Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Angels and the alien deception

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

get your panties out a knot. Your username is not Knoledgeispower, that user was responding to me & not you.




posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
originally posted by: Seede

I ran out of room with your comment in here so I had to remove it

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood

In order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many believers are willing to do.


Problems with a Global Flood


1. Building the Ark

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?
2. Gathering the Animals

Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.

Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

-Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
-Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
-Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
-Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.

Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.

There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms' preferred environments. The creationists who propose all the species living together in a uniform climate are effectively proposing the destruction of all environments but one. Not many species could have survived that.

How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.
3. Fitting the Animals Aboard

To determine how much space is required for animals, we must first determine what is a kind, how many kinds were aboard the ark, and how big they were.

What is a kind? Creationists themselves can't decide on an answer to this question; they propose criteria ranging from species to order, and I have even seen an entire kingdom (bacteria) suggested as a single kind. Woodmorappe (p. 5-7) compromises by using genus as a kind. However, on the ark "kind" must have meant something closer to species for three reasons:

For purposes of naming animals, the people who live among them distinguish between them (that is, give them different names) at roughly the species level. [Gould, 1980]
The Biblical "kind," according to most interpretations, implies reproductive separateness. On the ark, the purpose of gathering different kinds was to preserve them by later reproduction. Species, by definition, is the level at which animals are reproductively distinct.
The Flood, according to models, was fairly recent. There simply wouldn't have been time enough to accumulate the number of mutations necessary for the diversity of species we see within many genera today.

What kinds were aboard the ark? Woodmorappe and Whitcomb & Morris arbitrarily exclude all animals except mammals, birds, and reptiles. However, many other animals, particularly land arthropods, must also have been on the ark for two reasons:

- The Bible says so. Gen. 7:8 puts on the ark all creatures that move along the ground, with no further qualifications. Lev. 11:42 includes arthropods (creatures that "walk on many feet") in such a category.
-They couldn't survive outside. Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. And indeed, not one insect species in a thousand could survive for half a year on the vegetation mats proposed by some creationists. Most other land arthropods, snails, slugs, earthworms, etc. would also have to be on the ark to survive.

Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark? According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.

It is also worth pointing out that the number of extinct species is undoubtedly greater than the number of known extinct species. New genera of dinosaurs have been discovered at a nearly constant rate for more than a century, and there's no indication that the rate of discovery will fall off in the near future.

Were the animals aboard the ark mature? Woodmorappe gets his animals to fit only by taking juvenile pairs of everything weighing more than 22 lbs. as an adult. However, it is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard:

The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.
Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.

The last point does not apply to all animals. However, the animals don't need parental care tend to be animals that mature quickly, and thus would be close to adult size after a year of growth anyway.

How many clean animals were on the ark? The Bible says either seven or fourteen (it's ambiguous) of each kind of clean animal was aboard. It defines clean animals essentially as ruminants, a suborder which includes about 69 recent genera, 192 recent species [Wilson & Reeder, 1993], and probably a comparable number of extinct genera and species. That is a small percentage of the total number of species, but ruminants are among the largest mammals, so their bulk is significant.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: knoledgeispower

As I said before knoledgeispower I agree with most of what you say and as long as we keep our conversation in the realm of theology then I believe we can discuss in this realm as theological facts (if there is such a thing). I know that it is an unusual requirement but we cannot actually mix the secular understanding with theological understanding.

Now as far as Noah and the giants are concerned they do belong in the theological word (as of today). My belief is that you are correct when you say that the angels are celestial creations and not of this terrestrial substance which is the entire universe. The giants were of terrestrial and celestial substance but then all of the Adamic seed is created with a terrestrial image (flesh and bone and blood) with a celestial spirit (likeness). The difference being that the giants were not of Adamic seed. In other words the giants were not an intended creation of the Creator. When you compare this to angels (celestial creation) it is understood that their substance is all of the heavenly nature (whatever that is). The celestial creation is the first creation or at least the creation before this universe.

