Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Adam and Eve were Homo Erectus?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    It is derived from the information made available in the Bible. No doubt others have connected the dots in the same way that I have.
    Oh I see, you made it up. It isn't the teaching of the church though, right. I mean God is said to have created the earth and sky and only then, after its creation did he create a garden and Adam who he created from the dust of that earth. So where does that "dot" fit in your connection of dots?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      It isn't a position that I hold so you're asking the wrong person.
      The position that you hold is evolution is it not? That's the question I asked you. How could the first humans be the 2 million year ago Homo Erectus (Adam and Eve) and the biblical narrative fit together when you consider the line of ancestry from Adam to Jesus.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        Adam was created before the Earth had experienced rain. That should provide food for thought.
        Food for thought germinates an interesting and credible idea. This is the opposite of that. You do yourself no favors by not, at least, preempting the response given what we know of the history of precipitation on earth.

        Your pet theology isn't as fascinating as you think it is.

        Comment


        • #19

          I don't hold that Adam and Eve would have lived five million years ago long before the advent of the Homo genus, which was what Glenn promoted.

          My personal view is they were most likely what scientists like to call Early Modern Human (EMH) or Anatomically Modern Human (AMH).

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            I don't hold that Adam and Eve would have lived five million years ago long before the advent of the Homo genus, which was what Glenn promoted.

            My personal view is they were most likely what scientists like to call Early Modern Human (EMH) or Anatomically Modern Human (AMH).
            So Homosapiens of about 300,000 years ago in Africa?. But if you consider Adam to have been the first Homosapien from about 300,000 years ago, how do you square that with the biblical narrative of the ancestral lineage from Adam to Jesus?

            Comment


            • #21
              What about elves and orcs?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                I don't hold that Adam and Eve would have lived five million years ago long before the advent of the Homo genus, which was what Glenn promoted.

                My personal view is they were most likely what scientists like to call Early Modern Human (EMH) or Anatomically Modern Human (AMH).
                ….when animism was prevailing and monotheism didn’t exist. Meanwhile, human beings in Africa, Asia, and Europe ~100,000 years ago. By 50,000 years ago, morality still in infancy and human beings in Australia and Americas.





                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by whag View Post

                  Food for thought germinates an interesting and credible idea. This is the opposite of that. You do yourself no favors by not, at least, preempting the response given what we know of the history of precipitation on earth.

                  Your pet theology isn't as fascinating as you think it is.
                  On this issue, I don't have a "pet theology." It is a matter of some interest to determine whether Genesis (and which parts thereof) might fit with current knowledge rather than with factors that were unknown until relatively recently.

                  The tree of life is in Paradise, so, more food for thought.
                  There was a time when the Earth had not experienced rain, when the atmosphere was still forming roughly 4gya. Commentators until relatively recently didn't have the background knowledge that allowed for an assessment of the claim that man was formed when it had not yet rained on Earth. Likewise, cosmogeny does show that there was light without stars early in the formation of the universe. The chief difficulty is Adam's age - which could only fit the facts if the count of his years began with the fall rather than with his creation.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    On this issue, I don't have a "pet theology." It is a matter of some interest to determine whether Genesis (and which parts thereof) might fit with current knowledge rather than with factors that were unknown until relatively recently.
                    If you say so.

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    The tree of life is in Paradise, so, more food for thought.
                    It's not, though. Transposing the already unbelievable Genesis story onto another world is merely Advanced Kent Hovind to me, which is to say not thought provoking at all.

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    There was a time when the Earth had not experienced rain, when the atmosphere was still forming roughly 4gya.
                    Yea, like when it was molten? I'm lost on why this is so fascinating to you.

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    Commentators until relatively recently didn't have the background knowledge that allowed for an assessment of the claim that man was formed when it had not yet rained on Earth. Likewise, cosmogeny does show that there was light without stars early in the formation of the universe.
                    Pre-stellar photons doesn't translate to transposed Genesis drama, I'm sorry to inform you.

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    The chief difficulty is Adam's age - which could only fit the facts if the count of his years began with the fall rather than with his creation.
                    You've shown some facility at being honest about fall, flood, and Babel not reconciling with human history and the natural history record, so I'll play along. Please elaborate on why off-world Paradise is so compelling to you.



