Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Again... instead of disparaging those that don't agree with you... why don't you actually go into some actual DETAILS about why you believe what you do?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I'm not, no it isn't and frankly, it's pointless trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Be well.
:e4e:
Right Divider
Body part
- Dodge the obvious
- Continue to reply to RD as if you are actually replying
Post #400. You're just not paying attention, are you?
And that's just bigotry.
So when you stop throwing ideas out because of their source, you'll be abiding by your own standard. :up:
You don't know what the law is?
Oh, right.
You don't. :chuckle:
I have to make up your nonsense for you?
You imply that because Genesis has poetry, then it cannot be an account of history. I don't hold to that.
So your nonsense implication has been challenged. Time to face up to it like a man. Explain to us how the presence of poetry negates the possibility of Genesis being a historical account. That, or disavow the notion that poetry rules out historicity. :thumb:
It's an account of history.
Therefore, something. :idunno:
You keep making these assertions as if they mean something, but refuse to explain them.
Simple descriptions. Genesis says that God created a firmament that separated the waters above from the waters below. Why can that not be a simple description of what actually happened? Why does it have to be an allegory? If it were an allegory, what does it mean?
You spend all your time spouting nonsense and waiting for your heroes to save you. Why not engage sensibly for once?
| Matthew The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers. Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram. Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon. Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David the king. David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah. Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa. Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah. Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah. Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah. Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor. Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud. Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. |
| Luke So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations. The Genealogy of Jesus Christ Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. |
To compare:
Matthew name/Luke name
-/God
-/Adam
-/Seth
-/Enosh
-/Cainan
-/Mahalalel
-/Jared
-/Enoch
-/Methuselah
-/Lamech
-/Noah
-/Shem
-/Arphaxad
-/Cainan
-/Shelah
-/Eber
-/Peleg
-/Reu
-/Serug
-/Nahor
-/Terah
Abraham/Abraham
Isaac/Isaac
Jacob/Jacob
Judah/Judah
Perez/Perez
Hezron/Hezron
Ram/Ram
Amminadab/Amminadab
Nahshon/Nahshon
Salmon/Salmon
Boaz/Boaz
Obed/Obed
Jesse/Jesse
David/David
Solomon/Nathan
Rehoboam/Mattathah
Abijah-Menan
Asa-Melea
Jehoshaphat-Eliakim
Joram-Jonan
Uzziah-Joseph
Jotham-Judah
Ahaz-Simeon
Hezekiah-Levi
Manasseh-Matthat
Amon-Jorim
Josiah-Eliezer
Jeconiah-Jose
Shealtiel-Er
Zerubbabel-Elmodam
Abiud-Cosam
Eliakim-Addi
Azor-Melchi
Zadok-Neri
Achim-Shealtiel
Eliud-Zerubbabel
- Rhesa
- Joannas
- Judah
- Joseph
- Semei
- Mattathiah
- Maath
- Naggai
- Esli
- Nahum
- Amos
- Mattathiah
- Joseph
- Janna
- Melchi
Eleazar-Levi
Matthan-Matthat
Jacob-Heli
Joseph/Joseph
Jesus/Jesus
To recap: You assert that Adam was not a real person, despite the genealogy in Luke listing him. You assert that the genealogy can be ignored because it is different from the one in Matthew. This is not a prima facie conclusion. What you need to show is why Luke's list cannot be indicating the historicity of Adam (disregarding all the other places where Adam is referred to as a real person).
So, explain to us. Why do these seemingly contradictory lists mean that Adam in Luke's must be "allegorical"?
Be specific. :up:
Except he did not know that the moon has more mass on the near side than on the far. He did not have enough curiosity to investigate whether I was right, preferring to default to "Creationist, therefore wrong." Moreover, he was unwilling to retract his silly characterization of me. You, likewise, just repeat the mantra that I've been disproved time and again, but you never go into specifics. No links. No quotes, just mockery and derision.
Is it your goal to be nothing but noise?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
That wasn't "you defining science". That was you citing to a link that far from contradicting anything I'd written only served to undermine your own position. Do you pay attention to anything yourself?
:AMR:
Of course it's not. "Creation science" throws out the scientific method from the get go by starting with an immutable conclusion. How have you not got this yet?
They can be dismissed because they're not science.
So, no specifics then.
Kinda figured.
Right Divider
Body part
AB "science" throws out the scientific method from the get go by starting with an immutable conclusion (that man-made "observations" are the ultimate source of "knowledge" and God's Word is to be disregarded in all cases). How have you not got this yet?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, you seem insistent on making it up for yourself, more's the pity.
If you can recognize allegory in the creation account then you should be able to understand that it is not a rigidly literal history and that the earth is not limited to being little more than ten thousand years old. Really is as simple as that.
Though not necessarily the one that you insist on it being.
Why can't it be an allegory? You think the Bible would go into scientific detail when nobody would have understood it per the thunderstorm example? If you weren't so constrained by your fundamentalism you'd see just how simple it is to recognize the allegory.
Save me from what? Your pomposity?
:freak:
The onus is not on me here Stripe. Why do the two accounts differ at all?
Explain that.
Be specific.
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
That's pretty silly on your part. The theory of evolution didn't start with a conclusion that tried to shoehorn data to support it and nor does God's word have to be discarded in order to accept it, as plenty of Christians can attest to.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You have been disproved time and again. Between Barb and Alate you've been schooled in science over and over again. How did you generally react? With stupid "Darwinist" tropes, one liner rubbish and silly mock smileys. You have absolutely no room to whine.
Right Divider
Body part
No, it's actually completely true.
I guess that you have no idea how the "theory of evolution" began.
LOL... plenty of "Christians" again.... they are your good friends.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Of course it isn't. If you honestly think that theories such as evolution and how the age of the earth was determined began with a pre-set conclusion then that just shows mammoth ignorance on your part, or deliberate dishonesty. Neither reflect well on you.
Right Divider
Body part
Unlike you... I actually understand how science works and how truth is determined.
You think both work on majority vote or on someone that you consider really smart saying something.
Neither reflect well on you.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
In certain areas you may well do but in regards to evolution and the age of the earth you assuredly don't. Science doesn't start with an immutable conclusion from the outset and the theory of evolution came about because of the evidence. Fact. You can stamp your feet and be ignorant or dishonest about it all that you want. Won't change anything.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Ha! Glad you noticed. That was the first time I'd ever happened to actually notice the "Insert Emoji" button in the toolbar--whereupon I found sorts of extra goodies to choose from.
Meanwhile, you have been asked numerous times, just in this thread, to provide something of substance to justify your slew of accusations. Not once have you come close to offering anything even resembling something useful.
The people you malign, on the other hand, have made many attempts to introduce evidence, reasoning and compromise.
To quote you: "Sad."