Actually it was in the days of Enosh (Not Enoch) that the celestial creation bred with the Adamic seed. It took hundreds of years for this event to eventually procreate giants which is where we find the event being intervened by the Creator. Now we come to the theological Noah which I believe was also known as Menes. Menes (Noah) was one of the antediluvian kings who is recorded in Herodotus as the king who ruled over lower and upper Egypt before the deluge. The "Legends Of The Jews" by Louis Ginzberg states that the name Noah was only used by his grandfather Methuselah and that all others called him Menahem or Manoah. Now remember that we are still in the realm of classical literature (theology) so this cannot be stated by me as fact.

I agree with you that a global flood (at this time) is not practical simply because the entire earth was not inhabited at this time. In order to state a global flood would require the entire earth to be inhabited and recorded and my belief is that it was not. Now why do I believe this way? Secular science believes that (with their own proof) this entire universe is expanding at a tremendous rate. For this universe to expand it would leave either a void or it would have to be filled with whatsoever the substance would be. Perhaps stars and dark matter. But then what is the universe expanding into? Either itself or another realm. In either case it is being created is it not?

Do we know for a fact that this world is also not expanding or did not expand? I believe that the Creator is still creating today and that at the time of Noah was not as we see it today. As Noah lived it may very well have been that the life forms would all fit into his Thebah (ark). Could it be that the Creator brought a suspended animation over the creatures in the ark during the period they were in the ark? My belief is that after the deluge the Creator continued to create and that present life forms are the result of this continued creation. I also believe that secular science is correct in believing the universe is still being created (expanding) and I also believe that what we call evolution is continued creation.

As Adam named the creatures that existed in his days it is reasonable to believe that there were not billions of creatures existing at this time. Adam was of our substance and I cannot believe that billions of creatures were named and remembered by him. I simply discard that as unreasonable.(my own belief of course). If all of the world was not known in this day of the deluge then how can we be certain that the size of this world was always this size? If the universe is expanding then could it be possible that the earth could not expand as well with continued creation?

Where does the bible confirm that the Creator ceased to create forever? The Creator rested on the seventh day but are we still in the seventh day? There are so many connective questions to be answered that I do not believe we shall have any conclusive answers even if we should find the Thebas (Ark) of Mene (Noah).

There is a scholarly study by both the secular and biblical scholars in the belief that the seasons of today were not counted the same as those of the antediluvian civilization. There is speculation that the antediluvian Noah was not on his Thebas for a period of our twelve months but was on his Thebas for one solar cycle or equinox which would be six of our months. The example would be that Noah was not 950 of our understanding years old but was 450 of present day years old. In other words the translators may be accurate but our present day understandings may be wrong. This study involves much of classical literature outside of biblical literature as well as both side of the isle working together. After all the biblical literature was at one time nothing but traditional classical literature.

So I hope you understand that I am not deriding you at all. I believe much of what you understand but maybe in a different form. I do enjoy your input and I do respect your belief. After all your belief and my belief is just our own opinions in this theological world. If I offended you then I did not intend to offend you.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

When the Bible says that the heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them were finished, it means exactly what it says. The only time it can be stated with absolute certainty that God will create anything new is in the end times when this corrupted existence will be destroyed and replaced with a new heaven and new earth. This is how important the resurrection of Jesus Christ really is, because the new heaven and earth could not happen without it. This is why it makes no sense at all for God to create anything new on earth or anywhere else with the universe still in its corrupted state, as the curse of death and decay will still apply, contrary to what the devils in the Vatican will tell you.
edit on 11-8-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-8-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-8-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC


Text When the Bible says that the heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them were finished, it means exactly what it says.

I agree with your premise and perhaps it is a matter of how I interpret the translation in the KJV bible. My reading the 2nd chapter of Genesis Is that I read that chapter as though it were in chronological order. If it was translated and presented in chronological order then we must also look at the entirety of all scriptures and realize that created and made may have two distinct meanings. God created the earth but out of the earth He made a man and out of the man He made a woman.

