Pics of Yahweh In This Thread !!

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ee318e59b13.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 11-5-2010 by nophun]

Mod Edit: Changed the code tags for quote tags.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by GAOTU789]

if were going down this road, then use a blastomere

reply to post by nophun


I thought Adam was created from the earth and Eve was part of his rib. Who is this other woman? A twin?

reply to post by nophun



Okay, and you got to this conclusion, how?

A little bit of explanation along with your picture would be appreciated.

Originally posted by tigpoppa
if were going down this road, then use a blastomere

I could have went a few ways. I picked cyanobacteria to keep it simple (oldest recorded fossil 3.5 billion years)

Blanca Rose I was just having some fun
There is obviously some big time logic issues with this idea.

Romantic_Rebel There is 2 different creation stories in the bible .. neither are right so I don't pay attention to them.

The Gen 1.27 is what I used where God creates man and woman at the same time,y ou are thinking of Gen 2:22 ( .. I think look it up should be easy to find)

Yeah .. pretty bad when you can't even keep the story straight through the first few pages

Edit:
GENESIS 2:18-22

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam [a] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [c] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by nophun]

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by tigpoppa
if were going down this road, then use a blastomere

I could have went a few ways. I picked cyanobacteria to keep it simple (oldest recorded fossil 3.5 billion years)

Blanca Rose I was just having some fun

There is obviously some big time logic issues with this idea.

Romantic_Rebel There is 2 different creation stories in the bible .. neither are right so I don't pay attention to them.

The Gen 1.27 is what I used where God creates man and woman at the same time,y ou are thinking of Gen 2:22 ( .. I think look it up should be easy to find)

Yeah .. pretty bad when you can't even keep the story straight through the first few pages

Edit:
GENESIS 2:18-22

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam [a] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [c] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by nophun]

That's because God is explaining how He created the Garden and Man in Chapter 2. Think of it as an extension of the 6th Day in detail. It would help if you would understand what you're reading instead of reading what you want to read. There is only one creation story, you don't know what you're talking about even though you think you do.

EDIT: I don't know why it fonted itself that way.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by novastrike81]

Originally posted by nophun

I could have went a few ways. I picked cyanobacteria to keep it simple (oldest recorded fossil 3.5 billion years)

I see what you did thar!!

many will argue mitochondria, THOSE FOOLS!!!

all good little science grads know its protobacteria

with SCIENCE!1!1!1 ok now lets get back to trolling /sci/

reply to post by nophun


I have no idea what your getting at with this thread, but my god man... How dare you say neither of God's contradictory stories are true! Your almost as bad as those folks who point out the contradictory flood story!

You should be ashamed! You make baby Jesus cry!

I do not wish to argue contradictions and fallacies in the bible.
If you really read and believe Genesis 1 and 2 does not contradict there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

The one that ALWAY got to me in Genesis is ...
Day 1 - God created Earth, space, time and light.
etc etc
Day 3 - God created dry land and plants.
Day 4 - God created the sun, moon, and stars.

You really see no issues with this ? no issue with telling time with no sun, how about a issue with Plants with no sun ? I am not talking 1 night of cooling .. we are talking -270 ºC .

reply to post by nophun


LMFAO!!! I never thought of that before... Plants on a planet without a sun living in -270 degrees... But hey.... Dude, God works in mysterious ways you know!

[edit on 11-5-2010 by sirnex]

whats yahweh? Gods name is God it says so in the bible and are Pastor of are church says Gods not that name. what false god is that you rite???? us christains dont beleeve that BS you aint going to fool us christains!!! God is named GOD and thats THAT!

reply to post by lemonfresh


When you study the jewish roots of christianity,
you discover that God's name is Yahweh.
I read the King James Version of the Bible.
I also have a copy of the Torah and a Jewish
New Testament.
Jesus' name in hebrew is Yeshua.

Originally posted by nophun
I do not wish to argue contradictions and fallacies in the bible.

If you really read and believe Genesis 1 and 2 does not contradict there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

The one that ALWAY got to me in Genesis is ...
Day 1 - God created Earth, space, time and light.
etc etc
Day 3 - God created dry land and plants.
Day 4 - God created the sun, moon, and stars.

You really see no issues with this ? no issue with telling time with no sun, how about a issue with Plants with no sun ? I am not talking 1 night of cooling .. we are talking -270 ºC .

Again, you reading what you want to read. Then again I would expect this from someone trying to debunk the Bible. Your position with telling no time without the sun is illogical and laughable because there is obviously no humans on Earth to observe time in the first four "days" to begin with. If you want to believe the God created the sun, moons, and stars on the fourth day then you must just be reading to read and not understanding anything. Again, I'm not at all surprised.

