Jump to content

In The Beginning....


Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

LF, you're hitting the nail on the head. 

 

'An imaginary cure for an imaginary disease.' That's what christianity is offering via the imaginary concepts of original sin and salvation from original sin. My first line is a paraphrase from a Campbell lecture. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

IH, even you have to admit that your answer is nothing more than pure speculation. The bible doesn't even remotely infer anything you have just answered. You are imposing your version of reality onto

There were two humans... who produced two sons. The elder killed the younger, then buggars off to the land of Nod where he "knows his wife"   Um... where did this wife come from? Did he just wander

  • Moderator
Just now, Joshpantera said:

LF, you're hitting the nail on the head. 

 

'An imaginary cure for an imaginary disease.' That's what christianity is offering via the imaginary concepts of original sin and salvation from original sin. My first line is a paraphrase from a Campbell lecture. 

 

Well I am trying to hit the nail on the head... I'm just not getting a response... which is very telling :scratch:. BAA and I have had no response since around January. Possibly my set of questions so far unanswered simply go to a place where IH is not prepared to go?

 

That line ties in with Hitchen's comments to the effect that God first creates the situation in which one needs saving, then provides the mechanism by which one can be saved. "Playing tennis without the net" I think he referred to it as.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
On 4/5/2017 at 3:08 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

On 3/29/2017 at 3:08 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 3/25/2017 at 9:47 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 3/18/2017 at 0:54 AM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 3/6/2017 at 5:18 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 2/23/2017 at 11:17 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 2/9/2017 at 10:18 AM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 1/25/2017 at 1:58 AM, ironhorse said:

Ironhorse please respond to the following questions:

 

1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"?

 

I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth.

 

2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)?

First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.”

 

No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God.

See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation.

How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea.

 

3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical?

 

I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text.

Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so.

 

Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49:

 

 

 

Ironhorse said:

I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone.

This was in relation to Noah's flood.

 

I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false.

 

Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated?

 

Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible.

 

Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years)

 

This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then:

 

Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist?

 

 

We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer.

 

Thanks

LF

 

Quote

Snap again BAA - it occurred to me I hadn't bumped this for a bit, come here and you have bumped. We are in sync... its a sign.. of something...

 tongue.png

Bump.

IH It is now 20 days and no reply. Please address my questions 4,5 & 6 in BLUE

 

Well I think its time for a ... Bump!

 

Ironhorse

 

I see you are active at the moment (6-3-17, 4:18 UTC) . Please address questions 4, 5 and 6 in the quoted portion above.

 

Thanks

LF

 

Here we go again.

 

Ironhorse we haven't finished our conversation. Please answer questions in blue above.... before I go blue in the face from waiting.

 

Ironhorse next time you are able to post, please address my questions 4,5 and 6 in blue in the quoted portion

 

I've lost count of days waiting for reply.

 

And for goodness sake please answer BAA... the poor guy is hanging out for an answer!

 

Might I note that there are a total of 4 questions outstanding combined of BAA and myself. None of them are particularly difficult, or require a long technical answer. I can probably safely assume that if you have read these requests and the posts that you have already answered them in your head within seconds. So do be honest and continue the discussion.

 

Thanks

 

LF

 

Bump for the umpteenth dozen time.

 

Oh Ironhorse, the pipes the pipes are calling, from glen to glen, and down the mountain side....

 

Please answer or I'll end up like ol Danny Boy in the song before you reply.

 

IRONHORSE

Now that I have your attention, please answer questions 4-6 above.

 

Thanks

 

LF

 

 

Oh Ironhorse, the thread, the thread is calling.
From glen to glen and down the mountain side.
The summer's gone, and all the roses falling.
It's you, It's you, must go, and I must bide. (My time)
 
But come ye back when summer's in the meadow.
Or when the valley's hushed and white with snow.
I'll be here in Sunshine or in Shadow
Oh Ironhorse, Oh Ironhorse, please answer me.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

Unfortunately, if it's not Bob Dylan or U2, Ironhorse probably won't recognize it.  For the rest of us, though, enjoy:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

And if you want to hear a crystal clear voice singing it:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Moderator
On 4/13/2017 at 11:01 AM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 4/5/2017 at 3:08 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

On 3/29/2017 at 3:08 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 3/25/2017 at 9:47 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 3/18/2017 at 0:54 AM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 3/6/2017 at 5:18 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 2/23/2017 at 11:17 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 2/9/2017 at 10:18 AM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 1/25/2017 at 1:58 AM, ironhorse said:

Ironhorse please respond to the following questions:

 

1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"?

