(July 2, 2018 at 8:01 pm)JairCrawford Wrote:

(July 2, 2018 at 7:57 pm)Kit Wrote: Worshiping Jesus is worshiping a book.  Both are fictional.

Don't get me wrong, Jesus' message is "awesome", but what he had to state was nothing new that humanity didn't already understand at the time.  And without Jesus, there is no Christianity.  Which is what makes the Christian need to keep Jesus alive through faith a major problem for human progression.

I don't think having faith in Jesus and human progression need be mutually exclusive. It's the unfortunate truth that there is so much of the proverbial bath water still associated with faith in Jesus, and said bath water is, without any doubt, hindering human progression massively.

Not one person in human history has ever had any real faith in Jesus.  It's just pretend.  If you had faith in Jesus then you could easily do what he said a person with faith could do.  So far not one person has ever done it.

This is interesting! I will do further reading.

I've decided not to rely to "Hey, Christians/Theists threads." Soliciting the opinions of believers where they are a very small minority and probably not a good representative sample is like fishing for salt water fish in a fresh water stream.

(July 2, 2018 at 6:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: So, let me see if I follow you.  You're saying, based upon your interpretation of a supposed difference in timeline in Genesis 2, that God created man in his image on day three, and he then again created man in his image on day 6, and that likeness was a physical one, not a spiritual one?  That day 6 man, day 3 man, and God were all genetically compatible?

I must say that's a novel heresy, if nothing else.

Curious though, why did God give dominion over the beasts and birds and whatnot to day 6 man, but not to day 3 man?  Do we not then have dominion over the earth?

This is what happens to a whole religious group when you have traditional readings trump Godly sense and direction.

My reason for my reading (1st again this is an example of me being given knowledge i did not previously have. this is god 'beaming information into my head) 1st and fore most the reason for this was to correct genesis 1's ending on day 6. it should end on day seven which would carry genesis 1 into genesis 2 down to the 4 verse as that would conclude the 7 day creation over view account.

this is how gen 2 starts:
Genesis 2 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
The Seventh Day—Rest
2 So the earth, the sky, and everything in them were finished. 2 God finished the work he was doing, so on the seventh day he rested from his work. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it a holy day. He made it special because on that day he rested from all the work he did while creating the world.

again this should be the end of chapter 1


So then we start verse 4. Now note no where in the 7 day over view did the garden get planted or populated... 

Verse 4 chapter 2 recetifies this:

4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

6 So water[a] came up from the earth and spread over the ground. 7 Then the Lord God took dust from the ground and made a man.[b] He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nose, and the man became a living thing. 8 Then the Lord God planted a garden in the East,[c] in a place named Eden. He put the man he made in that garden. 9 Then the Lord God caused all the beautiful trees that were good for food to grow in the garden. In the middle of the garden, he put the tree of life and the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil.

So again when did the garden get planted between the time God made the earth and sky and before plants... that is mid day day 3 and beginning of day 4. So between day 3 sometime and day 4 ALLL of the events of Gen 2 happened.

That is Adam (the first man) which was genetically compatible with man made outside the garden on day 6. (again we know this because his off spring were compatible with those men/women who were building the cities/nod and who they married and had children with)  The garden was completed, and populated with all manor of life. the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were planted in the garden which A&E were allow to eat from (life) and made them immortal. but were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge or they would surly die.

We also know God never set a time line between the end of chapter two (day 4 and the fall of man which begins chapter three..) we can safely assume that the fall did not occur the way most traditional readings would have us believe or that would be day 5. (immediately after the completion of chapter 2.)

This leaves the time line open from a few days to trillions of years which could easily encapsulate all of evolutionary theory as well.

---

(July 2, 2018 at 6:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Curious though, why did God give dominion over the beasts and birds and whatnot to day 6 man, but not to day 3 man?  Do we not then have dominion over the earth?

Day 6 man was in a wilderness, by giving day 6 man dominion over all animals put him on top of the food chain. Adam day 3 man lived in a wilderness preserve. everything got along. Remember it was adam's task to care for this massive garden. with the boarders of the rivers mention some estimate the garden to be 2/3 of the united states.

We do or rather we have surrendered it to satan which is why he was able to offer it to christ in his 40 days of temptation.. Meaning when he said to christ bow to me and all the kingdoms of the world will be his. Satan was offering jesus a different way of obtaining the world and it's souls other than what the Father had planned in his death.

Wrong thread.

(July 2, 2018 at 3:00 pm)JairCrawford Wrote:

(July 2, 2018 at 2:41 pm)robvalue Wrote: The thing is, "divinely inspired" or not, it's either perfect or it isn't. And if it isn't, every bit of it needs to pass scrutiny on its own merits.

Clearly it isn't perfect, far from it. Trying to argue that it is requires ignoring not only the internal problems but reality itself.

In a broad sense, I can agree. In fact, I can't recall any verse within the Bible that asserts that the Bible is literally perfect. So we can deduce that a doctrine that insists such a thing is indeed a man made doctrine, and not a God doctrine.

This does not, however, lead me to the conclusion that God doesn't use the Bible to speak to me.

Sure. I don't know why God would choose such an unreliable and ambiguous method though. It would indicate to me that he either wishes for his message to be unclear, or else this is somehow the best he can do. Neither seem to make a lot of sense to me.