Summations Only

It was not until the 18th century when dinosaurs were considered. You are just speaking about their fossils being discovered.Fyi: Just because we have some data about the 90,000 years doesn't mean it is sufficient to paint a perfect picture. There is plenty of discovery to be found including furthering the reality of the nephilim.

No, I don't agree that the serpent is satan.What I am pointing out is that we are seeing your pointless avoiding of the inferences. It is pretty obvious that the serpent brought his subtil nature to his first conversation with Eve. If you want to believe that he was not subtil prior to that, there is no basis for doing so.But what's more, the idea does not serve your purpose. If in fact, the serpent's role in the affair, which took place before Eve acted and before Eve questioned God's commandment, was punishable, then the serpent committed the first act against God. And of course the serpent was punished.

Amusing. Bragging about being a rock head.Your interpretations are flawed and non Biblical, and one does not need to be an atheist to point that out. I am not an atheist. I just find your departures from the text unjustifiable.I've read you actually argue that enslaving children for seven years after dad is set free is okay because at least the children were being fed. I am sure you are aware that those same arguments were made in this country in the 1800s. Nobody same thinks that nonsense is the least bit persuasive.Whether you like it or not, there are issues with a literal reading of Genesis, and your refusal to acknowledge problems that any fool can see does not make the problems go away.And please stop saying "would of". The correct usage is "would have".Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You do realize claiming I am pointlessly avoiding inferences does not actually show I am, right?? How about you show where I am avoiding inferences. I am clearly permitting inferences. You are really just setting a precedence that you make false claims.I am perfectly fine with showing the serpent in Genesis 3 to be sinful before humanity but it doesn't change that we all fell at the same time hence the judgement.Who is the serpent in your view?Edited by Blue, : EditEdited by Blue, : EditEdited by Blue, : ErEdited by Blue, : Err

How about you argue your view? What is your view? I didn't argue it was OK per say to enslave children, I argued it was favored by those enslaved by the Hebrews. Further family's gained much from being purchased by the Hebrews in ancient times. It absolutely is not compatible to progressive enslavement of black Americans in the cotton fields or otherwise in America.Further if any fool can see problems in genesis with creation, I would argue I ain't one of those fools.Fyi: would of and would have serve the same function. You really don't know what you are talking about do you?Edited by Blue, : EditEdited by Blue, : EditEdited by Blue, : No reason given.Edited by Blue, : ErrEdited by Blue, : EttEdited by Blue, : ErrEdited by Blue, : Add

I have not argued that your god does not exist. My belief on that matter does not affect what the bibles says about Yahweh's abilities.I have no interest in proving or disproving the existence of Yahweh because it is not scientifically possible to do so.My point is that the bible clearly and contextually states that Yahweh creates both good and evil. Did you know the fellow who owns, run and moderates on this forum believes in God? If we have some data about that time (and a quick look on wiki shows that we do) it is hardly 'missing'.You are correct however that there is a significant amount that could be yet found about nephilim: just like unicorns mentioned in Isaiah 34:7 Would, could and should 'of' is grammatically wrong: 'have' should be used in all cases. And it's 'per se' not 'per say'.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

There is a flaw in your logic here, I think.If God originally made us to be able to fly and then downgraded us not to be able to fly would our free will be more or less restricted than if we never could fly?

Ok. I will happily agree to disagree. If he created evil it does create a contradiction and I've argued why it is false. You have argued why you think my view is false. At this point we're beating a dead cat. Ty for sharing your disagreement.

Fair enough.All the best.

Did anything like that happen? Was something like that proposed in the scenario I addressed.As far as I know, human beings have never had the ability to fly unaided, and neither have any of the animals from which they evolved. Perhaps your question is something a penguin might ponder, but it does not seem like an appropriate for a human being.If I take your question seriously, I might point out that unaided flight is physically impossible for anything remotely the size and shape of human beings and that no creature I've ever observed has any magical activities. One might well ask if a boulder too heavy to lift is an imposition on free will.Perhaps your question simply implies something about the nature of God and the universe that I simply don't believe to be relevant.How about these alternative question. You are no longer capable of surviving in trees as did your ancestors millions of years ago. Is that some kind of imposition on your free will?

I am not committed to helping you out here but free agency is simply the ability to think freely and act freely. The laws are a guide to a peaceful life. The most laws can do is influence people. Edited by Blue, : Edit

You said that there was a difference in not being able to fly (with regard to free will) and not being able to do harm (with regard to free will).My point was that if we were never able to do harm it would not compromise our free will to do harm in the same was as never being able to fly would not compromise our free will to fly.

Not being able to do harm does limit fee will. In free will one can do whatever they want. The laws themselves just influence people. One can murder and rape somebody in free agency even though they are sins. Hence the choice and hence the punishment. If you break a law you are punished because of your choice due to free agency.

I still maintain that. Not being able to harm others because of a mental block or because everyone is invulnerable? Because the mental block thing would be depriving you of free will.

The mental Block does not deprive anyone of free agency. It would be exercising their free agency because the mental Block is within their free agency, there "will".Edited by Blue, : Edit