Hyper evolution in the bible

I'm pretty like unto to him, but "hyper-evolution"? Stuff grew real fast, and evolved real fast, which explains how there was something to eat after the Flood?I'm more interested in this age thing. I figured out that it was necessary for Adam and Eve to live a long time so that their sons would marry not their sisters but their cousins.A cousin is not so bad to marry.It made sense.

which accounts for a miricle, if you choose to believe it that way. an act of god. i don't understand why he thinks this is justification of a merged universe or "the sandwich" or whatever. uh, how? a cousin is your parent's sibling's child. where are adam's or eve's siblings? and what does that have to do with age? maybe in alabama....

---

אָרַח

What is someone's stated goodness got to do with how there is a merged state in heaven, and probably in ancient history? Come on in from way out in left field.

quote:

---

and then god... makes man again. hmm.

---

No he was already made, He just goes back, and gives some detail, like a movie.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,
&c. Not of dry dust, but, as Josephus says, of red earth macerated, or mixed with water; the like notion Hesiod has; or out of clay, as in (Job 33:6) hence a word is made use of, translated "formed", which is used of the potter that forms his clay into what shape he pleases: the original matter of which man was made was clay; hence the clay of Prometheus with the Heathens; and God is the Potter that formed him, and gave him the shape he has, see (Isaiah 64:8) , there are two "jods", it is observed, in the word, which is not usual; respecting, as Jarchi thinks, the formation of man for this world, and for the resurrection of the dead; but rather the two fold formation of body and soul, the one is expressed here, and the other in the following clause.." Genesis 2 - Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Seems the 'formed' thing refers to how we were molded from clay.

quote:

---

please learn grammar, and stop listening to people who have no idea what they're talking about.

---

Grammer needs to be placed in context of what is going on here. The world and all was already made from the first utterance of chapter 2.

quote:

---

( About New Jerusalem.) Can spirits eat?

​

yes

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gen 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at eve...
Gen 19:3 ... and [Lot] made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

---

Spirits then were not seen by the men of Sodom. Wait a minute, they were seen and lusted over! We see then they had assumed bodies.

quote:

---

Are there trees that are spiritual?

​

yes

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exd 15:25 And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD shewed him a tree, [which] when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Digging up non bible books now are we? How would throwing a tree in the water, which God used to do something to the water mean it was a ghost tree?

quote:

---

Do spirits have mansions?

​

yes

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gen 28:17 And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful [is] this place! this [is] none other but the house of God, and this [is] the gate of heaven.

---

So where are the mansions in the dream Jacob had here?

quote:

---

notices that all of those examples are after your split.

---

No problem, if it is conceeded here, the rest is easy. Notice also, they are after the merge!

quote:

---

Our spirits, or other spirits, for that matter, can inhabit a body, and do inhabit our bodies we were given.

​

hey! there you go! the physical and spiritual are merged!

---

No. If they were they could not die. As it is the seperated physical body dies, while the seperated spiritual body moves on.

quote:

---

Seperate, in the sense that our physical body will die, and be bound to the physical earth, but not our spirits. I believe our bodies will rise up to meet our spirits, and merge in the ressurection.

​

well that's entirely different than your crazy sandwich idea!

---

No, remember I said there was a transition time? This is in that time, and we, christians, will have our eternal bodies, but the earth will still be physical.

quote:

---

well then why do you cite interaction as proof of a merging?

---

Living forever is not mere interaction. Light that was here before the sun is not an indication of physical only, otherwise, where is it now? Plants that grow in days worldwide are not all that local, and lifespans planetwide being real long are pretty universal as well. And so forth.This message has been edited by simple, 07-20-2005 01:07 AM

