|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hyper evolution in the bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: If a beast changes into a man, then what is it? Can we get something straight here? The Bible doesn't speak of Nebuchadnezzar becoming a beast, it speaks of him becoming like a beast.
quote: According to the story, he went crazy and acted like an animal. He did not "evolve", hyper or otherwise. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: You call it similies, and baloney, but that only describes your opinion of it. Similes are similes. That is not a matter of opinion. Daniel said that Nebuchadnezzar acted like a beast, he did not become one. The only changes were his hair and nails growing longer and it does not say that that happened rapidly. In "the same hour" the change began. It doesn't say anything about how long it took. Your inability to read the Bible does not strengthen your case. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: Nowhere does it say it was a simile. THE WORD "LIKE" SAYS IT WAS A SIMILE. If you can't read plain English, you're just wasting my time. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
In case there are any lurkers who might be taken in by this lunacy, I'll try one last time:
In the English language, a comparison using the word "like" is a simile. By definition. Period. You can not use the word "like" in a comparison without it being a simile. Period. It is a figure of speech, by definition. Period. It is not to be taken literally. Period. If it was not intended as a figure of speech, the word "like" would not be there. The translators obviously intended it as a figure of speech, or they would not have used the word "like". If the simple-minded don't want it to be a figure of speech, they need to argue with the translators, not with the English language. As it applies to the example, Nebuchadnezzar's hair was like eagles' feathers - it did not become eagles' feathers. His nails were like claws - they did not become claws. He ate grass like oxen - he did not become an ox. There was no evolution involved. Period. This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-07-09 09:27 AM People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: You can say Neb's feathers were like eagle's, but they were feathers! Nope. Read it again:
quote: It doesn't say his feathers were like eagles' feathers. It says his hair was like eagles feathers. It was still hair. No evolution. You're twisting the Bible. Shame on you. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
I know I shouldn't waste my time with somebody who can't read English, but I can't get past this:
simple writes: How could a garden grow in a few days? You've brought that up several times, but nowhere does Genesis say anything about the garden growing "in a few days".
quote: There is no mention at all of a time frame. Okay. I've gotten that off my chest. Babylon. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: We know when this garden was planted, on the third day. No. We know that plants were created on the third day. The garden could have been planted at any time after that, just like many other gardens have been planted at other times. And by the way:
We know man was placed in this garden, (and most animals as well), and that man was made on the fifth day, animals the day before. No. Land animals were created on the sixth day, the same day that man was created:
quote: People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: ... if the garden came 'sometime later ' than the third day, nevertheless, man and beast had to eat, and that was the sixth day! Still no. It says that god planted the garden and put the man into it:
quote: Nowhere does it say that that happened on the sixth day. It could have been days, months or years later. Now, the plants outside the garden were created, not "planted". So the animals outside the garden could forage just as normal animals do on normal plants. The man could equally have been sustained by normal plants outside the garden for days, months or years. Or, after he was in the garden, he could very well have been sustained by the created plants from outside the garden until the garden was ready to eat. Also, it doesn't say that God planted seeds. He might very well have transplanted mature plants from outside the garden. So there is absolutely no requirement for rapid growth in the garden. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: Here we see that every creature was brought to Adam. If you take that tack, you're going to run into conflicts between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In Genesis 1, the animals came first, and then men and women.
... nowhere have I seen it said there were any plants of animals outside of the garden, except, nearby, in the sea, of course. Think again. In Genesis 1, first the plants were created, then the animals were created, then man was created, then the garden was planted. There had to be plants and animals "outside" the garden because there was no garden at first. Also, it specifically says that God put the man in the garden, not that He created the man in the garden. The garden was clearly a subset of the whole creation. The garden was "in" Eden. Remember?
Actually, I don't think we know if He had breathed life into Adam before he was moved to the garden?! Think again:
quote: You're starting to waste my time again. How about actually reading the Bible before you make that kind of comment?
Nowhere in fact, can I find even a hint there were actually plants and animals created outside the habitable place of the earth,(garden) where every creature was brought to Adam to name! You don't have to go looking for obscure "hints". Just read the Bible. First, God created plants, then He created animals, then He created man, then He planted the garden, then He put man into the garden. In fact, there is not so much as a hint that there were not any plants or animals outside the garden. After all, when God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden, do you think they went out into a completely barren and uninhabited world? Of course not.
Can you imagine planting a tree that will grow fruit right away? Or transplanting a thousand year old redwood tree? How about thousands of trees, and millions of plants? No, it is more reasonable to assume that He did it like we do, plant a garden. Ahem... we are talking about God here. Remember? If He could create them in the first place, He could "plant" them any way He chose, with a reasonable chance of success. And no need for rapid growth.
Remember also that the 6 day creation was when all this happened, then He rested. If He planted a garden in the six days, before the seventh day, it would have to be the day Adam was put there!!!!!!!!!!!!! So rapid growth is absolutely required. If we're going with the 24-hour days here (and more on that later), then God only rested for one day. Where does it say that the man was put in the garden before that? It could have been days or months or years later. No need for rapid growth.
This I say, because of physical evidence. What have you got? Are you saying that you have physical evidence of the "six 24-hour days" creation? Because there are other threads that would gladly have you present that evidence. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: Or "had planted".... So you found one commentator who twists the Bible the way you want it. The plain meaning is still that the garden was planted after man was created:
quote: The rest of your post is so nonsensical that I can't even follow it. Babylon. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: The root issue seems to be that either you understand that Gen 2 is not meant as some precise order, and Gen 1 is. But Genesis 1 has the order flat-out wrong. Light before plants? Plants before the sun?
If you miss this, you cannot really get far in comprehension. A lesson in comprehension from the guy who can't recognize a simile when he sees one? People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: from day 3 to day 6, behold, food for all flesh.... I've seen dandelions grow in less than three days. They make a nutritious salad, I'm told. Does that mean my lawn is "merged" with the spiritual? People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: How about trees that bear fruit? How about them? I see no reason why all life on earth couldn't have subsisted on dandelions for 3 measly days. Have you ever seen my lawn? I could feed Africa for a year (if we could manage the transportation difficulties).
... either try to toss out the bible.... I'm not trying to toss out the Bible. I'm just reading it. Maybe you should try that. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: Africa cannot be fed, nor the world, and all creatures, and cattle- with 3 days growth of plants! I'm saying it can. And from my lawn alone, no less. Let's do the experiment: You round up the transport planes. I'll start on the salads. Your scenario is far loonier than mine. (By the way, does it even occur to you that nobody is taking you seriously?) People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: Your scenario is invalid. On the contrary, my scenario is testable. In fact, we're testing it right now. I have enough salads made for the Cameroons. Where are them planes? The salads are starting to wilt.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024