Is the Bible acceptable?

To anybody really. I replied to you because your responses are short, sweet and generally pick up the feel of what other people are saying. I can't reply to everyone or I'd be repeating myself, and I have limited time. Anyone can respond, and if I missed an important point please let me know.

LOL. Well defining ancestrial gene pools would take alot more research than defining a species. Its a question for science, from the Bible (might I add) that science already tries to answer.This shows the Bible as a good source for doing scientific research.

The only kind that started out immortal was Adam and Eve until they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Other kinds were not instructed, not said to be immortal. You can't have them multiply without death or things would run amuck.

SO, what predictions does the bible make on what science will find?Tell me.Tell me , how does the Bible explain what we have already found?Give specifics.. Discuss the data, and show how it fits in the specific passages in the bible.

iano: You concluded by saying: There is no "application of reason" in anything you have shared.Gen. 1:11 & 12 in the English Bible clearly states that the earth brought forth grasses, herbs, and trees upon the earth. That means precisely what it says. To pretend that the text is stating 'every kind except those kinds that will be cultivated by humans' is not a rational or honest reading of the text. And, if we look only at the term "trees" referred to in Gen. 1:11 & 12, trees are not mention in the second creation account until Gen. 2:9; after the garden of Eden has been established.I am a critic of Creationism; I am not a critic of the Heb. Tanakh {Old Testament).Ger

From the Bible you can predict, and I believe science has found that a species (humans for example) can be traced back only so far and then can find no other trace of it. There are other species (homo erectus for example) that might be similar in structure and different ones trancend throughout time, but there is no proof that one is the ancestor of the other. There are broken links. I think this point at the end of the line is the likely point of creation. I'm not a data junkie, so only speak in theory.

grape2vine: You wrote In the Heb. Tanakh all mortal animals are referred to as nepesh chayah=breathing mortal creatures. At the conclusion of Gen. 2:7 "Adam" is a nepesh chayah=breathing mortal creature. All of the beasts of the field and fowl of the air mentioned in Gen. 2:19 are referred to as nepesh chayah=breathing mortal creatures. You do not get it both ways; humans cannot be instructed to "be fruitful and multiply" and be immortal as well. As you say, "things would run amuck."According to science, this planet and all things associated with it are subject to eventual demise. That appears to be how the entire universe works.Regards;
Ger

quote:

---

So It depends on your evolutionary view. If you believe everything evolved from the same single celled organism, then all life is the same kind. If you believe in creation though, then kind is the same as species.

---

Creationists more frequently take "kind" to include a number of species (because they want to invoke a post-Flood period of rapid macroevolution and diversification so they can cut down on the number of species that need to be carried in the Ark).However the "no new information" is another example of creationist "science' - an ad hoc invention intneded to deny any evolution they object to. While they call it "information" they don't seem to know what they mean by it. I suppose they call it "information" in the hopes that people will be fooled into thinking that it means something.

a "nephesh" corresponds with creature, and "chay" indicates that it is living. There is nothing in the definition that indicates that it has to be mortal. Adam eventually became mortal but not to start out.Adam was not instructed to be fruitful and multiply until after he became mortal. Genesis 2 came before Genesis 1 in part. Check that thread I refered you to.

Well that includes everyone inbetween the two extremes. I lean toward the "no new information" extreme. I do agree with natural selection, but not to a point that one cannot reproduce within their own kind.I believe in a localized flood and an ark that took on indigioous species that were later to continue within that same region. I believe the Bible supports this view when looking at the word translated as "earth" it can mean a particular land or region."no new information" means no new genetic mutation that is beneficial to the organism.

grape2vine: You state I will check the thread you referred me to. It is quite long and it will take me a little time to go through it. For now, however, I would like to address what you are trying to tell me.As a Heb. clause nepesh chayah is only used to describe "mortal creatures." It is never used to describe a mythical immortal being.You say that "Adam was not instructed to be fruitful and multiply until after he became mortal." So, according to you, when did "Adam" become mortal?If "Adam" became mortal after "The Fall", then when did God "bless them,and say 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it'."? God does not say "fill the garden and subdue it." Only in Gen. 3:23 does the Eden Text state that "Adam" is sent from the garden to till the ground from which he was taken. Remember, "Adam" was brought into being {at least partially}prior to there even being a Garden in Eden.I'll go check out that other thread now.
Regards;
Ger

Before looking at the single section of my post you did respond to, can I ask about the rest to which you didn't?Part of the "anything I have shared" queried how you could find a contradiction between "death coming in via sin" & "life being brought about by the instruction to reproduce". That was an objection you raised. Is it still an objection you raise?I also don't see what un-reason has to do with talking snakes. Are you arguing from incredulity or have you something reasoned to say about this being unreasonable.

iano: I apologize. Let me take a moment and readdress what you wrote. I will respond in a few minutes.Again; I apologize.
Ger

Um...I was asking Autumn if he/she was speaking to me.I was replying to another poster, rather than you.

No 100 virtual for you.