                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by whag View Post

                      Please elaborate on why off-world Paradise is so compelling to you.
                      First and foremost, the tree of life is in Paradise (Revelation 2:7; 22:1-2). Next Adam is created on Earth, given life, and transferred to Eden. (Genesis 2:7-8). That could read as either he was transferred to another location on Earth, or that he was removed from the Earth. Adam was created at a time when Earth was not capable of sustaining any advanced life forms - that leads to the conclusion that "transferred away from Earth" as the correct interpretation. Jewish theologians never paid any attention to the discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2: theologians having a bent to either reconcile discrepancies or affirm errors, it is reasonable to assume that they never saw any discrepancies. Either Genesis 1 and 2 are in conflict, or Eden is not on Earth; not on Earth is plausible, so, in view of the location of the tree of life, I regard claims of a conflict to be invented.
                      Then there was Rogue's comment that the flood would not necessarily have involved all humans, but only the descendants of Adam, which would make possible a flood around 6000 years past (assuming I did not misunderstand his comment). That was put on the back burner to see if anything would come of it. In the event, it does seem possible. Your own comment regarding death being part of the world system from the first - (it is still on the back-burner) - which feeds to the possibility that neither sin nor death was absent, but that death-by-sin was a new development (reiterating: it is still on the back-burner).

                      see also
                      The Talmudists and Cabalists agree that there are two gardens of Eden: one, the terrestrial, of abundant fertility and luxuriant vegetation; the other, celestial, the habitation of righteous, immortal souls. These two are known as the "lower" and "higher" Gan Eden.
                      Ezekiel's conception of Eden is not unlike that of the heavenly paradise in Enoch xxiii.-xxviii. The happy destination of the righteous is pictured in this work (which dates from 200 to 170 B.C.) as a great mountain in the midst of the earth from under which streams of water flow. At the center of its sacred enclosure a palm-tree grows. Similar views find expression in other apocalypses (comp. Apoc. Baruch, iv.; II Esd. viii. 52; Rev. ii. 7, xxii. 2 et seq.). These passages form the transition from the earlier ideas of paradise as man's primitive home to the Talmudic and New Testament conceptions of paradise as the final abode of the blessed. (earlier ideas?)
                      The Garden of Eden is not even alluded to in any writings before the post-exilic prophets (Ezek. xxviii. 13, xxxi. 9; Isa. li. 3; but comp. Gen. xiii. 10, and even in these no reference is found to the Fall. The contention that, notwithstanding this surprising absence of reference to the story and the theme, the Hebrews of Biblical times nevertheless entertained the notion that through the fall of the first man their own nature was corrupted, is untenable.
                      Last edited by tabibito; 08-15-2023, 01:35 AM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        First and foremost, the tree of life is in Paradise (Revelation 2:7; 22:1-2). Next Adam is created on Earth, given life, and transferred to Eden. (Genesis 2:7-8). That could read as either he was transferred to another location on Earth, or that he was removed from the Earth. Adam was created at a time when Earth was not capable of sustaining any advanced life forms - that leads to the conclusion that "transferred away from Earth" as the correct interpretation.
                        Human beings, like all animals, have a genetic and morphological history. Like all biological histories, they’re made discoverable and investigable. You’re proposing something preposterous: that God 4bya creates the first human being fully formed as he did in Genesis, transplants Adam to another world and does all the stuff described in literal Genesis, and then (like a prankster) waits to see his beloved masterwork discover who she is (an evolved primate with an ancestral lineage with fish and tetrapods). He watches as this creature with his likeness and image vexes about it needlessly (as Darwin and millions of others clearly did and currently do).

                        Tears, terror, bawling, argumentation, confusion—all sewn by the person who is not the author of confusion.

                        33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        Jewish theologians never paid any attention to the discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2: theologians having a bent to either reconcile discrepancies or affirm errors, it is reasonable to assume that they never saw any discrepancies. Either Genesis 1 and 2 are in conflict, or Eden is not on Earth; not on Earth is plausible, so, in view of the location of the tree of life, I regard claims of a conflict to be invented.
                        Or—and hear me out here—it was composed, like much of the Bible, by multiple authors and the oral tradition behind it remained intact. Your perseverating on the discrepancy is unwarranted and will never be resolved so long as the problem I described chafes with your hypothesis.

                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        Then there was Rogue's comment that the flood would not necessarily have involved all humans, but only the descendants of Adam, which would make possible a flood around 6000 years past (assuming I did not misunderstand his comment). That was put on the back burner to see if anything would come of it. In the event, it does seem possible.
                        He could not have said anything that ridiculous. I refuse to believe he said that. I will give rogue the benefit of the doubt that he did not say the flood surgically struck only “Adam’s descendants.”

