Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


watching it now

always like to hear people's view of old testament stuff.

Originally posted by randyvs

I have faith in the Bible and that faith hasn't let me down.
And yet the seculars ask me to turn my back on that.
I can not. And I never will.

But then why create a thread asking 'Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.,' if you were never even going to consider the replies?....

reply to post by Prezbo369

But then why create a thread asking 'Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.,' if you were never even going to consider the replies?...

That's easy enough Prezbo. I call it a challenge.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

"to till the ground," kinda puts a wrench in the workings of "cain" was a grain dude and "abel" was a meat dude. if they were created originally as vegetation farmers, where's the sudden interest in bloody meat sacrifices come from instead of grain, since the text infers the adam were created as plant growers? i think i can answer that-- the first adam were not mammals, so they weren't overseers of the mammal kingdom.

edit on 8-9-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)

I've never understood this "started out as vegetarians" idea. It's not in the bible, that I am sure of. Abel was a sheep herder and Cain grew food, and none of his kids can grow food today. Imagine being cursed so you can't grow food. Imagine how dependent that would make them on others for grains and veggies. They became merchants and tent makers. I always laugh that so few Christians notice that the imposter Paul was a tent maker.

Anyhow, there is no biblical evidence of a prior non-mammalian Adam. I would like to hear your source info which you are using to make these claims.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

"to till the ground," kinda puts a wrench in the workings of "cain" was a grain dude and "abel" was a meat dude. if they were created originally as vegetation farmers, where's the sudden interest in bloody meat sacrifices come from instead of grain, since the text infers the adam were created as plant growers? i think i can answer that-- the first adam were not mammals, so they weren't overseers of the mammal kingdom.

edit on 8-9-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)

I've never understood this "started out as vegetarians" idea. It's not in the bible, that I am sure of. Abel was a sheep herder and Cain grew food, and none of his kids can grow food today. Imagine being cursed so you can't grow food. Imagine how dependent that would make them on others for grains and veggies. They became merchants and tent makers. I always laugh that so few Christians notice that the imposter Paul was a tent maker.

Anyhow, there is no biblical evidence of a prior non-mammalian Adam. I would like to hear your source info which you are using to make these claims.

I believe the general thesis from scholars of the Torah and Talmud is that -

Cain's error was dangerously misleading. He failed to realize the great difference between humans and animals, in that Man has a Divine soul, as opposed to animals which are purely physical beings.God was telling Cain that while at birth, Man and beast seem equal, only Man is capable of improving himself and rising to the highest levels. If he does not, sin rests at his door. Animals, on the other hand, have no such potential for greatness, and whatever level they are on at birth, there they shall always remain.

Then came Cain’s big mistake. According to Rabbi Albo, Cain failed to understand the reason for the rejection of his sacrifice and continued to assume that his own value system – that man and animals are inherently equal – was correct. The next fatal step was for Cain to conclude that just as taking the life of an animal is permitted (albeit not for food), so too is taking the life of one’s fellow man. Thus Cain killed Abel.

source- www.aish.com...

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


i'm so glad you asked me that question. hehe

observe

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

the word for man there was originally "adam" not man. adam is a plural word. i have no idea why translators chose to ignore that it is a plural word, representing a race known as the adam and that the adam were created in the image of elohim (also a plural word), male and female.

at this point, the adam are not procreating, they're being created in the image of elohim.. there was no pain in childbirth because new adam were being created like clones. they weren't hermaphrodites and since it says both male and female were created in the image of elohim, i think somebody forgot to mention that some elohim were female.

now skip ahead, and the eve shows up on the scene. eve is not called eve until adam names her. up to that point, new female adam were copies of the female elohim and were only referred to as "adam". . now one of the male adam lends his dna to create a new kind of female adam -- a procreative female adam. this is the mammalian addition, that changed the adam from being copies (re-creations) of the original elohim, to creators of new life, in their own right. that's why the text says, "you will be like gods knowing good and evil".

but there's more. "knowing" meant to have intimate sexual relations.. "Adam knew his wife and she begat"
so the "knowledge" of good and evil is procreation. i can hear you saying "huh? wait, that means god made adam and eve procreative and then punished them for it!" but that's not exactly correct. what happened was, enlil jehovah didn't like the new procreative adam and since this was his planet, he went to the divine council and demanded that enki jehovah be forced to shorten the lifespan of the adam. and since enki jehovah was the jehovah responsible for the creation of the procreative adam, he was compelled by divine law, to make the modifications.

human beings, as a procreative mammalian species, were created by the guy characterized in genesis, as the bad guy. the hebrews were enlil-ites. my theory is that enlil is actually the accuser and the entire premise in the text is turned on its head

reply to post by undo


What you are saying sounds a lot like what Scott Mcquate shares in his Cinders of Allah teaching which speaks of a first creation "adam" that God did not like and said was evil and destroyed and turned to ashes. That the wicked elohim took those ashes and some genetic material of the high God and mixed them and made mankind. That this is where DNA has the Sera Penta aspect and why we get the word "serpent" which I find laughable because serpent is a modern word and not Sumerian which is where Scott gets his story from.

He goes on to say the Jin who are locked on Saturn that has that Hexagram seal on it were the ones who did the actual genetic modification which made man and that it does go back to procreating, and that the original adam was not meant to procreate.