movies? i love movies!ever seen "desparado" with antonio bandera? it's a classic. but what most people don't know is that it's actually a SEQUEL to a very low-dubget indie movie by the same director, "el mariachi." but there's problem though. it's not a sequel per se. see, desparado and el mariachi have the same basic plot, not just the same characters. now, they're obviously very different movies. if you saw el mariachi, you might not think it was by the same guy, even. it's a far cry from his other movies, like desparado, once upon a time in mexico (the third movie) and the dusk til dawn series.what's even weirder is that "once upon a time in mexico" still doesn't line up. it contains flashbacks that just plain don't fit into either desparado or mariachi. actually, they're kind of impossible within the plot of the first two. so, none of the three movies fit together with any other movie -- yet all are the same length, two have the same plot, and they're all about the same people.just like genesis chapters 1 through 3. strikingly similar to a babylonian myth, involving marduk. but yes, that is what it's saying. however, it describes it in the chain of events of the story. it's not a flashnack, it's a re-telling. think desparado. it's like you saw the movie "jurassic park" right? and then when you go to actually read the book, since we're talking about books here, you spend the whole time trying to make the girl younger and the boy older, and the chaos theorist not a nerd but a cool guy in leather jacket. you're starting with this preconcieved notion of what it should say, and just looking for things that support while glossing over the bits that disagree (like, what it actually says).this bits lead to atrocities, like the sequels to jurassic park. the book "the lost world" makes no sense in particular -- ian malcom's the main character, but he died in the first book. so it's pretty clear that even michael chricton was thinking of the movie, and not his own book. no, they were disguised as men. what, do angel's go around posessing people like demons?and the textual evidence is that they were not lusted over, let alone seen at any length by the men of sodom: the "men" of sodom ask to see the "men" in lot's house. but they use the non-gender-specific hebrew word, not the one meaning "a male person." so they did not know the gender of the people insider.(some suggest that angels don't have gender, which could explain the confusion) last i checked, exodus was the second book of the bible. tell me, have you EVEN READ THE BIBLE? how would jesus flying indicate he was both physical and spiritual? you can;t have one and not the other. does it do something magical or miraculous? it's got spiritual powers. it says in the verse i posted. i can't read it to you over the internet. nope, i chose things after genesis 11, and before the millenium, which is where you defined the split state.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-20-2005 02:23 AM

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

so, none of the three movies fit together with any other movie -- yet all are the same length, two have the same plot, and they're all about the same people.

​

just like genesis chapters 1 through 3.

---

Just because some movies are getting tacky, doesn't mean we can apply it to the bible.

quote:

---

strikingly similar to a babylonian myth

---

Yes, God the original does have His copycats, and those who heard something, but got it somewhat screwed uppies.

quote:

---

no, they were disguised as men. what, do angel's go around posessing people like demons?

---

I am sorry, but they were considered men. They were visible, and talked, etc. Your spiritual knowledge is not such, that we have to limit how this came about to your limited preconceived notions.

quote:

---

some suggest that angels don't have gender, which could explain the confusion)

---

Some also suggest they had babies with the daughters of men, who they saw were fair.

quote:

---

last i checked, exodus was the second book of the bible. tell me, have you EVEN READ THE BIBLE?

---

Ha. Got me there, I didn't recognise the book you refered to, right you are.

quote:

---

how would jesus flying indicate he was both physical and spiritual? you can;t have one and not the other. does it do something magical or miraculous? it's got spiritual powers.

---

I have done the miraculous. Yet I am no spirit. By the way, it was not Jesus flying that showed He was physical. That was more a spiritual trait, I'd say!

quote:

---

So where are the mansions in the dream Jacob had here?

​

it says in the verse i posted. i can't read it to you over the internet

---

The verse you posted was about Jacob's dream. I looked at it and saw no mention of mansions.

quote:

---

nope, i chose things after genesis 11, and before the millenium, which is where you defined the split state.

---

????????????? The split, in my opinion started at the fall. It ended in the days of Peleg, or was completed. In other words, we made the break, universally, with the spiritual. At present we are in the physical only universe, with local spiritual applications. The millenium marks the transition back to a merged state, not some split. After the transition, at the end of the millenium, it all comes together!
I'm away from things for a week or so. Ta.This message has been edited by simple, 07-20-2005 02:47 AM

you know, you're really good at this one liner thing. you have not demonstrated why this analogy does not fit. you have shown no knowledge about anything regarding the bible, the spiritual, or, hell, even the factual. i can't even get you to understand grammar, and comprehend readings. this is grade school stuff, simple. on what indication do you take "the sons of god" to mean "angels?"see, even if they're spiritual beings, angels are very specific things. seraphim are very specific things. cherubim are very specific things. and sons of god are very specific things. the fact that you're mixing up angels with sons of god is plainly indicative of your preconcieved notions about what the text says, and your unwillingness to actually examine it. hey robin, weren't you looking for something like this? so how can he do spiritual stuff in a non-merged world? what, you think "the house of god" is a shanty made out of aluminum siding? everything i mentioned was between your finished-splitting-date and your start-merging-state, in the "physical only world." mmhmm. ad hoc much? ok, well, why couldn't eden be a local spiritual application? yeah, like a sandwich. do you always run away from debates you can't win?