 

I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth.

 

2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)?

First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.”

 

No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God.

See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation.

How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea.

 

3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical?

 

I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text.

Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so.

 

Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49:

 

 

 

Ironhorse said:

I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone.

This was in relation to Noah's flood.

 

I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false.

 

Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated?

 

Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible.

 

Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years)

 

This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then:

 

Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist?

 

 

We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer.

 

Thanks

LF

 

Quote

Snap again BAA - it occurred to me I hadn't bumped this for a bit, come here and you have bumped. We are in sync... its a sign.. of something...

 tongue.png

Bump.

IH It is now 20 days and no reply. Please address my questions 4,5 & 6 in BLUE

 

Well I think its time for a ... Bump!

 

Ironhorse

 

I see you are active at the moment (6-3-17, 4:18 UTC) . Please address questions 4, 5 and 6 in the quoted portion above.

 

Thanks

LF

 

Here we go again.

 

Ironhorse we haven't finished our conversation. Please answer questions in blue above.... before I go blue in the face from waiting.

 

Ironhorse next time you are able to post, please address my questions 4,5 and 6 in blue in the quoted portion

 

I've lost count of days waiting for reply.

 

And for goodness sake please answer BAA... the poor guy is hanging out for an answer!

 

Might I note that there are a total of 4 questions outstanding combined of BAA and myself. None of them are particularly difficult, or require a long technical answer. I can probably safely assume that if you have read these requests and the posts that you have already answered them in your head within seconds. So do be honest and continue the discussion.

 

Thanks

 

LF

 

Bump for the umpteenth dozen time.

 

Oh Ironhorse, the pipes the pipes are calling, from glen to glen, and down the mountain side....

 

Please answer or I'll end up like ol Danny Boy in the song before you reply.

 

IRONHORSE

Now that I have your attention, please answer questions 4-6 above.

 

Thanks

 

LF

 

 

Oh Ironhorse, the thread, the thread is calling.
From glen to glen and down the mountain side.
The summer's gone, and all the roses falling.
It's you, It's you, must go, and I must bide. (My time)
 
But come ye back when summer's in the meadow.
Or when the valley's hushed and white with snow.
I'll be here in Sunshine or in Shadow
Oh Ironhorse, Oh Ironhorse, please answer me.

 

IRONHORSE, IRONHORSE, IRONHORSE, IRONHORSE!.....

Oh Ironhorse where art thou?

 

Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated?

 

Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from a common ancestor over millions of years)

 

Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Moderator
 

 

IRONHORSE, IRONHORSE, IRONHORSE, IRONHORSE!.....

Oh Ironhorse where art thou?

 

Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated?

 

Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from a common ancestor over millions of years)

 

Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist?

 

Sigh. It's time for another bump.

 

At this point, since IronHorse either has severe technical difficulties, or is refusing to answer I challenge any Christian to pick up Ironhorse's mantel and answer my questions. Heck if you want to go back to my very first post and answer I'm most happy to run through the whole subject again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Contrary to Paul's cry to stand your ground, IronHorse, you've run away. 

 

IronHorse, IronHorse, where for art thou? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is further empirical evidence that Ironhorse, aka Tin Pony, aka Pewter Jackass, is a coward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Genesis is another example of how little God understood his own creation. According to scientists, our planet was once home to several hominid species, including homo sapiens yet the Bible claims only one species were created (obviously homo sapiens). I recon The Almighty(tm) did not get the memo? Cain's wife would have come from another hominid, perhaps cross-breeding, so Jesus (Iesus-whatever his name is now) is part neanderthal and whatever else interbred or cross bred with homo sapiens. I've often believed humans were not the only ones in town, nor the only branch on their tree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
 

Contrary to Paul's cry to stand your ground, IronHorse, you've run away. 