Regardless of how I look at this I had to read in context and assume that this 2nd chapter was in time order of producing. If I am correct or if the author of Genesis is correct then God still produced ,made,created. How do we intrepret word change or word value? The following is from my KJV bible ---

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made

Then

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Then

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Then

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Then

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Now I realize that there are other accounts in Genesis that can be used in a different order than what Genesis two reads but then who determines the entirety of the scriptures. God created the universe in the first era (generation) of producing but are we still producing from that creation? In other words did God's Word create with a force and that force is still expanding? Your opinion?



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: BlackManINC


Text When the Bible says that the heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them were finished, it means exactly what it says.

I agree with your premise and perhaps it is a matter of how I interpret the translation in the KJV bible. My reading the 2nd chapter of Genesis Is that I read that chapter as though it were in chronological order. If it was translated and presented in chronological order then we must also look at the entirety of all scriptures and realize that created and made may have two distinct meanings. God created the earth but out of the earth He made a man and out of the man He made a woman.

Regardless of how I look at this I had to read in context and assume that this 2nd chapter was in time order of producing. If I am correct or if the author of Genesis is correct then God still produced ,made,created. How do we intrepret word change or word value? The following is from my KJV bible ---

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made

Then

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Then

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Then

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Then

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Now I realize that there are other accounts in Genesis that can be used in a different order than what Genesis two reads but then who determines the entirety of the scriptures. God created the universe in the first era (generation) of producing but are we still producing from that creation? In other words did God's Word create with a force and that force is still expanding? Your opinion?


I went over this before in another thread. Genesis 2 is simply reiterating and giving more detail of the creation account in Genesis 1. For example, instead of chapter two saying "let us make man in our image" again, it tells you exactly how it was done. God formed Adam out of the material of the earth then breathed (or spoke) life into him. The same method was done for all other living beings. Man was still the last living being to be created on the sixth day, and God simply planted a garden for them to dwell in shortly thereafter. It doesn't say he created a garden, he merely planted one. The grass, the soil the garden of Eden was made from was already created on the third day.

There is no expanding "creative force" because there is no "force" outside of God. Gods word, known today as Jesus Christ, is the force responsible for creation. He is not expanding with creation because God has nothing at all in common with nature, as the creation account shows you. He didn't have to create a force apart from himself to create anything as if nature is an extension of him. There was no preexisting energy force, all he did was speak and the universe popped into existence, which means he created matter (what the universe is made of) out of nothing. The Bible doesn't explicitly state that God created matter from nothing but it is implied many times in many different ways throughout starting with the first chapter you read in the book.


(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. - Romans 4:17


To believe otherwise violates Gods sovereignty and will inevitably lead to Gnostic pantheistic doctrine, that God created the universe out of his own image. Its the kind of belief that creatures like Neil Degrasse Tyson of the Cosmos TV show and his fellow new agers will tell you. The only creative force is God himself, and God is no longer creating anything, so therefore nothing new has been created since the six day creation. This is all vital in understanding the true nature of God because this is a big part of the end times deceptions to come.
edit on 11-8-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-8-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-8-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC




Text It doesn't say he created a garden, he merely planted one. The grass, the soil the garden of Eden was made from was already created on the third day.

Once again I agree with almost all that you have taught but there remains this unsettled philosophy of create and made. I well understand that you make a car out of existing materials and that it is not created with added substances. But then let me try to understand why this same philosophy cannot apply today as it did in this creation.

Not trying to be contentious but only to understand. You have said that The garden was not created but was made from the material which was already created.

“It doesn't say he created a garden, he merely planted one. The grass, the soil the garden of Eden was made from was already created on the third day.”

That was my key question to you before. Is there a difference between made and created? The reason I ask is this. The universe was created and the heavenly bodies were then placed in the universe.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Could it be argued that this also applies to the universe as it does to the garden? The entirety of this is the question of word play. This is why I did ask the question as to whether the word “made” and the word “create” are two different meanings. It may seem insignificant to some but can lead to other interpretations.

