As Christians how do people feel about David Quinn's response to yes vote?

hinault wrote: »

Can we select only one story from the OT and discuss that account?
If we were having a face to face discussion I'd have no problem discussing several biblical accounts simultaneously, but exchanging views using this site about Biblical account is very time consuming.

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of discussing several different stories because like another poster here yesterday who insisted on copying and pasting tracts of skeptic waffle comparing the gospels of Luke and Matthew,
the discussion gets literally bogged down.



I believe that miracles did take place and do take place.

LOL - I do not want to debate these stories as in their validity but I totally understand why you do not want to answer the question.

Look this has everything to do with what we are talking about.
I just want to know do you take every word of the bible literally or on some stories to you decide this is not meant to be taken literally?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

LOL - I do not want to debate these stories as in their validity but I totally understand why you do not want to answer the question.

Look this has everything to do with what we are talking about.
I just want to know do you take every word of the bible literally or on some stories to you decide this is not meant to be taken literally?

OK, you won't take up my invitation to select only one OT story to discuss.
Fair enough.

Instead I'll select one OT story and I'll discuss that with you.
I'll discuss the story of creation in Genesis.

Ask me a question about the creation story in Genesis.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Do you think the human species came from two individuals Adam and Eve as described in Genesis?

I accept that humanity derived from Adam and Eve.

hinault wrote: »

I accept that humanity derived from Adam and Eve.

Again I just want clarity on this as you sometimes come across as not committing to something....

Do you think humans walked the earth before Adam and Eve?
Or do you believe Adam and Eve where the first humans and every single person on this planet should be able to draw a direct linage from these two beings?

silverharp wrote: »

How did that work though? Biologically there was no first humans so there would have to have been people with souls and people without souls?

Genesis says God created man (Adam) and woman (Eve).
You accept that man and woman are biological entities?

Every person created has a soul

hinault wrote: »

I accept that Adam and Eve were the very first humans. And that all human lineage derives from them.

So your a fundamentalist....

Fundamentalist will never be taken seriously!
Our understanding of how genetics work would disprove the possibility of the entire species coming from a single lineage.
Even if you now go down the route of with "God" nothing is impossible it just becomes a silly argument.
Our understanding of the universe would dismiss the idea of it being created in 7 days and our understanding of our own planet would dismiss the idea of a global flood and a pair of animals of each species would somehow ensure their survival.

It is much more plausible these are just stories and or not meant to be taken literally because they do not make sense and fly in the face of what we know!

All these explanations came from primitive men with no understanding of how the world works, how the universe was formed and how genetics work...

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church when he discovered the earth revolved around the sun, this was seen as blasphemy as the Church believed the earth was the center of the universe.

You talk about "truth" but I doubt you really know what that means.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So your a fundamentalist....

Fundamentalist will never be taken seriously!
Our understanding of how genetics work would disprove the possibility of the entire species coming from a single lineage.
Even if you now go down the route of with "God" nothing is impossible it just becomes a silly argument.
Our understanding of the universe would dismiss the idea of it being created in 7 days.

Feel free then to try to argue that genetics prove the impossibility of the entire species coming from a single lineage.

And feel free to explain how the universe could not be created in 7 days.

What time period does a day in Genesis represent? 24 hours? Do you know?
If you do know, can you prove what you know or is your argument based upon your own belief?

hinault wrote: »

Feel free then to try to argue that genetics prove the impossibility of the entire species coming from a single lineage.

And feel free to explain how the universe could not be created in 7 days.

What time period does a day in Genesis represent? 24 hours? Do you know?
If you do know, can you prove what you know or is your argument based upon your own belief?

You are really grasping at straws, a few posts ago you talked about how God would ensure the integrity of the bible and not leave anything ambiguous when it came to marriage now you want to argue over what a day might have represented in Genesis...

All the scientific evidence show we did not come from two people you can choose to ignore that if you want but you have as much credibility as those who believe we where dropped off my aliens.
Actually the alien story probably more likely.

SW wrote: »

MOD NOTE

The discussion seems to be moving towards discussion of creationism.

Please use the Creationism superthread if you wish to continue that particular discussion.

Thanks for your attention.

It's not, just trying to establish how literal hinault was when it came to the bible, I have no interest in creationism.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are really grasping at straws, a few posts ago you talked about how God would ensure the integrity of the bible and not leave anything ambiguous when it came to marriage now you want to argue over what a day might have represented in Genesis...

I said that there is no ambiguity concerning Jesus teaching concerning morality and the morals. And there isn't.

In terms of Genesis, how do we know what time period a day refers to?
We simply don't.

By contrast Jesus teaching on the morality of marriage is clear. The son leaves his mother and father, and marries his wife and they become one and no man can separate a married couple. The clarity of that moral teaching is crystal.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

All the scientific evidence show we did not come from two people

No.

First of all, science says nothing. Science can't assert anything.
Scientists make assertions.

Scientists says that it is possible that humanity derived from one man and one woman.
Other scientists say that it is not possible that humanity derived from one man and one woman.

hinault wrote: »

I said that there is no ambiguity concerning Jesus

First of all, science says nothing. Science can't assert anything.
Scientists make assertions.

Scientists says that it is possible that humanity derived from one man and one woman.
Other scientists say that it is not possible that humanity derived from one man and one woman.

My BSc tells me otherwise, scientists do not say it is possible if anything they claim it impossible with what we currently know.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Actually we do!
I need to assume a day refers to a single rotation of the earth around the sun, else we will just need to abandon all descriptive terminology.
The earths rotation has only been getting slower since our solar systems has come into existence, there is actually a lot of science around this you should read up on it.

You're right.
You're making an assumption that one day refers to a single rotation of the Earth.

Your assumption could be right or it could be wrong.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But I see what you are saying God in his infinite wisdom and power could only protect the integrity of the Gospels the rest of the bible open to all sorts of ambiguity....

I am saying that with regard to the NT texts the writers of the texts continually refer to the fact that what is narrated in the texts is from eyewitness accounts. So either the narrator witnessed the events and the dialogue described in the text, or the narrator narrates an account given by an eyewitness to the events and words documented in the NT texts.

Whereas the majority of the Old Testament has no narration claiming to be based upon an eyewitness account.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

My BSc tells me otherwise, scientists do not say it is possible if anything they claim it impossible with what we currently know.

Incorrect.

Science makes no assertions.

Scientists make assertions.