 

IronHorse, IronHorse, where for art thou? 

 

Yeah, he's long gone.

 

So much unresolved in this thread. I actually somewhat enjoyed this one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Moderator

@ironhorse

Ironhorse, since you are back and in force creating new topics, would you be so kind as to answer the queries below you have avoided for so long?

 

Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated?

 

Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from a common ancestor over millions of years)

 

Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist?

 

Thank you

LF

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/03/2017 at 9:14 PM, bornagainathiest said:
  On 25/02/2017 at 0:30 PM, bornagainathiest said:
  On 06/02/2017 at 3:29 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

  On 29/12/2016 at 6:33 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

This will be the tenth (10th) time I've put this question to you, Ironhorse.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

It's been fifty nine (59) days since I first put this to you...so please answer the question before it's 2017, so that I don't have to copy it fifty nine times!

 

It's been ninety eight (98) days since I first put this question to you and you didn't answer it in 2017.  

 

If you have nothing to fear, nothing to hide and nothing to lose, please answer this simple question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

(Re-bump!)

Re-re-bump!

(Re-bump!)

Re-re-bump!

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Re-bumpity-bumped (a lot) for Ironhorse's attention.

 

Please answer the question you've been avoiding for 10 months.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

If you have nothing to fear, nothing to hide and nothing to lose, please answer this simple question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • Moderator

 

On 4/25/2017 at 1:26 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On 1/25/2017 at 1:58 AM, ironhorse said:

Ironhorse please respond to the following questions:

 

1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"?

 

I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth.

 

2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)?

First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.”

 

No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God.

See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation.

How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea.

 

3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical?

 

I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text.

Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so.

 

Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49:

 

 

 

Ironhorse said:

I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone.

This was in relation to Noah's flood.

 

I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false.

 

Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated?

 

Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible.

 

Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years)

 

This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then:

 

Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist?

 

 

We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer.

 

Thanks

LF

 

 

 

Here we go again:

 

@ironhorse you have the three questions quoted in blue above (4,5 & 6) outstanding since a very long time ago. Please do us the courtesy of answering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
On 8/11/2017 at 10:04 AM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Re-bumpity-bumped (a lot) for Ironhorse's attention.

 

Please answer the question you've been avoiding for 10 months.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

If you have nothing to fear, nothing to hide and nothing to lose, please answer this simple question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

@ironhorse Please answer BAA's question above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • Moderator

@ironhorse I last bumped this thread on 20 November 2017. You have recently come back active. Please answer my questions in blue below and also BAA's question below that. Thanks.

 

On ‎20‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 10:43 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On ‎25‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 1:26 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On ‎25‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 1:58 AM, ironhorse said:

Ironhorse please respond to the following questions:

 

1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"?

 

I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth.

 

2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)?

First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.”

 

No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God.

See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation.

How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea.

 

3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical?

 

I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text.

Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so.

 

Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49:

 

 

 

Ironhorse said:

I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone.

This was in relation to Noah's flood.

 

I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false.

 

Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated?

 

Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible.

 

Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years)

 

This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then:

 

Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist?

 

 

We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer.

 

Thanks

LF

 

 

 

Here we go again:

 

@ironhorse you have the three questions quoted in blue above (4,5 & 6) outstanding since a very long time ago. Please do us the courtesy of answering.

 

In honour of BAA I'm trying to get @ironhorse to answer this question. I'm not sure where BAA was going with this but I might read through and carry on his thought if IH does the courtesy of answering.

 

On ‎20‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 10:44 PM, LogicalFallacy said:
On ‎11‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 10:04 AM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Re-bumpity-bumped (a lot) for Ironhorse's attention.

 

Please answer the question you've been avoiding for 10 months.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

If you have nothing to fear, nothing to hide and nothing to lose, please answer this simple question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

@ironhorse Please answer BAA's question above.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Moderator

@florduh @SkipNChurch with the passing of Ironhorse our discussion has come to an abrupt end and there is nothing further to discuss here.

 

I thank everyone for their contributions, especially BAA who worked closely with me on this thread, in our discussions about the theological issues regarding the first chapters of the Bible.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • nivek locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.