An example would be --- If the garden were to be planted from existing creation and not created (as you have postulated) then does that also apply to the tree of knowledge and the tree of life? Or were the trees of knowledge and life created apart from the creation of the rest of the garden and planted as a different substance? As you can see it can then lead into another paper of theology.

Leading back to the expanding universe also brings about this very same theological understanding. The universe was created and the heavenly bodies then made and placed. I assume the heavenly bodies (as far as science can determine) conform to the same creative substances as does all creation. Now the same question is asked. Are the heavenly bodies made or created? Does this also apply the same as the planting of the garden? The bible says that God made the heavenly bodies and then placed them in the universe. This seems to me as the very same garden philosophy. If God makes more heavenly bodies and places them in the universe then could the universe simply expand (as a balloon) to allow for more heavenly bodies. The reason I say this is that we see stars die and be born. Is that creation?

Also we see Adam created and Eve made from Adam. Was Eve created or made? By the same token we see Adam created and mankind made or procreated. Are the present life forms being created today or are they made from the existing creations? What are your opinions?

Now I apply that same reasoning to life forms. The material is existing and God makes (from that material) more life forms. By this philosophy is it possible that evolution is nothing more than continued producing from existing substance? The same as the garden philosophy.

It seems to me that all of this hinges upon our understanding of the seventh day of rest. Are we still in this seventh day? The bible says that God rested on the seventh day but does not say that He rested thereafter. This can be assumed that the seventh day is now past. The bible does not say that God ceased to make or create after the seventh day. We know that He created New Jerusalem which is the kingdom of heaven after He created this universe. By this I assume that the seventh day has passed and that God could continue to make (produce) from His creation. Your opinions?



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
Once again I agree with almost all that you have taught but there remains this unsettled philosophy of create and made. I well understand that you make a car out of existing materials and that it is not created with added substances. But then let me try to understand why this same philosophy cannot apply today as it did in this creation.

Not trying to be contentious but only to understand. You have said that The garden was not created but was made from the material which was already created.

“It doesn't say he created a garden, he merely planted one. The grass, the soil the garden of Eden was made from was already created on the third day.”

That was my key question to you before. Is there a difference between made and created? The reason I ask is this. The universe was created and the heavenly bodies were then placed in the universe.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Could it be argued that this also applies to the universe as it does to the garden? The entirety of this is the question of word play. This is why I did ask the question as to whether the word “made” and the word “create” are two different meanings. It may seem insignificant to some but can lead to other interpretations.

An example would be --- If the garden were to be planted from existing creation and not created (as you have postulated) then does that also apply to the tree of knowledge and the tree of life? Or were the trees of knowledge and life created apart from the creation of the rest of the garden and planted as a different substance? As you can see it can then lead into another paper of theology.


People seem to forget that when it is stated that the Bible is eye witness testimony, they mean exactly that. Every single story told in the Bible are firsthand accounts. It’s not a history book that was written after the fact in the traditional sense. This is like a reporter giving us the news from the front lines as it’s all happening. It’s generally agreed that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, but I've seen no reason at all to believe that any of it was written after the fact, not even the creation account. We all know that Moses came into direct contact with the Lord and told him to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, but what is never contemplated is the possibility that God also gave Moses a vision of the beginning of the universe as it was being created.

Once you understand this then the creation account will start to make perfect sense. It’s being told from his perspective as if he is on earth witnessing it. The universe and all the matter that it is made of was in fact already created on the first day, this is why Moses says that "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth". He reiterates this statement in Genesis 2: 4 that all the planets and stars were already made on the very first day. This all becomes obvious once you read it with the understanding that it is all a firsthand account.


