good for you! 😀
Click to expand...

Right or wrong, I've learned to automatically discount anyone who hides behind phrases such as "mental gymnastics" in lieu of interacting with someone's points. It's tantamount to an admission that you are either incapable of--or in open refusal of--logical, rational discussion.

It's like they can't or won't process anything more complex than a Snuffy Smith comic.
 
#2,763
#2,763
Orange_Crush said:
Right or wrong, I've learned to automatically discount anyone who hides behind phrases such as "mental gymnastics" in lieu of interacting with someone's points. It's tantamount to an admission that you are either incapable of--or in open refusal of--logical, rational discussion.

It's like they can't or won't process anything more complex than a Snuffy Smith comic.
Click to expand...

I do believe that you are right about that. I am sincerely asking for these proofs. Yet they still don't come.
You don't have to be as smart as others if you have Truth( Jesus') Gods Bible to back up what you say. The truth will stand when the world is on fire.
God is certainly smarter than the most brilliant of people.
 
#2,764
#2,764
And we certainly do not have to apologise for what the Bible clearly teaches. And we certainly do not have to bend it nor take it out of context to prove some Dogma or doctrine that meats are fancy. I say let the Bible say what it means and mean what it says.
 
Last edited:
#2,765
#2,765
Orange_Crush said:
Which parts are corrupted, and how do you decide which parts to disregard?

(I am elated to have this conversation, as I remember having these discussions with Vol8188, the atheist-on-offensive. Did you inherit this username from the last Dread Pirate Roberts? :))
Click to expand...

I go off what I consider to benefit life (mine and that of others), and I ignore what I don't consider to be beneficial.

That's the issue. Knowing what's real and what isn't. This document very well may have been devinely inspired, but along the way of getting to me it was touched by many, many men. Many of whom were corrupt (the power associated with religion attracts that).

"He who is without sin, cast the first stone" that whole story is widely regarded as not being orginally apart of the New Testament, and added after the fact. Makes one question how much else was not originally in there. You've also got to wonder how much of the entire Jesus story changed between it happening and it being written down. After years, facts and memories begin to blur. Eye witnesses aren't very reliable the day of an incident. Much less years later.

The line about Jesus praying until he sweated blood and The line about prayer and fasting in Mark was supposedly added after the fact.

"Give unto ceasar what is his"-Doesn't sound like Devine wisdom to me. Nothing is his.

And any verse fear mongering about hell (very few of those exist).

A large part of Mark is not part of the original work.

How much of the Bible was added by man, no one will know. But it is known that many things were added.
 
#2,767
#2,767
Vol8188 said:
I go off what I consider to benefit life (mine and that of others), and I ignore what I don't consider to be beneficial.

That's the issue. Knowing what's real and what isn't. This document very well may have been devinely inspired, but along the way of getting to me it was touched by many, many men. Many of whom were corrupt (the power associated with religion attracts that).

"He who is without sin, cast the first stone" that whole story is widely regarded as not being orginally apart of the New Testament, and added after the fact. Makes one question how much else was not originally in there. You've also got to wonder how much of the entire Jesus story changed between it happening and it being written down. After years, facts and memories begin to blur. Eye witnesses aren't very reliable the day of an incident. Much less years later.

The line about Jesus praying until he sweated blood and The line about prayer and fasting in Mark was supposedly added after the fact.

"Give unto ceasar what is his"-Doesn't sound like Devine wisdom to me. Nothing is his.

And any verse fear mongering about hell (very few of those exist).

A large part of Mark is not part of the original work.

How much of the Bible was added by man, no one will know. But it is known that many things were added.
Click to expand...

Have you done any study in the historicity of the numerous original autographs? It seems to me, as opposed to a single copy that could be horded and secretly changed by the powerful elite, we have thousands of manuscripts that can be dated and compared to judge what was originally there and what wasn't.

More to the point, what happened to change you from the atheist I used to know and love, to the... spiritualist? deist? super-naturalist? quasi-orthodox Christian? that is discussing some divine to have inspired some % of the Bible?
 
#2,769
#2,769
Vol8188 said:
I go off what I consider to benefit life (mine and that of others), and I ignore what I don't consider to be beneficial.

That's the issue. Knowing what's real and what isn't. This document very well may have been devinely inspired, but along the way of getting to me it was touched by many, many men. Many of whom were corrupt (the power associated with religion attracts that).

"He who is without sin, cast the first stone" that whole story is widely regarded as not being orginally apart of the New Testament, and added after the fact. Makes one question how much else was not originally in there. You've also got to wonder how much of the entire Jesus story changed between it happening and it being written down. After years, facts and memories begin to blur. Eye witnesses aren't very reliable the day of an incident. Much less years later.