---

אָרַח

{A quick recap: Simple said "Noah's world, and Adam's, and heaven all have fast growing plants.", so I asked him "How do you know this? Is your only source the Bible, or do you have some other independent evidence?"}So, let me get this straight again. As evidence for fast growing plants in biblical times (and in heaven, no less!) you present: A. the Bible, which, judging from your conversation with Arachnophilia, you don't seem to know very well; B. "tidbits" you've read of other people's dreams and life-after-death experiences, describing similar phenomena.You seriously cite other people's dreams as evidence for your nonsense?? I really can't believe I'm reading this! And you mention "similar phenomena". What similar phenomena? How are they similar? I really wonder what imaginary phenomenon can induce you to make up fast growing plants.Here are some facts about the real world, Simple:
- The Bible doesn't mention fast growing plants anywhere.
- People's dreams are not evidence.
- When people die, they cannot come back to tell you about it. They're dead.
- There is no such thing as hyper-evolution.Where were you educated, Simple? Where in the world is the madrassa where they teach people the nonsense that has apparently taken over your brain?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

i'm glad i'm not alone here. heck, if i can find a literalist who actually understands the bible and believes it literally, i won't even argue with 'em. but so far i haven't found one. q) a duck says what?seriously, i don't even know i argue with this guy. it's pretty plainly evident that he's a bit off from reality. it just really irks when people so plainly distort the bible. if you're gonna honor with belief, at least respect it enough to read it, try to understand it, and not completely bend and pervert what it says to support your delusions.

---

אָרַח

Perhaps because it never ceases to amaze you to what lengths some people go to keep up the fantasy they indulge in, and you just want more of it? Anyway, those are my reasons.You seem to know the Bible pretty well, are you some sort of Biblical scholar?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

no, just interested enough to actually try to figure it out.most of the stuff with simple is pretty, well, simple. he's showing misuse of tools that available to anyone, a bible dictionary/concordance, and a side-by-side translation.many people use these tools to distort the meaning of the bible verse in question. replacing a word's meaning with a synonymn, or other usage in the text is a common way, as is misunderstand the tense and mood of a verb -- simple has shown both. it does not take into account that hebrew does not translate word-for-word very well into english, let alone the tenses and moods and conjugations. some of the grammatical customs are a little odd, and have to be rendered slightly idiomatically. so a word in the hebrew might correspond a different word in the english.for instance, in the great debate thread, mr. ex found an instance of bara (to create) that got rendered "cut down" in english:

quote:

---

Jos 17:15 And Joshua answered them, If thou [be] a great people, [then] get thee up to the wood [country], and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.

---

but it's actually just saying "create land" or space. it implies cutting down the trees, but the word itself still literally means "create" it's just a funny tense in hebrew, and an awkward rendering in english -- so the translator made it more clear. and so for that particular mood, the bible dictionary says bara means "cut down." even if this were the case, it's doubly unacceptable to apply it to a usage of bara in a different mood.this irks me in particular, because you can not only use it to completely reverse the meaning of a verse ("in the beginning, god cut down heaven and earth.") but if you extend it, you can actually make the text say anything you want.and i'm not exagerating that, either. for instance, in my discussion with eddy pengelly, who employed this technique to look for evidence of moses's cd-rom collection, i started re-interpretting various verses to include statements that about him, and his methods.i guess quacks just annoy me. i don't know what it is that inspires people to think "those translators don't really know what they're doing, it's should really say this" and then interpret their own message into it. it probably annoys me partly because i used to be guilty of it. but with a better understanding, these tools actually tend to confirm what translators do -- it's no coincidence that almost all translations say basically the same thing.however, they are useful because occasionally translators make mistakes, or put their own views in. in some instances, it does not confirm a translation:

quote:

---

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

---

this should probably say "serpents" and not whales. the word's origin is related to elongation and every other usage of the word relates to snakes, dragons, and is associated with the name leviathan. nouns can be a little fuzzy at times, so it's hard to draw the line of what's appropriate skepticism and what's not.anyways. most of the people who argue that they know what the bible REALLY says don't speak hebrew. this is incredibly ironic: we never hear from hebrew-speakers that our translations are wrong.(i'm starting to learn hebrew in the fall, btw. i doubt it will expediate arguments here, but at least i'll stand a better chance.)

---

אָרַח

Well, I guess I was comparing the level of ridiculousness of this topic with the level of arrogance of someone claiming that he has an exemplary moral character.Both on the same level.

or a miracle-worker? look up a bit.

---

אָרַח

There are some arrogant jackasses on this forum, and I refuse to put up with them.Paulk and MikeHager.True, this is off-topic, but I thought I would mention it.It bothers me.To get back to Simple . . . I can't get back to Simple except to say that perhaps he has literary ability.

simple? literary skills?that would be a miracle!seriously, you should be careful. you're asking to get suspended here.

---

אָרַח