If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...

I take a much more literal approach to the Bible.When it says "birds", I think it means, "birds". Reading dinosaurs into it is just silly. How does "the knowledge of good and evil" relate to a decline in conciousness? It's pretty clearly an increase in conciousness. Why should the Bible be "behind" or "ahead of" science? It was written thousands of years ago, before science was even a concept.What's your take on the telephone book? Is it "behind" or "ahead of" science?No offense, but it doesn't look like you've thought any of this through very well.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Okay, what am I missing here? I'm only aware of one Hebrew word that's translated "fowl" in Genesis and "fowl" = "bird" to a good-ole-boy like me. You'll have to be more specific about what the "apparent contradiction" is. It was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Where does it say anything about immorality?Adam and Eve increased in knowledge. That made them able to know the difference between moral and immoral. It didn't make them immoral.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

You said, in Message 66, that:

quote:

---

...when mankind (Adam and Eve) fell as Genesis indicates, his consciousness fell....

---

I was simply pointing out that an increase in knowledge can not be a decrease in consciousness. Don't tapdance around the issue by pretending that consciousness = morality.(And what about them "birds"?)

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I would think that if there was an apparent contradiction, reference-mining would not be necessary. You're using the word "consciousness" in an odd way. I would still say that the knowledge of good and evil increased man's consciousness, especially morally and spiritually. Before that knowledge, Adam and Eve were like children. It was only after The Fall^TM that man was really able to commune with God on a more-or-less "equal" footing. How can you "commune" when you don't know anything? What "drastic change in all of creation"? Are you one of those everything-was-perfect-before-The-Fall^TM guys? Because that don't fly either.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

So the word can refer to other things. Where does it say there were two different kinds of flying creatures - implying dinosaurs? Chapter and verse?(Though this is off-topic, it goes to your understanding of the Bible - or lack thereof.) Where does it say that? Chapter and verse? You talk as if there is only one "believer's faith". I am trying to point out that your view is not the only one.As I have said before on this board, I've been in and out of evangelical churches for half a century and I never heard most of your ideas in church. I can only conclude that they are not commonly accepted. I think it's important to point that out for the benefit of any lurkers, who might be misled into thinking that you speak for anybody but yourself. I don't think that man was ever in a "pure state", nor do I know where you see that in the Bible. Chapter and verse? No. That's not an "inference". It's a speculation.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Not where I've been. That's what I want to make clear. I'm sorry if asking for a straight answer is "obnoxious". I yam what I yam.I didn't say that the word could not refer to dinosaurs. I objected to you saying that it does refer to dinosaurs - i.e. that it refers to two different kinds of "flying creatures". You still have not substantiated that claim.Genesis 1 doesn't mention flying creatures created from the ground and Genesis 2 doesn't mention flying creatures created from water. How do you get two different kinds of creatures from that?I see where you're coming from with the "apparent contradiction", but to read dinosaurs into it requires a huge strech of the imagination. Where I come from, making up stuff and claiming the Bible says it is a real bad idea.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Romans ":21-22 says that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." That in no way implies that there was a change at The Fall^TM. Again, I'm sorry for any percieved "nastiness". If you're going to stick around here, you'd better get used to being asked to back up what you say.I am aware of the concept of Original Sin^{pat. pending}. I don't accept it. I want the peanut gallery to be aware that your views are not the only possible views, no matter how "traditional" you think they are.If I may lapse into "Grandpa Simpson" mode: I estimate that I've heard maybe 5000 sermons (so far) and not one mention in any of them of Original Sin^{pat. pending}. The first time I heard of the concept was in Robert L. Short's The Gospel According to Peanuts. Or was it The Parables of Peanuts?It is not, repeat not, a universally accepted concept.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

It is a huge stretch. Nothing, absolutely nothing that you have mentioned suggests that there were two different kinds of fowl created.And it's just ludicrous to suggest that the "prehistoric" fowl created on the fifth day were already extinct by the sixth day.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

You didn't think I was trying to convince you, did you? I just don't want the lurkers out there to think that every self-styled "Christian" has the same narrow views that you do. I don't mind people being exposed to your ideas. I just don't want them to think they're the only ideas. Now you lost me. Did I say I was an "evolution proponent"? And does that have something to do with this thread? The quote in Romans does not back up your comments, as anybody who reads it will know. I asked if you had anything to back up the idea that there was a change in the whole world because of the "Fall". I was pretty sure that you wouldn't come up with anything substantial, because it isn't true. Well, this is a debate forum. You can expect debating tactics. If you don't want to back up what you say, maybe you're in the wrong place.One further comment about the "peanut gallery". In a debate, political or otherwise, it is the audience that we are talking to, not each other. If I ask you to back up something you said, it is not necessarily for my benefit, but for theirs.(I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion - probably in the proper topic - if you're up to it. )This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-05-30 08:28 AM

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

The OP says: By all means, lets take off-topic discussions elsewhere, but don't try to make this thread exclusive to "people that believe in Genesis".
And certainly don't try to make it exclusive to people who share your view of Genesis.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I object to being characterized as a "skeptic". My purpose in questioning you was to try to point out that other views are possible without rejecting the Bible.How does that relate to the topic? My opinion, in answer to the topic, is that people who take a very doctrinaire approach to the Bible will not change their minds when presented with any evidence, whether scientific or Biblical.I may not have made that clear, and we did stray from the topic, for which I take my share of the blame. Of course, you illustrated my point beautifully. If you really think you can defend your views, lets take it to a more appropriate topic.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.