The line about Jesus praying until he sweated blood and The line about prayer and fasting in Mark was supposedly added after the fact.

"Give unto ceasar what is his"-Doesn't sound like Devine wisdom to me. Nothing is his.

And any verse fear mongering about hell (very few of those exist).

A large part of Mark is not part of the original work.

How much of the Bible was added by man, no one will know. But it is known that many things were added.
Click to expand...

Sorry to double up...

If by chance the "go and sin no more" section wasn't original, does its absence change any Christian doctrine?

We're pretty sure it was written down while the players were still alive. If you haven't read it "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" is a pretty interesting read.

Not sure why the line about Him sweating blood is in dispute, or prayer.

I'd take eye witness testimony over a lack of it. In any event, it seems those that witnessed it, as well as the 40 days after, were certain enough to die for their witness.

Why wouldn't the "give unto Caesar" teaching fit the narrative of someone who said their Kingdom is Spiritual and not Physical? For the guy who said that carnality and materialism was to be exchanged for spiritual discipleship?

Especially considering the later teaching by his disciples to respect earthly governing authorities so as not to undermine the ministry?

If you're discounting verses based on personal preference or sensibilities, I'm not sure this will help, but Jesus talked more about Hell than heaven, and seemed to think it was a real place where the eternal soul was thrown, and where there was consciousness and gnashing of teeth.

Call it fear-mongering. Jesus said it was something to be feared more than physical suffering or physical death.

If it were "known" that many things were added, we'd all, well, "KNOW" that they were added as opposed to debating whether those few things were added. We debate it--i.e. some suspect it--because there are so many different manuscripts to compare.

The very thing that makes you doubt authenticity should (as I see it) help establish the gross authenticity.
 
#2,770
#2,770
Vol8188 said:
I go off what I consider to benefit life (mine and that of others), and I ignore what I don't consider to be beneficial.

That's the issue. Knowing what's real and what isn't. This document very well may have been devinely inspired, but along the way of getting to me it was touched by many, many men. Many of whom were corrupt (the power associated with religion attracts that).

"He who is without sin, cast the first stone" that whole story is widely regarded as not being orginally apart of the New Testament, and added after the fact. Makes one question how much else was not originally in there. You've also got to wonder how much of the entire Jesus story changed between it happening and it being written down. After years, facts and memories begin to blur. Eye witnesses aren't very reliable the day of an incident. Much less years later.

The line about Jesus praying until he sweated blood and The line about prayer and fasting in Mark was supposedly added after the fact.

"Give unto ceasar what is his"-Doesn't sound like Devine wisdom to me. Nothing is his.

And any verse fear mongering about hell (very few of those exist).

A large part of Mark is not part of the original work.

How much of the Bible was added by man, no one will know. But it is known that many things were added.
Click to expand...
Dr. James Jones pastor of the Harriman Baptist Tabernacle In Harriman Tennessee has some very good information concerning the history of the Bible. I am not certain if they have a website but if you could get ahold of brother Jones, he can greatly help you concerning the Bible and its authenticity.
 
#2,771
#2,771
BigO95 said:
Dr. James Jones pastor of the Harriman Baptist Tabernacle In Harriman Tennessee has some very good information concerning the history of the Bible. I am not certain if they have a website but if you could get ahold of brother Jones, he can greatly help you concerning the Bible and its authenticity.
Click to expand...

Some of those were simply things I don't like, but the fact that mark past chapter 16 verse 8 is not an original text and a few of the others I mentioned are the same (sweating blood and casting the first stone), those are pretty well established facts to my knowledge
 
#2,773
#2,773
BigO95 said:
Dr. James Jones pastor of the Harriman Baptist Tabernacle In Harriman Tennessee has some very good information concerning the history of the Bible. I am not certain if they have a website but if you could get ahold of brother Jones, he can greatly help you concerning the Bible and its authenticity.
Click to expand...

Here's a link that lists a number of things that were added later into the New Testament.

The issue is it opens a Pandora's box. Every time you can find one thing that wasn't the word of god, but instead the word of man, you have to ask:

"How much more was added by man?"

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/...f-blood-was-not-in-the-original-book-of-luke/
 
#2,775
#2,775
Vol8188 said:
Some of those were simply things I don't like, but the fact that mark past chapter 16 verse 8 is not an original text and a few of the others I mentioned are the same (sweating blood and casting the first stone), those are pretty well established facts to my knowledge
Click to expand...

There were many extant Greek text, you are referring to a corrupt text. Check out the received text majority text that the KJV was translated from.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top