Male & Female...in The Beginning

[bud02]

I find this site very interesting. For one its not overrun with dozens or hundreds of members. Second its interesting to get to know the people that do interact,
This is my observation. I found this site by Googleing retiurns for the great pyramid. Looking for in site to christian opinion, the bible in stone ect. What I first noticed was this heading and read the tread topic about the 3 earth ages. http://www.christianityboard.com/forum/39-first-earth-age-and-the-three-earth-ages/ so I added my own opinion by starting the tread http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/12487-6-days-of-15-billion-years/http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/12487-6-days-of-15-billion-years/

I decided to interact and have seen many members here that believe all sorts of things. But its not evident on the surface it all looks and sounds very doctrinal but as you question or draw evidence you soon discover that there are lots of interesting foundational basis beliefs. For example I read a reply from veteran the other day where he stated that he believed there was more than Noah's family on the ark. But these things never come out unless the right questions and scripture are in view. Just as his impication that saber truth look into twin births, I assure you he believes that Satan had sexual intercourse with Eve, Cain being the seed of Satan and Able being the seed of Adam. I know that fundamentals can impact your perspective of the meaning of scripture but even watchman and veteran are careful to avoid the topic unless confronted with scripture to produce evidence for their interpretation. I've debated both of them, watchman and veteran, with scripture and both were forced to resort to the 3 earth age interpretations to support there faith. Just as Saber Truth has encountered.

An other thing I noticed is this site is over run with people of the catholic faith. but they to are careful not to revel their complete belief, they appear to be protestant. They never say you must be in communion with the pope or church of the Roman Catholics to be saved, that scripture interpretation is solely the territory of the pope and cardinals. But instead they support catholic doctrine from a supposed protestant perspective. I asked Selene if the other 6 of the 7 sacraments were necessary for salvation and he never replied with a yes or no, but implied that I strayed outside the context, by bring his belief into the topic. I find this very covert to say the least. It is very interesting to spend time with people to see the nature of faith. I just dump it on the table, I give the deepest Spirit lead response I can. I have noting to hide and don't resort to clever tactics in sharing my faith.

 

[SaberTruth]

Regardless of thoughts, the language and terms used better ratchet down a couple notches. Consider this a blanket warning.

As long as the warnings are "blanket" and don't show favoritism, they're fair warnings. But I noticed you only mentioned the racist issue and ignored the moron issue. Curious.

On that note, let me pose this question. Since it doesn't say anything about anybody else, where did the wives come from? Do you assume that they were daughters of Adam with their own sons and daughters born in incent or perhaps we <i>assume</i> that there were others by this time?

"Where did Cain get his wife" (curious they never also ask where Cain's enemies who would kill him came from) is a very common question meant to end the debate on the spot. But a careful reading of the pertinent passages, along with the knowledge that ancient historians (such as Moses) only wrote about important events, tells us that Adam and Eve had many children who were not named or mentioned. So once again there is nothing in the text to necessitate multiple creations of mankind, and nothing to favor that theory. By itself there is nothing to rule out either one. But we can't ignore the rest of scripture, and Jesus and the NT writers only mention that everyone came from Adam; no mention is ever made of alternative theories. They presumed that the 6-day creation was literal, that Adam was the first created human, and that Eve was "the mother of all the living". So the alternative theory of multiple created races makes Jesus and the apostles liars. I like my "assumption" much better.

To this assertion, I've yet to find a Bible that says God divided the races. The reference is clearly and unmistakably about language. The assertion that this deals with race is based on assumption. The fact that it's traditional and mainstream doesn't make it correct. We all know the Pharisees' argument. "God created various languages, so he must have changed skin color too!" The Father tends to be pretty logical.