                        This is the serious entertainment of an idea that creates way more problems than it solves.

                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        Your own comment regarding death being part of the world system from the first - (it is still on the back-burner) - which feeds to the possibility that neither sin nor death was absent, but that death-by-sin was a new development (reiterating: it is still on the back-burner).
                        Put it on the front burner, and crank it high. Any proposal of a world without death inherently assumes another type of hell. Death might make you queasy, but a sardine-can world should make you even more squeamish.

                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        see also
                        The Talmudists and Cabalists agree that there are two gardens of Eden: one, the terrestrial, of abundant fertility and luxuriant vegetation; the other, celestial, the habitation of righteous, immortal souls. These two are known as the "lower" and "higher" Gan Eden.
                        Ezekiel's conception of Eden is not unlike that of the heavenly paradise in Enoch xxiii.-xxviii. The happy destination of the righteous is pictured in this work (which dates from 200 to 170 B.C.) as a great mountain in the midst of the earth from under which streams of water flow. At the center of its sacred enclosure a palm-tree grows. Similar views find expression in other apocalypses (comp. Apoc. Baruch, iv.; II Esd. viii. 52; Rev. ii. 7, xxii. 2 et seq.). These passages form the transition from the earlier ideas of paradise as man's primitive home to the Talmudic and New Testament conceptions of paradise as the final abode of the blessed. (earlier ideas?)
                        The Garden of Eden is not even alluded to in any writings before the post-exilic prophets (Ezek. xxviii. 13, xxxi. 9; Isa. li. 3; but comp. Gen. xiii. 10, and even in these no reference is found to the Fall. The contention that, notwithstanding this surprising absence of reference to the story and the theme, the Hebrews of Biblical times nevertheless entertained the notion that through the fall of the first man their own nature was corrupted, is untenable.
                        “Untenable” is an understatement. Your view is as dangerous as knuckle-dragging creationism, solving nothing while having the faint appearance of conciliation and sophistication. Duane Gish in drag.
                        Last edited by whag; 08-15-2023, 12:34 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by whag View Post

                          Human beings, like all animals, have a genetic and morphological history. Like all biological histories, they’re made discoverable and investigable. You’re proposing something preposterous: that God 4bya creates the first human being fully formed as he did in Genesis, transplants Adam to another world and does all the stuff described in literal Genesis, and then (like a prankster) waits to see his beloved masterwork discover who she is (an evolved primate with an ancestral lineage with fish and tetrapods). He watches as this creature with his likeness and image vexes about it needlessly (as Darwin and millions of others clearly did and currently do).
                          The Bible makes statements indicating the possibility that Adam was created independently of the processes of evolution. The indication is that Adam was a creation alongside evolution, which otherwise resulted in the development of humans. Things regularly died long before the fall - an undeniable fact. Things also died long before the invention of fire-arms - fire-arms only introduced a new cause of death. Likewise death-by-sin introduced a new cause of death. Neither one introduced death itself.

                          Tears, terror, bawling, argumentation, confusion—all sewn by the person who is not the author of confusion.
                          It is not clear to me how any confusion necessarily derives.

                          Or—and hear me out here—it was composed, like much of the Bible, by multiple authors and the oral tradition behind it remained intact. Your perseverating on the discrepancy is unwarranted and will never be resolved so long as the problem I described chafes with your hypothesis.
                          It does seem likely.

                          He could not have said anything that ridiculous. I refuse to believe he said that. I will give rogue the benefit of the doubt that he did not say the flood surgically struck only “Adam’s descendants.”
                          As I recall, Rogue proposed it as one of a number of possibilities. I don't recall whether he billed it as a viable proposal.

                          This is the serious entertainment of an idea that creates way more problems than it solves.
                          If Adam was created independently of evolution, there is no problem. The concept may be considered unseemly, but seemliness is not a particularly high priority.

                          Put it on the front burner, and crank it high. Any proposal of a world without death inherently assumes another type of hell.
                          I would never have proposed anything so ridiculous.