These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens - Genesis 2: 4



originally posted by: Seede
Leading back to the expanding universe also brings about this very same theological understanding. The universe was created and the heavenly bodies then made and placed. I assume the heavenly bodies (as far as science can determine) conform to the same creative substances as does all creation. Now the same question is asked. Are the heavenly bodies made or created? Does this also apply the same as the planting of the garden? The bible says that God made the heavenly bodies and then placed them in the universe. This seems to me as the very same garden philosophy. If God makes more heavenly bodies and places them in the universe then could the universe simply expand (as a balloon) to allow for more heavenly bodies. The reason I say this is that we see stars die and be born. Is that creation?


This all seems to be based on the assertion that the universe is expanding in the first place. The evidence proposed for this idea is circumstantial evidence at best. They simply witness a star exploding in space and determine the distance of the star based on its brightness, and they conclude that the universe is expanding from shoddy evidence like this. No one has ever witnessed a star being formed either. When an astronomer claims they can "observe" a star being formed, they are not basing this on direct physical evidence, but on the assumption that it takes millions of years for a star to form. According to the secular scientists, some stars are older than other, therefore, in their mind's, it must be happening even though they have yet to provide a shred of direct evidence for it. This is standard practice when it comes to evolution in general. We've never witnessed bacteria form into a living creature, nor have we ever witnessed any mutation in a lab produce anything beneficial that would cause a creature to transform into another, but in the minds of the evolutionist's, it must have happened, simply because they say so. So I have no reason to believe that the universe is expanding at all until they provide real evidence.


originally posted by: Seede
Also we see Adam created and Eve made from Adam. Was Eve created or made? By the same token we see Adam created and mankind made or procreated. Are the present life forms being created today or are they made from the existing creations? What are your opinions?

Now I apply that same reasoning to life forms. The material is existing and God makes (from that material) more life forms. By this philosophy is it possible that evolution is nothing more than continued producing from existing substance? The same as the garden philosophy.

It seems to me that all of this hinges upon our understanding of the seventh day of rest. Are we still in this seventh day? The bible says that God rested on the seventh day but does not say that He rested thereafter. This can be assumed that the seventh day is now past. The bible does not say that God ceased to make or create after the seventh day. We know that He created New Jerusalem which is the kingdom of heaven after He created this universe. By this I assume that the seventh day has passed and that God could continue to make (produce) from His creation. Your opinions?


I think you are reading too much into the creation of Adam and Eve. All living beings were created from the material that God spoke into existence on the first day. Adam was formed from the dirt we stand on, and God simply took the preexisting material, the DNA already present in Adams rib to create Eve. If by evolution you mean the different variations within a creature, then that can be reasonably interpreted as continued production from already existing life forms. But no new genetic information is being added as it is still the same type of creature, it’s not changing into anything other than what it is. There is no reason to believe that new life forms are being created today unless evidence is proven otherwise.
edit on 12-8-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=18275514]BlackManINC[/post


Text All living beings were created from the material that God spoke into existence on the first day. Adam was formed from the dirt we stand on, and God simply took the preexisting material, the DNA already present in Adams rib to create Eve.




I think we got side tracked in this conversation but for the sake of any arguments I will keep silent. One last question I should ask is as follows.

In your opinion is the spirit a creation at each birth?



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: [post=18275514]BlackManINC[/post


Text All living beings were created from the material that God spoke into existence on the first day. Adam was formed from the dirt we stand on, and God simply took the preexisting material, the DNA already present in Adams rib to create Eve.




I think we got side tracked in this conversation but for the sake of any arguments I will keep silent. One last question I should ask is as follows.

In your opinion is the spirit a creation at each birth?


I believe that the spirit is a creation before birth, which should be the real reason for a Christian to reject abortion, not necessarily because of any scientific, or materialistic reason. They often miss the entire point of how the Bible defines life to begin with. Life is in the spirit, not in the flesh. For anything to be considered alive, it has to have spirit in it. Adam was not considered alive until God spoke spirit into him. Understanding this, consider the fact that before birth, the baby is already moving around in his mothers stomach, kicking and such, meaning that its already alive. If the baby didn't have a spirit before birth, then it wouldn't be moving around at all in the first place. This is the type of basic common sense that many Christians do not apply to the faith.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join