I am astounded at how much difficulty some people here are having at grasping a simple point that has been expressed clearly several times. When you can't communicate, you form a group with those you can. Your group intermarries. Your group sees certain genetic traits emerge. This is NOT EVOLUTION AT ALL but genetics as PROGRAMMED BY GOD to limited variation. The so-called "races" are merely the DESIGNED result of limiting the gene pool in isolated populations. Yes, "The reference is clearly and unmistakably about language"; nobody's disputing that at all. What I'm saying is that speciation is the RESULT of confusing the languages. I can't express this any more clearly.

Regardless of view, to simply dismiss the idea as racism is the joke.

So the KKK is a joke then. They would be in wholehearted agreement with the theory of multiple created races. That I connected the dots is no joke but very reasonable.

Unfortunately, that is the argument is built in ignorance; yet it remains the card to be played time and again, even in religion

.
Your own ignorance is showing here, as I've tried to explain. Being an official of this board, I'm sure saying this ugly truth will get me banned. But no need; I'm already on my way out of this madhouse.

Adam happened to be white.

Now THAT'S a JOKE!!

Good riddance to this place of ignorance and foolish doctrines of demons.

PS to bud02: good observations. Anyone who asks too many questions that bring hidden agendas to the surface is a pariah wherever they go. Sorry to only have met you now.

 

[HammerStone]

As long as the warnings are "blanket" and don't show favoritism, they're fair warnings. But I noticed you only mentioned the racist issue and ignored the moron issue. Curious.

Actually please see the very first remark in my post, which was made to specifically address the moron remark. Otherwise, you're welcome to use the report button located on the left side of each post if the post bothers you too much.

"Where did Cain get his wife" (curious they never also ask where Cain's enemies who would kill him came from) is a very common question meant to end the debate on the spot. But a careful reading of the pertinent passages, along with the knowledge that ancient historians (such as Moses) only wrote about important events, tells us that Adam and Eve had many children who were not named or mentioned. So once again there is nothing in the text to necessitate multiple creations of mankind, and nothing to favor that theory. By itself there is nothing to rule out either one. But we can't ignore the rest of scripture, and Jesus and the NT writers only mention that everyone came from Adam; no mention is ever made of alternative theories. They presumed that the 6-day creation was literal, that Adam was the first created human, and that Eve was "the mother of all the living". So the alternative theory of multiple created races makes Jesus and the apostles liars. I like my "assumption" much better.

I appreciate the acknowledgment that you are making an assumption, most folks wouldn't do that.

However, the argument about Adam is another misconception. Frankly speaking, it's never explicitly stated that everyone comes from Adam - it's another traditional fallacy. I do tend to use the ESV so I'm not accused of a KJV-bias, but here are the verses that talk about Adam courtesy of Blue Letter Bible. I realize the most difficult verse to understand is I Corinthians 15:45, but it's easily explained by the lineage of Christ at the end of what started with Adam in line to line throughout history. Is Christ literally the last man? Not the case because otherwise you and me don't exist.

I can't express this any more clearly.

A clearly expressed point does not make it a correct one. It's mere supposition, which is exactly my point. Assuming the literal tradition, 6,000 years is not a lot of playroom if you know anything about genetics. If you believe otherwise on that timeline, let me know.

So the KKK is a joke then. They would be in wholehearted agreement with the theory of multiple created races. That I connected the dots is no joke but very reasonable.

The KKK believed the white race to be the master race; I don't see that here. Red herring, plain and simple. Running out of arguments, perhaps?

Your own ignorance is showing here, as I've tried to explain. Being an official of this board, I'm sure saying this ugly truth will get me banned. But no need; I'm already on my way out of this madhouse.

Could I point out the stereotypical attitude here? The template is always the same to play the persecuted and then run out while slowly upping the rhetoric meant only to inflame. I don't see you banned yet, and I certainly haven't resorted to insinuating racism or sexism here either.

Now THAT'S a JOKE!!

Good riddance to this place of ignorance and foolish doctrines of demons.

And taken out of context per usual given that I'm referring to a non-Black/Hispanic/Asian Adam. I should have known better, but have at it.