                          “Untenable” is an understatement. Your view is as dangerous as knuckle-dragging creationism, solving nothing while having the faint appearance of conciliation and sophistication. Duane Gish in drag.
                          Does the Bible say that Adam was created at a time when rain was unknown on the Earth? Does the Bible declare that the tree of life is in Paradise? Are there any ANE antecedents making similar claims? My proposal shows that Genesis 1 and 2 are not in conflict with each other, without any abrogation of the texts. The implication for evolution is a whole other issue, but my proposal does not in any way deny the process of evolution - not a random process, but governed by mathematical rules - in the natural course. Rather than simply declaring the proposal ludicrous and dangerous, perhaps an account of just how and where it is flawed is in order.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            The Bible makes statements indicating the possibility that Adam was created independently of the processes of evolution. The indication is that Adam was a creation alongside evolution, which otherwise resulted in the development of humans.
                            What's the point of evolution cooking up the human species over billions of years when God creates the same form instantly with all its evidence of history?

                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Things regularly died long before the fall - an undeniable fact. Things also died long before the invention of fire-arms - fire-arms only introduced a new cause of death. Likewise death-by-sin introduced a new cause of death. Neither one introduced death itself.

                            It is not clear to me how any confusion necessarily derives.
                            The confusion comes from discovering the process is a ruse. God creates the controversy by putting the history in the ground and in genes. Adam looks evolved and behaves evolved but isn't. You inadvertently acknowledge the confusion here.

                            God authors that confusion.

                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            If Adam was created independently of evolution, there is no problem. The concept may be considered unseemly, but seemliness is not a particularly high priority.
                            It's problematic because human beings of the same essence and moral quality as Adam's descendants occupy the rest of the globe and create the same mayhem God killed Adam's descendants for. It's not so much unseemly as stupid.

                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            I would never have proposed anything so ridiculous.
                            I thought when you said "Your own comment regarding death being part of the world system from the first - (it is still on the back-burner)"

                            Pardon me if I don't know what you mean by "it is still on the back burner"; that sounds like you haven't committed to accepting it.

                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Does the Bible say that Adam was created at a time when rain was unknown on the Earth? Does the Bible declare that the tree of life is in Paradise? Are there any ANE antecedents making similar claims? My proposal shows that Genesis 1 and 2 are not in conflict with each other, without any abrogation of the texts. The implication for evolution is a whole other issue, but my proposal does not in any way deny the process of evolution - not a random process, but governed by mathematical rules - in the natural course. Rather than simply declaring the proposal ludicrous and dangerous, perhaps an account of just how and where it is flawed is in order.
                            Again, it's flawed because human beings of the same essence and moral quality as Adam's descendants occupy the rest of the globe and create the same mayhem God killed Adam's descendants for. Redundant Adam, fully formed and competing with mathematically evolved Adam, solves nothing. It's a complicated attempt to resolve a non-problem which has an easy explanation that I covered in my previous post:

                            Me: Or—and hear me out here—it was composed, like much of the Bible, by multiple authors and the oral tradition behind it remained intact. Your perseverating on the discrepancy is unwarranted and will never be resolved so long as the problem I described chafes with your hypothesis.

                            You: It does seem likely.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by whag View Post

                              What's the point of evolution cooking up the human species over billions of years when God creates the same form instantly with all its evidence of history?



                              The confusion comes from discovering the process is a ruse. God creates the controversy by putting the history in the ground and in genes. Adam looks evolved and behaves evolved but isn't. You inadvertently acknowledge the confusion here.

                              God authors that confusion.
                              An artist reproduces a work that can't be distinguished from the original. Provided that the copy is not promoted as an original, there is no ruse and no confusion. Jesus was a human, necessarily made to be indistinguishable from any other human, but without human ancestry. (why it was necessary isn't explained, just that it was necessary) No ruse and no confusion - the Bible makes it clear that Jesus did not have human provenance. When it comes to Adam however, the matter is not quite so clear cut. Nonetheless, it is still reasonably easy to determine that Adam (unlike run of the mill humans) might have been without an evolved line of development. God's creation of humans in Genesis 1 is considered to be the same as the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 - but that is not explicitly stated. The Hebrew scriptures were produced after the Babylonian captivity - how faithful they are to the earlier Paleo Hebrew Scriptures is a matter of speculation: those earlier scriptures have disappeared almost without a trace.
                              No more than a dozen words added to or subtracted from the Hebrew record would substantially alter the information contained in Genesis 1 and 2, but it is clear enough that Adam and Eve have been creations independent of evolution on the basis of the information that is available, assuming that the information has not been corrupted.

                              I thought when you said "Your own comment regarding death being part of the world system from the first - (it is still on the back-burner)"

                              Pardon me if I don't know what you mean by "it is still on the back burner"; that sounds like you haven't committed to accepting it.
                              I haven't committed to the concept that "death by sin" was a new development.

