Adam and Eve Saved the Environment

[Bad Wolf]

GC you take the bible so seriously, you remind me of this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgZIORpSi...uaMBEP5ZIA

[Esquilax]

GC you take the bible so seriously, you remind me of this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgZIORpSi...uaMBEP5ZIA

The difference, of course, being that it's impossible to believe that that guy is serious.

[Chas]

That was God's proclamation, according to the writers of The Holy Bible, not God himself.

Modern day revelation has shown that the writers weren't too far off from what actually happened there. Oh, and there was just one writer: Moses.

And just exactly how did Moses describe his own death?

[Esquilax]

Modern day revelation has shown that the writers weren't too far off from what actually happened there. Oh, and there was just one writer: Moses.

And just exactly how did Moses describe hos own death?

Maybe resurrection wasn't such a unique skill back in the old days.

[Chas]

The Bible is flawed, plain and simple. This is why most Christians have a hard time reconciling the teachings and stories within it, and instead they focus on a few snippets here and there to cling to as their core doctrines. Cherry picking is bad, no matter how you look at it.

Science has revealed much, and because of that I take Evolution at face value, especially considering the extensive fossil record. I may not understand how it relates to the Genesis creation story entirely, but I do know that there are two instances in the book where God creates man. Since days in heaven are long periods of time on earth, it's possible that his creation of man started with the original spark of life, letting them evolve from lesser biological forms to what they later became. The order of creations in Genesis is also nonsensical, but that's understandable as this is a very old book that requires much interpretation when not understood by modern revelation.

As for the creation of Adam and Eve, this was an instantaneous thing. God created Adam from the dust of the Earth, and Eve was created from his Rib. Their creation was special since Adam was also the embodiment of Michael the Archangel, sent to Earth to be the first Patriarch and Prophet, and this is why they were separate from other creations.

Some of my understanding may be off from what actually happened, but I believe it will be possible to learn the truth of all things one day, if not in this life.

You certainly won't get the truth from The Book of Mormon. That silly-assed 'history' is disproven. It's a non-starter.

---

It'll be interesting to give my opinions! By the way, I'm glad you got away from the Baptists; they're a worse cult than us Mormons!

No, only the Scientologists are worse than the Mormons. Or sillier, at any rate.

[Bad Writer]

I really don't know how this is going to go down between PP and GC. It's awesome though! I'm glad to see you accept Evolution, PP, but do you reject other such scientific theories, such as the Big Bang or Abiogenesis? The God you profess leaves no room for these theories to be a consideration, methinks.

[PeterPriesthood]

GC got a little rabid back there. I'm going to gather my thoughts for a moment and reply to something else first.

Modern day revelation has shown that the writers weren't too far off from what actually happened there. Oh, and there was just one writer: Moses.

And just exactly how did Moses describe his own death?

Logic dictates that he couldn't have! It's actually very stupid that his death is written into the Torah, and this points to Interpolation. That being said, we have no idea what else was interpolated into the first five books of the Holy Babble, or if any of the rest of it is corrupt either.

However, I believe that there are true, living Prophets on earth today, and their revelations are important for truly understanding the scriptures, even in their corrupt form. It turns out that even though Moses wrote those books, the telling of his is not only added later, but it's false! He was translated to Heaven in his old age, much like Elijah the prophet was, and just like how Enoch and his entire city was.

---

I really don't know how this is going to go down between PP and GC. It's awesome though! I'm glad to see you accept Evolution, PP, but do you reject other such scientific theories, such as the Big Bang or Abiogenesis? The God you profess leaves no room for these theories to be a consideration, methinks.

I greatly value all the contributions that the Scientific Community gives to us. Abiogenesis, I believe, is real. I'm not sure that it's how life on earth was started, but it certainly could have started that way on other planets. In fact, Abiogenesis might account for a percentage of living organisms that sprang up and then evolved that weren't on God's initial creation list. Or perhaps God made certain that Abiogenesis would occur for ALL life on the planet...which doesn't remove his title of Creator really.

The Big Bang, I think, is a pretty solid theory. I consider it a possibility that God made the Big Bang possible, setting everything into motion from just that one spark. The Big Bang gave him a giant sandbox to play with. So yes, I accept this one too.

---

Okay, GC. The gloves are on now. I didn't expect to meet someone like you here, but I'd better make the most of it.

I do not accept you prophets,

I should have stopped you here. If you don't accept prophets nowadays, then you shouldn't try to dictate what Modern-day prophets should and shouldn't be doing. Go read your Holy Babble and pray for more dead soldiers, and leave God's true word to us.

Surly you don't believe that Judas was a prophet. The disciples are never called prophets and Judas's replacement was a teacher just as the other 11 were. There are many in the church today who are called of God and they are not prophets either.