I've debated both of them, watchman and veteran, with scripture and both were forced to resort to the 3 earth age interpretations to support there faith.

With all due respect, and with the trouble of running this poor topic further offtopic, understanding the Three Earth Ages is a foundational truth. THE foundational truth is Christ which explains everything, yet once you understand what went on, you get a pretty close answer to the meaning of life. I think some are meant to understand it and others are not. I don't demean folks for believing otherwise and generally don't go rabidly name-calling anyone although I have been know to get rather passionate about new age and one-worldism from time to time.

I don't think I have a very hidden agenda here.

As far as this site being overrun with Catholics - for some reason we do tend to have our share of Catholics - I have to chuckle a bit. I can point to Catholic forums where one can find the occasional thread about us being "anti-Catholic." (It's all in perception I suppose.) I personally try not to write anyone off because of some errant beliefs or denominational titles, but opinions are opinions and you are free to hold them.

By the way, I do become amazed about the lack of knowledge of what the word ignorant means. Unfortunately most credit it with being a synonym of stupid. I guess I should do away with using the word so folks don't take offense, but ignorance simply means one doesn't no better. It's a distinct term from saying someone is stupid. Consider it your English grammar lesson for today. I'm found in ignorance of the Bible all the time, no man can know everything.

 

[bud02]

The scriptures do point to different members of the same body.
To the very end we see this. Rev 14:3

Perhaps I just can't learn the song.
Just the same I do think this site has an inspired purpose, so don't completely misunderstand my personal observation.
There is nothing to be gained in frequenting a church or study where everyone agrees, most often stagnant at the same time.

Your a stand up guy, that is rare in itself, I appreciate the frankness and clarity in presenting your understanding. And most of all your willingness to listen, with out feeling compelled to correct everyone. Being slow to anger is a powerful ally, check out the proverbs. So enough of my pointing out your strong attributes. I generally don't find cause to confront everyone in the same manner or tone, simply on the grounds of disagreement. I was implicating to a greater degree that I know members from different denominations do gang up or organize rebuttals on target sites.

 

[242006]

When someone wants to make one race "better" than another, that's racism.

I have yet to see a single person, who correctly states that God created all of the races on the 6th day, also claim the Adamic [white with ruddy cheeks] race to be superior. If you actually read scripture you should have noticed that God stated that the 6th Day creation [mankind] was "very good"; however, God did not make such a statement for the Adamic race.

God did NOT create "all races" in the beginning, so what was "very good" was what he DID create: the universe, earth, and Adam and Eve. Genesis 1-2 says nothing about anybody else.

Well, what the good folks here are trying to tell you is that you do not have your facts correct! See Gen. 1:26. Since mankind was created in the image and likeness of the angels and since God created mankind in different racial colors, we can be assured that our bodies in the first age were also of various colors.

That article says exactly what I'm saying! Now who is the moron?

The authors of that article are morons like you. They cannot evaluate there own statistics. They present the same lame and idiotic arguments as you when their statistics prove otherwise.

Anybody that clueless earns a spot on my "ignore" list.

There are plenty of 'willingly ignorant' like you.

 

[bud02]

Is this a demonstration of the sword of the Spirit?
If it is I don't think you could hack your way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[242006]

You already have proven to be a scorner of the Word of God regarding the 70 weeks [Dan. 9]. Your feckless comments now are consistent with your Bible illiteracy.

You have have no credibility.

 

[bud02]

You already have proven to be a scorner of the Word of God regarding the 70 weeks [Dan. 9]. Your feckless comments now are consistent with your Bible illiteracy.

You have have no credibility.

Lets just call it your interpretation of the Word of God shall we.

