Evolution

[Drich]

---

LOL, why would I have to crack open a bible for that, that's a story you learn in sunday school. "Proper exegesis of scripture" is that the authors believed that Adam lived 930 years, all you're going on about now is apologetic bullshit.

Which is EXACTLY What I said as well, where are you confused?

"And all the days (except some other days, to the tune of billions of years as evidenced by modern science and here omitted) that Adam lived were nine-hundred thirty years; and he died" Gen5:5-Drich Expanded Version.

This is fun i am genuinely glad to see someone take such an in depth interest !!

In the Transliterated Hebrew Genesis 5:5
yowm (day, time, year)
'Adam (The First Man)
chayay (to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life, Etc...)

As Apposed to the Breath of Life God imparted into Adam upon His creation in Genesis 2:7 The Hebrew word there is
nĕshamah= breath, spirit (of God)

Obviously the life Adam lived in the beginning (Gen 2:7) was very different than the life Adam lived after the Fall (Gen 3) when God promised "For The Day You Eat Of This Forbidden Fruit You Will Surly Die."

Adam did not die in the traditional sense or our understanding of the word. Adam's Previously Privileged life was taken (The Breath of God or nĕshamah) was taken and He was sent out amongst the monkey men to live. thus beginning His 930 Chayay (life) as we understand it.

I can understand your mistake if all your working with is a sunday school memory and an english translation. If you wish to dig alittle deeper I used the, The Bullinger Critical Lexicon and Concordance if you like to look it up for yourself..

---

[quote='Cthulhu Dreaming' pid='258862' dateline='1332310113']
Explain? Seriously? How about providing the evidence you have that corroborates the Genesis narrative with reality.

Don't worry about the comment re: the alleged global flood. I was distracted a bit and the connection isn't as well-developed in my mind as I thought at first.

So let's hear your evidence.

We are not discussing evidence at this point. We are discussing the plausible incorporation of the evolutionary fossil record into the creation account. That means if you are apart of this conversation then you accept (for the sake of this argument at least) the genesis account for the purposes of finding incompatibility issues with evolution.

If you wish to change topics please explain to me what "evidence" you would be looking for? What would it look like? Because any evidence you can provide, the new Genesis understanding I have provided can also claim.. So again what am I supposed to be providing to you?

Or are you just arguing a pre programed argument? I say genesis and evolution in the same post, and you warm up the old evolution argument check list. Starting with EVIDENCE!!!

If you took the time to read this thread or if you understood what is being discussed "evidence" as you know it anyway, is no long a valid goto for you. (that is why it wasn't being discussed by any of your buddies) Because Everything you can use I can use. That is why your brothers are attacking my education, me personally, my credentials, my interpretation of scripture, and even my integrity (When you can not kill the message kill the messenger right?) These are all last resort efforts. designed to extract something they can use to dismiss my efforts. Why else do you think you are the first to call for EVIDENCE in over 100 posts???

If you wish me to break my argument down further for you i would be happy to help you understand better, so you can skip the evidence part and go to attacking the messenger rather than the message like so many of your peers.

---

So, in other words, no you don't have any?

I could give a flying fuck what my peers have been doing in this thread.

You have made several positive material claims, if you want to be taken seriously, then provide some demonstrable evidence. You know, the kind that other people can examine and verify/falsify, and that exists somewhere other than in your imagination.

If you can't or won't do that, the only conclusion I can draw is that you're full of shit.

Oh no I do have evidence!! I just want you to explain what you would consider to be true evidence. Otherwise if you do not know what you are looking or looking at then good will it do you even if the evidence is before you?

So again given this senerio, what evidence? What would constitute "proof" in your mindseye?