It's all interesting, but it's not biblical, and it also makes it out that the gods who made mankind were not the Creator God, but underlings and that Yaldaboath was the bad mean god of the OT and the real God is the one Yeshua pointed to. It's all very convoluted and meant to separate the OT God from the NT God. I think there is a lot we don't understand, but I don't think the OT was wrong and Yeshua said he came to keep the commandments of that same OT God his Father.

addendum: that is, the premise that the guy who gave us procreation is the accuser, is incorrect, i do believe.

if you're a christian, then ask yourself, who tried to give the planet to jesus in return for his fealty and how could he offer it in trade, if it wasn't his to begin with?

Lord Earth, i.e. soil, clay, is not the same as the God of this World. One is creator of life, the other, well he tends not to like us too much.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


k think of the worst possible thing someone could do to you, then ask yourself if your solution would be to condemn that person to eternal torture. if the answer is no, then you have just arrived at the place jesus taught about--forgiveness. does the person need to ask you to forgive them in order for you to do so? of course not.

While I am sure the Rabbi's believe that about Cain, but the bible simply shows why his offering was rejected:

Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.


Abel brought the firstlings while Cain just brought some fruit. It is not clear here, but it appears Abel brought the best of his work to the Lord while Cain did not. Their heart attitude was very different which we see in Hebrews:

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

It is apparent that the difference was faith and worship between Abel and Cain. Abel walked in faith and Cain did not. Cain looked upon his efforts and saw his product was good, and offered it, but he did not seek relationship with God, and it appears this is what God did not approve when He looked upon the offerings:

Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight

Some say that God liked Abel's sacrifice because it was of blood, but I say it was because of faith.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

But then why create a thread asking 'Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.,' if you were never even going to consider the replies?...

That's easy enough Prezbo. I call it a challenge.

So at what point do you realise that due to the fact that all such challenges have been met and overcome, repeatedly and without exception, that you might be wrong?

Or does your ego and pride preclude you from admitting you might be wrong?

Originally posted by Prezbo369


So at what point do you realise that due to the fact that all such challenges have been met and overcome, repeatedly and without exception, that you might be wrong?

Or does your ego and pride preclude you from admitting you might be wrong?

are you absolutely sure?

Originally posted by undo

are you absolutely sure?

I'm not absolutely sure about anything.

reply to post by randyvs


Well Randy I gave it a shot and made it about two minutes into the video. It really isn't hard to explain these elongated skulls. What is really hard is ignoring mainstream archaeology and anthropology to live in a fantasy world. I used to do the same thing when I was five or six. I would sit in the stones and gravel of my backyard and pretend the substantially sized ones were dinosaur fossils. I would uncover them slowly, brush them off gently, and then begin imagining what the creature looked like.

These sorts of science denialists are much like my six year old self, only they prefer to reinterpret things that already have good explanations.

Claims of the Nephilim based on these skulls are just as empty as all the wild crazy claims about the "Star Child" skull. Even if we allow for the idea that these skulls aren't human but instead belong to another species that species would still be part of our evolutionary family tree. Here's a question for you Randy, why did God make angels with the ability to impregnate human women? Think about that. Angels would have to be another species right, and one more spiritually inclined than humans, so why is their DNA compatible with ours at all?

Here's another fun one: Does God have nipples?

You see the Bible says man was made in the image of God and, Adam, as the first man, would have had nipples yes? So then God has nipples? Why did God, as the eternal nipple-having being that he is, give mammals the ability to use nipples to feed their young but then REMOVE that ability from male mammals BUT ALSO leave the nipples on them.

Mythology is nice as mythology. It teaches lessons, it contains fun kooky stories with lots of symbolism and figurative language, it's an enriching type of literature. But when you try believing it as fact you open up a can of questions that it simply doesn't have the answers to, but that science has discovered the answers to by seeking out the facts and extrapolating conclusions from them.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by undo

are you absolutely sure?

I'm not absolutely sure about anything.

you said:

the fact that all such challenges have been met and overcome, repeatedly and without exception

how can it be a fact and without exception if you're not absolutely sure?

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by undo

are you absolutely sure?

I'm not absolutely sure about anything.

you said:

the fact that all such challenges have been met and overcome, repeatedly and without exception

how can it be a fact and without exception if you're not absolutely sure?

To claim to know anything absolutely is folly.

However I'm incredibly certain that the above is correct, due to the threads made and the posts therein.

reply to post by Prezbo369


fair enough.
what i'm having a dilemma with is that the entire argument is based on stuff no one here has probably ever seen either and is prejudice from the outset to match the data to the theory instead of letting the data say what it will. understandable, as we wouldn't learn anything at all if we didn't give gathered evidence the benefit of the doubt to begin with, but then to say it's concrete proof, well, i tend to think my personal experiences are more evidential than someone else's evidence. if that makes sense.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


they didn't have nipples, perhaps?

reply to post by undo


Is that supposed to be proof that early man doesn't have nipples? Because going by those drawings, they also didn't have joints in their arms, had tails, horns on their heads, the males are like 2 times the size of the females, oh and when they hold something, their hands just meld into the object instead of grasping it.

reply to post by undo



Sure, but our senses can be deceived and so you should seek verification from multiple sources before considering it to be actually real.