Hi Nuggin,
Nuggin writes:
Just because something is not in the text does not mean it can not be inferred from the text.
Where do you get the idea that there was a dark period from the time the man was formed from the dust of the ground until he died.
The text does say he would die the same day he ate the fruit. Genesis 2:17.
Nuggin writes:
Where in the text does it say that Adam and Eve drank water?
It does not say they drank water nor does it say drinking water was required.
Nuggin writes:
Where in the text does it say that Adam and Eve breathe air?
Genesis 2:7
Nuggin writes:
As for "blaming God", God created the talking snake and sent it to Eve to tell her it was okay to eat the fruit.
What text says or infers God sent the snake to Eve to tell her anything?
Nuggin writes:
So, you want to play "It's not in the text" with the snake tricking them but you are willing to assume that ALL ANIMALS COULD SPEAK at this time?
Really?
Well the text does say the snake was subtil than all the other beasts of the field. The word translated subtil comes from the Hebrew word ﬠרום which means shrewd, and sensible as well as subtil. The translators just chose to use subtil.
How can a snake be sensible, if the snake was as our modern day snakes?
What did my question, "As far as that goes how do you know that all animals at that time did not talk?" have to do with whether I believe all animals could talk or not?
Nuggin writes:
Is this your religion or a children's book? Is there a difference?
I don't have a religion. I am a bought and paid for slave of Emmanuel because I choose to be.
Nuggin writes:
Seriously, are you just arguing for the fun of arguing or do you actually believe this nonsense?
I actually believe the snake could walk.
I do not believe the snake could talk. But I believe that the devil spoke through the snake just as a ventriloquist does with dummies.
And yes I do sometimes argue for the fun of arguing. Especially when I am making fun of what someone has said that is totally off the wall.
Nuggin writes:
They are all messengers of God and incapable of deception because the very concept of deception does not even exist.
Where do you get this nonsense from?
Nuggin writes:
Did man die? No.
Yes the man died the same day he ate the fruit. He did not exist when darkness came in Genesis 1:2 as the Earth was covered with water.
Nuggin writes:
Was man commanded to eat the fruit? Yes.
Was the fruit placed there specifically for man to eat it? Yes.
Where do you get this nonsense from?
quote:
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The man was commanded not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
So do you dispute this text as you asserted he was commanded to eat the fruit?
The tree was not placed there specifically for man to eat from but was placed there to give man a choice.
The man chose to eat the fruit.
Nuggin writes:
Did God therefore want man to eat the fruit? Yes
God wanted to give man a choice.
God still gives mankind a choice. Mankind can choose accept the offer of a free full pardon or not accept that pardon and spend eternity with the devil and his angels in the lake of fire.
Nuggin writes:
There's no sin here at all.
You can call what the man did anything you would like to call it.
But according to what the text says when he ate the fruit he disobeyed a direct command given to him by God. The result of that disobedience he was chased out of the garden and died the same day.
Nuggin writes:
Prior to his "disobedience" man had no knowledge of evil.
Do you have knowledge of evil?
Your claim is falsified.
Did the man know he was not supposed to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Sure he did as he was given a command not to eat the fruit in Genesis 2:17.
quote:
Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.
There was a transgression as there was a command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
There was a consequences for eating the fruit.
Nuggin writes:
So no one who is born again can have an intelligent opinion on good and evil.
Good to know.
Where does being born again restoring a person to a right relationship with God remove mankinds knowledge of good and evil?
Nuggin writes:
The first man was formed from the dust of the ground.
The dust of the ground was already an eternal existing substance so from the beginning of mankind he was an eternal being.
I read somewhere you can not create or destroy energy or matter but they are interchangable. So everything has always existed in some form just not nesecerally in the form we observe it today.
Translation: God is a liar
Good to know. I'll be sure to quote you on that.
Just make sure you quote all my words in the quote you are replying to anytime you quote your translation applying it to me.
But while we are on the subject of eternal:
Genesis 1:1 says "in the beginning", can you give me a date for that event occuring?
If you can't then you have not refuted my saying eveything has always existed in some form.
Nuggin writes:
Yeah, that's what you say. But then you also say that God is a liar. So, it's sort of hard to believe you.
You are the one that is saying God is a liar.
Now since you have said that I said God is a liar present your evidence where I made that statement or print a retraction.
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
™ Version 4.2