                              Again, it's flawed because human beings of the same essence and moral quality as Adam's descendants occupy the rest of the globe and create the same mayhem God killed Adam's descendants for. Redundant Adam, fully formed and competing with mathematically evolved Adam, solves nothing. It's a complicated attempt to resolve a non-problem which has an easy explanation that I covered in my previous post:
                              There's nothing complicated about it. Examination of the text and comparing the results with what is known leads naturally to a "seems likely." The concept that evolution was the result of random mutation prompted by chance conditions rather than being based in a set of mathematical laws was only a short time ago - less than a decade, IIRC - also in the list of "seems likelies," or rather, it was being promoted as fact.

                              Me: Or—and hear me out here—it was composed, like much of the Bible, by multiple authors and the oral tradition behind it remained intact. Your perseverating on the discrepancy is unwarranted and will never be resolved so long as the problem I described chafes with your hypothesis.

                              You: It does seem likely.

                              1/ seems. 2/ likely. "Seems likelies" have a bad habit of not bearing fruit.
                              Last edited by tabibito; 08-17-2023, 06:14 AM.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                An artist reproduces a work that can't be distinguished from the original. Provided that the copy is not promoted as an original, there is no ruse and no confusion. Jesus was a human, necessarily made to be indistinguishable from any other human, but without human ancestry. (why it was necessary isn't explained, just that it was necessary)
                                Matthew and Luke provide genealogies tracing Jesus' lineage back to King David, who comes from Adam (I don’t believe this stuff. Just playing along.)

                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                No ruse and no confusion- the Bible makes it clear that Jesus did not have human provenance.
                                Except for a lineage tracing back to Adam.

                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                When it comes to Adam however, the matter is not quite so clear cut. Nonetheless, it is still reasonably easy to determine that Adam (unlike run of the mill humans) might have been without an evolved line of development. God's creation of humans in Genesis 1 is considered to be the same as the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 - but that is not explicitly stated. The Hebrew scriptures were produced after the Babylonian captivity - how faithful they are to the earlier Paleo Hebrew Scriptures is a matter of speculation: those earlier scriptures have disappeared almost without a trace.
                                You’re extrapolating way too much from way too little. Millennia of oral tradition finally compiled haphazardly in written form is a more sensible explanation for the discrepancy.

                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                No more than a dozen words added to or subtracted from the Hebrew record would substantially alter the information contained in Genesis 1 and 2, but it is clear enough that Adam and Eve have been creations independent of evolution on the basis of the information that is available, assuming that the information has not been corrupted.
                                It is clear enough it is a myth and that you’re imagining a wild scenario to avoid force fitting them into the true story of human evolution.

                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                I haven't committed to the concept that "death by sin" was a new development.
                                Please pay attention because this is getting repetitive and tiresome. You said "Your own comment regarding death being part of the world system from the first - (it is still on the back-burner)." My comment was that death is woven into biological existence—an undeniable fact that shouldn’t be on your “back burner.” You’re conflating that with this (your statement): death-by-sin was a new development (reiterating: it is still on the back-burner).”

                                Two different things you’re putting on the same back burner—the former being the FACT and latter being the religious speculation with which you’re mightily struggling. Get it straight, please, then make your argument.

                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                There's nothing complicated about it. Examination of the text and comparing the results with what is known leads naturally to a "seems likely." The concept that evolution was the result of random mutation prompted by chance conditions rather than being based in a set of mathematical laws was only a short time ago - less than a decade, IIRC - also in the list of "seems likelies," or rather, it was being promoted as fact.
                                It’s so complicated, it’s confusing you on the simple matter of life and death. It somehow slipped your mind that Jesus had an Adamic lineage. Random vs. mathematical is immaterial in this argument.

                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                1/ seems. 2/ likely. "Seems likelies" have a bad habit of not bearing fruit.
                                Religious fan fiction has a bad habit of never bearing fruit.

                                (BTW, please do me the courtesy of responding to my reply in the Revelation thread.)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 12:52 PM
                                74 responses
                                309 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 01:46 PM
                                60 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 06:06 AM
                                144 responses
                                721 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-03-2024, 09:07 AM
                                62 responses
                                317 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post eider
                                by eider
                                 
                                Started by whag, 01-26-2024, 01:08 PM
                                53 responses
                                311 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X