Day One - God created the heaven and the earth. Here it implies He created everything, including the Sun, moons, and stars. Then we have a reference to the darkness covering the earth.

Job 38:4-9
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ...When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band"

So then when we get to the end of Day One "And God said, 'let there be light', and there was light." This is conjunctional and implies that God moved some of the clouds to allow the light to shine down from a directional source: the Sun. Before you ask, yes it does say that God created the Sun, moons, and stars, as the Hebrew term "the heavens and the earth" refers to the entire created universe on Day One.

Day 3 like the the previous days is a conjunction meaning God allowed it to be rather than creating it. I.e. "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear". The plants also have the same meaning.

Day 4 is where you falsely assume that the sun, moons, and stars are created because you can't read between the lines and understand how things are worded. It's not a statement of creation but a statement of appearance. The passage tells us that the lights were allowed "to be" so that they could be signs of the seasons, days, and years. It was necessary for the creatures of day 5 that the heavenly bodies be visible. We know that many of the migratory birds (created on day 5) require visible stars to navigate, hence the need to actually see these bodies.

It's obviously apparent you just want to read for reading sakes and can't take the time to understand what is being said. Then again, it's expected of someone who chooses NOT to be believe in God. You can continue blindly reading and taking things out of context to support your disbelief. Hopefully, one day, you will realize this.

reply to post by mamabeth


Actually Yeshua is Aramaic. יֵשׁוּעַ (Yēšûă‘)

reply to post by novastrike81


Check out my source
creationwiki.org...
Yup I used a creationist site.

Ya I am out to debunk the bible
Want me me to debunk your bible ? Seriously ? I could go on for 60 posts of stupid # in the bible but this one tops them all. All Christians must believe this one, not just the loons.

A almighty creator of the universe wanted to "save us" so he reincarnates himself as his son .. then gets himself killed in a horrible manner so God .. (what?) would forgive us .. then resurrect himself and heads back to "heaven".

Need proof ? The thing about dead people .. is you know they stay dead.. The rest of the story is completely believable though.

these different names are makin me see that yall are beleeving in the fake older gods like others i herd before named apollo and zues and horus. God is GOD and Jesus is JESUS and theese other names are just like zeus and apollo and are FALSE NAMES YOU BELEEVE. us christains are smarter you cant not fool us.



[edit on 11-5-2010 by lemonfresh]

Originally posted by nophun
reply to post by novastrike81

 

Check out my source
creationwiki.org...
Yup I used a creationist site.

Ya I am out to debunk the bible

Want me me to debunk your bible ? Seriously ? I could go on for 60 posts of stupid # in the bible but this one tops them all. All Christians must believe this one, not just the loons.

A almighty creator of the universe wanted to "save us" so he reincarnates himself as his son .. then gets himself killed in a horrible manner so God .. (what?) would forgive us .. then resurrect himself and heads back to "heaven".

Need proof ? The thing about dead people .. is you know they stay dead.. The rest of the story is completely believable though.

So is the story that we arose from a dead cell; just as laughable.

If you feel the need to debunk it go ahead, if it really makes you feel better inside. If it was debunked it wouldn't still be going on. I guarantee most of your points will be out of context quotes and personal opinion or sources with a lack of understand of the Hebrew language.

reply to post by novastrike81


Well sure...You could say that some of us only read what we want to read but.....some of us don't understand much of it... I've read most of the bible. No I don't have a photographic memory, and yes I am of at least average intellegence and I read at least 30-50 books a year, most of them non-fiction. What does this mean? It means that I'm pretty smart and well read and even with all that...I have trouble understanding the bible. Would god really write a book that is that hard to understand? I'm thinking not. He would give it to us straight. That gives us a whole new issue with the bible...eh?

reply to post by novastrike81


This out of context ? The genealogies in the bible clearly put the age of the earth @ 4000 B.C (ish) thats around 6000 years old.

One of two things have to go though bible believers minds at this point.

1. You believe the world is 6000-9000 years old.
2. You know your bible is wrong on major issues.

en.wikipedia.org...

I should add this is using "pre-flood" aging you know back in the days when people lived to 900 years old

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Which makes me think. If creationists are so crazy about defending the Genesis myths as absolute truth why don't we test women to see if they are genetically identical to men's ribs

You see there is genetic evidence out the wazoo to support our relationships with the apes but none whatsoever to prove that men are made of dirt and women made of spare ribs.