Your limited understanding of who the Apostles were is because of your corrupted ancient text that you like to call the Bible. You can't get a straight answer just by reading something you can't possibly fully understand. My Church upholds these positions as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators in Christ's True Gospel. Therefore, yes, Judas was a Prophet. He was a also a man, and, as a man, he was fallible. He fell victim to the workings of the Devil. However, this occurrence was foretold by ancient prophets. God knew that Judas would sell out his own master, and in doing so would fulfill the task that Jesus was sent to earth to do. That is, suffer and die, that we might live through him. You might even say that Judas was a fallen prophet, but he accomplished a task unknown even to himself, and because of his actions, we are all redeemed.

If Apostles are merely teachers to you, then why don't you give the teachers in your Church the title of Apostle? I can tell you why: it's because there's a lot of weight these positions held. These aren't ordinary teachers: these men spoke for God, by the Power of God. Your Church leaders can't do this because they hold no authority in the eyes of God. Their authority to act in God's name was lost after the early Church turned Apostate. You are a branch off of a branch off of a branch off of the Catholic Church, which is the Whore of the Earth. So you're a little Bastard Child, as far as I'm concerned.

What, you mean because we believe when Peter said,"a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day to God," that makes us a false church. Seems to me Peter was telling us that time has no meaning to an eternal God. Personally I'll take the word of Christ's disciple over a false prophet any day.

Oh, boy. Bad interpretation is the least of your worries when it comes to how false of a Church you are. I'll stick with my "Bastard Child" analogy for you.

Now that it fits your argument the Bible is not so flawed, wishy washy.

Guys...how old is this person I'm talking to? How does he fail on so many levels to clearly explain his train of thought?

GC, you have diarrhea of the mouth...well, we're typing, so I suppose the poop is seeping out of your fingers in this case. If you want to say something to me, do so with a modicum of intelligence and forethought, or else the meaning and strength behind your replies will be lost, as has just occurred here.

God never walked with Moses as He did with Adam and Eve, God only allowed Moses to see His back because otherwise God's glory would have killed him. Yes Enoch walked with God, meaning he followed God with His whole heart, remember it was God who walked with Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve who walked with God. The Bible is not flawed and my spiritual eyes they are the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is the one who opens up God's word to us.
Matthew 5:22 ...whoever says,'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. I'll leave the verses after that to you to determine.

You only have a part of the truth. By your logic, since it's not in the Bible, Jesus was never a teenager, that he never ate Hummus, or that he never married. How do you know Moses never walked with God? Because it never explicitly states it? Even if the Bible details an event, the telling of the story might be wrong because the Bible isn't always correct. It's so interesting how something you claim can lead you to salvation is actually leading you very far off the course.

---

Explain why the Mormon Church waited for about 100 years, before they added, of Jesus Christ to, The Church of Latter Day Saints, why?

I imagine it was to get rid of the stigma that had been attached to the word "Mormons". Putting Jesus Christ in the title was a way of bridging the gap with the rest of the Christian Community, to show that we do indeed worship Christ and believe in his Atoning Sacrifice.

But wait, you are saying from this and other post all other denominations are cults, why would the Mormon Church want to be associated with cults. the stigma they wanted to get rid of was Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

Bingo! Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon was all anyone ever knew about the Mormons, and they had been painted in a bad light for so many years, that it was time for us to break the mold. So we decided that our cult needed to reach out to the others out there in order to bridge the gap that was our differences. We were forced to play the role of diplomat, and we have gotten many brownie points for doing so.

Wait...are you saying it's bad that we want to be known as Christians?

By the way, you can't get on to other people for spelling mistakes when you can't spell the "Moron Church" correctly. Hardy har.

I didn't say anything about your spelling and if you're speaking of MS, he misspells words all the time. I know my spelling is not that good, however my key board does not always print the letters out, so sorry it was not intentional.

Whoa...this misspelling was actually unintentional? I thought you, like many others I meet, were just poking fun at the name "Mormon", and I was trying to simply roll with the punch and poke fun back at you. I guess I shouldn't assume you are capable of this kind of "elbow-nudge" humor.

You talking about the apes evolutionist say we came from, because if you're not I know you did not get that from the Bible. That's what I was asking how did you get that understanding from Genesis.

It's not in Genesis. What makes you think that your Holy Babble holds all the answers to our origins? You think the Holy Prophets had the monopoly on scientific studies? Well...I actually find it hard to think of Sheep Herders and Nomads as scientists, but I suppose anything is possible when reading the Holy Babble through the lens that Bastard Child uses.

Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made the earth and heaven."
This must be referring to another planet and heavens then, since it came after the day of rest.

What are you on about?

So which creation is Adam and who was the pre-Adamite. You choose, the one created in God's image or the one formed from the ground. If evolution had a part in it then the one created in God's image could not have been part of evolution. That would put the pre-Adamite in the Garden. You have really got this story turned up side down.

I put this to you very simply, and you are mincing the meanings. Okay...let me talk to a third grader real quick:

There were 6 days of creation, and during this first period of time, man and woman were created. There is no way of knowing that these humans were Adam and Eve.