 

[aspen]

An other thing I noticed is this site is over run with people of the catholic faith. but they to are careful not to revel their complete belief, they appear to be protestant. They never say you must be in communion with the pope or church of the Roman Catholics to be saved, that scripture interpretation is solely the territory of the pope and cardinals. But instead they support catholic doctrine from a supposed protestant perspective. I asked Selene if the other 6 of the 7 sacraments were necessary for salvation and he never replied with a yes or no, but implied that I strayed outside the context, by bring his belief into the topic. I find this very covert to say the least. It is very interesting to spend time with people to see the nature of faith. I just dump it on the table, I give the deepest Spirit lead response I can. I have noting to hide and don't resort to clever tactics in sharing my faith.


Wow. It is interesting to watch the reactions of people - on other sites I have proclaimed my Catholic faith immediately and have been ask questions like "why do you call yourself catholic first instead of Christian", "Are you here to convert us to Catholicism", and I could practically confess sola scriptura from a mountaintop and still get "What's it like not having your own opinion and relying on a priest to think for you"

Just for your information, I spent most of my life Protestant, so I probably do hold many Protestant ideas in my doctrine - two of my foundational theologians are Jerry Sittser and CS Lewis.


Now, I am accused of being covert - LOL - You just can't win.......

 

[242006]

Lets just call it your interpretation of the Word of God shall we.

You can call it whatever you like -- I certainly don't care what you think. You have demonstrated that you have no credibility.

 

[bud02]

An other thing I noticed is this site is over run with people of the catholic faith. but they to are careful not to revel their complete belief, they appear to be protestant. They never say you must be in communion with the pope or church of the Roman Catholics to be saved, that scripture interpretation is solely the territory of the pope and cardinals. But instead they support catholic doctrine from a supposed protestant perspective. I asked Selene if the other 6 of the 7 sacraments were necessary for salvation and he never replied with a yes or no, but implied that I strayed outside the context, by bring his belief into the topic. I find this very covert to say the least. It is very interesting to spend time with people to see the nature of faith. I just dump it on the table, I give the deepest Spirit lead response I can. I have noting to hide and don't resort to clever tactics in sharing my faith.


Wow. It is interesting to watch the reactions of people - on other sites I have proclaimed my Catholic faith immediately and have been ask questions like "why do you call yourself catholic first instead of Christian", "Are you here to convert us to Catholicism", and I could practically confess sola scriptura from a mountaintop and still get "What's it like not having your own opinion and relying on a priest to think for you"

Just for your information, I spent most of my life Protestant, so I probably do hold many Protestant ideas in my doctrine - two of my foundational theologians are Jerry Sittser and CS Lewis.


Now, I am accused of being covert - LOL - You just can't win.......

I find it disingenuous that Catholics come to these forums yet fail to teach the catholic doctrine, when I askewd one member here are the 7 sacraments necessary for salvation my question was ignored and unanswered. Like I said disingenuous.

Do you have to be a member of the catholic faith to be in salvation?

 

[Nomad]

Sheer nonsense Brad. Where in the world are you getting such off-the-wall doctrines? It certainly doesn't come from Scripture.

 

[bud02]

Sheer nonsense Brad. Where in the world are you getting such off-the-wall doctrines? It certainly doesn't come from Scripture.

Its starting to become familiar now, hes speaking of the earth age that took place between gen verse 1 and verse 2.

All the people who were created by the Word were created male and female who during this first age were the disobedient sinners. Their flesh during this age was formed with genetic sins that caused the flesh to only born with one body but with opposite male and female genes in it. This is why there are gays, lesbians, eunuchs, and various sexual dysfunctions in people.

Its interesting but sad to see how teachings can led to all sorts of doctrine interpretation.
If you haven't noticed there is a forum named "First Earth Age and the Three Earth Ages"

http://www.christianityboard.com/forum/39-first-earth-age-and-the-three-earth-ages/

 

[Nomad]

Its starting to become familiar now, hes speaking of the earth age that took place between gen verse 1 and verse 2.

You're probably right, but he's taking the 'gap theory' to a whole new level in my experience.