After the seventh day of rest, there is a place called Eden. At this point, God makes Adam and Eve, as well as a slew of other types of animals. The order of creation is very different from the one shown during the first six days. This is undoubtedly a 2nd Creation story, exclusive from the first, hands down.

So you're saying man's science is smarter than God, science did not prove any order, it claims an order through evolution.

It doesn't have to prove an order that's obvious. The order in the Bible is obviously flawed, so we can easily discount it. God is not flawed, and he knows all. Man, when relating God's word, could err in doing so, and that's when we can get some confusing messages. I trust science because it is empirical, testable, and reproducible. Science can't be smarter than god because it isn't conscious. We can't measure its intelligence. We can, however, measure its validity, and however right science is does not diminish the existence of God, as far as I can tell.

This nincompoop, relies on the omniscience of God to have created and made everything as He said. If you're relying on your 1000 year equals 1 day deal, that's not enough time for evolution to work. So no poping out a man in God's image by evolution.

Finally, you say something worthwhile. You see, GC, each period of creation took a day, or 1000 years. There is no mention in the Holy Babble of how long the periods of time between these days were. Tens of thousands of years could have passed, and then God came down and worked for another 1000 year period. Also, considering that the order of creation dictated by Genesis is a bit screwy, we still don't know exactly how the creation process looked. I'm using the 1000 year day as an example, not as definitive proof of what actually happened. To paint a more accurate picture in all this, we must consider science.

More importantly, in the long run, salvation does not require us to know the ins and outs of how exactly this earth was created, nor how man came to be. The point is moot, but we need to be more focused on Faith in Jesus Christ and finding a way back to our Heavenly Father.

I like the start of your comment,"God is not flawed." Being flawless don't you think He would make sure His word would stay in contact down through the ages. We know The book of Jeremiah has held since at least 300 BC or later till this day, about 2300 years.

We know this? How? You certain there weren't any interpolations or changes made to the original document? I know the Catholic Church loved doing this stuff. They even added a passage about Jesus in Josephus' works.

---

Where in Genesis does it say God created man and woman, it says He took man and created Him in His image, all other passages say God made them, the man from the dust of the earth and woman from the man, and then put (blew) the breath of life in them.

---

You're a Christian; why are you asking me something you should know by heart? Get your Bible out and read the account, man!

I've read and studied it word by word, and I'm still learning from the creation account. I want to see what you know, which right now I do not think it's as much as you would let on. I read my Bible all the time, see I do not have nor need another account of God's word to read, the one He gave is great.

You say you need to learn more, but then you contradict yourself by saying you do not need more of God's words to read. You're a loon.

I've been fallible from the day I was born, I've explained many times on this forum that I do not know everything and that some of what I believe may not be true, but an atheist arguing the scriptures as if he knows what He's talking about is ridiculous.

Not ridiculous if they know the Holy Babble better than you. Show some respect, son!

[PeterPriesthood]

You certainly won't get the truth from The Book of Mormon. That silly-assed 'history' is disproven. It's a non-starter.

Heh, I have some theories about the Book of Mormon and its formation, but I certainly believe that the teachings within it come from God.

There are records that state how Joseph Smith Jr. was able to recount to his family and friends amazing details about the history of the American Indians, and this was all before he became a prophet and translated the Book of Mormon. My working theory is that he either made up these stories, since they don't match what we know of the history of Native Americans, or he was told these stories by the Angel Moroni (or was it Nephi? Heh, more on that later if you want to know) and then embellished them a bit. He was an amazing orator and story-teller to begin with, so it's no surprise that he could produce a work such as the Book of Mormon.

What's interesting to note is how detached the Doctrinal Teachings contained within this book are from the story elements written in it. I believe these teachings do come from God, and they do well to supplement what we know of Christian theology from the Middle East.

I will not say that Book of Mormon is completely false, but Joseph Smith, as a man, definitely had his flaws. As Richard Bushman puts it, he is a rough stone rolling (love his book about JS Jr.!). I enjoy the stories from it, though the method of delivery is a bit dated (17th Century text is hard to trudge through). The doctrines contained within are what's really important. I believe there is some evidence to show how Christ really did visit the Native Americans after his resurrection, though it's hard to believe that he actually quoted the Gospel of Matthew to them, since it hadn't been written by the time he visited those people

It'll be interesting to give my opinions! By the way, I'm glad you got away from the Baptists; they're a worse cult than us Mormons!

No, only the Scientologists are worse than the Mormons. Or sillier, at any rate.

They're also evil. We're only slightly bushwhacked compared to them, yes.

[Doubting Thomas]

GC you take the bible so seriously, you remind me of this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgZIORpSi...uaMBEP5ZIA

That guy seriously needs mental help. To say he has "issues" is putting it mildly.

[Tonus]

Guys...how old is this person I'm talking to? How does he fail on so many levels to clearly explain his train of thought?

GC works in mysterious ways.