Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[YoursTrue]

I see that you were confused. It was the Bible that had Adam finding other animals.we're not a fit partner. That makes God look rather bad.

And I do not want to die, but it is part of reality. Why ask? Wishful thinking will not change anything.

So you don't like the idea of evolving into death. Some would say we're born to die. Yet a bowhead whale lives much longer than humans. I guess you would figure that gene of such longevity did not trickle down to humans. By the way, I understand the teaching that humans are in the animal category, but I don't agree. The same way I don't believe oceans are animals either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you don't like the idea of evolving into death. Some would say we're born to die. Yet a bowhead whale lives much longer than humans. I guess you would figure that gene of such longevity did not trickle down to humans. By the way, I understand the teaching that humans are in the animal category, but I don't agree. The same way I don't believe oceans are animals either.

That is an incorrect phrase.

Evolution is a fact. We do not "evolve into death". You can disagree all that you want. You can disagree that 2 + 2 = 4. That would not change the fact.

You are an animal. An animal is a multicellular organisms that does not make its own food. Are there more than two cells that make up your body? Do you have to consume food to live? If you answered those questions yes you are an animal.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and the Hebrew version appears to match the interpretations that I linked. I mentioned that yesterday.

And please, a judge would never use such poor English.

Some say on the day, others say in the day. But they didn't go back to dust the day they ate from the tree. God pulled the line of life from them that day. They died in the day they ate from the tree. Yes, a judge would say, Today you will die to someone he is passing sentence on. He doesn't have to mean that period before sundown. Since you are so interested in the Hebrew, there is a pretty good explanation of the words at the following: Why Didn’t Adam and Eve Die the Instant They Ate the Fruit?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some say on the day, others say in the day. But they didn't go back to dust the day they ate from the tree. God pulled the line of life from them that day. They died in the day they ate from the tree. Yes, a judge would say, Today you will die to someone he is passing sentence on. He doesn't have to mean that period before sundown. Since you are so interested in the Hebrew, there is a pretty good explanation of the words at the following: Why Didn’t Adam and Eve Die the Instant They Ate the Fruit?

You link to a joke site and expect me to take you seriously? Sorry but that is a site that lies for the Bible.

At least try to find a valid site.

Perhaps you should try to learn why we know that Genesis is a myth. Then you might not be so desperate to defend the immoral God of Genesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is an incorrect phrase.

Evolution is a fact. We do not "evolve into death". You can disagree all that you want. You can disagree that 2 + 2 = 4. That would not change the fact.

You are an animal. An animal is a multicellular organisms that does not make its own food. Are there more than two cells that make up your body? Do you have to consume food to live? If you answered those questions yes you are an animal.

Nope. You were taught as many are by evolutionists that humans are animals. But then you also seem to believe humans were fornicating with animals maybe chimpanzees, producing offspring, and then stopped. Because so far I haven't heard from a learned evolution believer that humans and chimps are producing offspring. Do you have any information that human (animals) and other types are having relations and producing hybrids of sorts?

 

[YoursTrue]

You link to a joke site and expect me to take you seriously? Sorry but that is a site that lies for the Bible.

At least try to find a valid site.

Perhaps you should try to learn why we know that Genesis is a myth. Then you might not be so desperate to defend the immoral God of Genesis.

Perhaps you think biblehub is a joke site since it itself tells you that the hebrew there has many renderings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. You were taught as many are by evolutionists that humans are animals. But then you also seem to believe humans were fornicating with animals maybe chimpanzees, producing offspring, and then stopped. Because so far I haven't heard from a learned evolution believer that humans and chimps are producing offspring. Do you have any information that human (animals) and other types are having relations and producing hybrids of sorts?

No, you keep getting that backwards. The Bible is where the idea of Adam messing around with animals and finding them unsatisfactory comes from. Since you do not understand your own book of myths why not drop that idea for now?

And you are an animal. Why did you not answer my questions? Fear only keeps one ignorant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps you think biblehub is a joke site since it itself tells you that the hebrew there has many renderings.

Not quite what it says. But the fact is that "on that day" appears to be an accurate translation. Which would be Why so many sources use it.

 

[nPeace]

Please why openly lie? I have not grasped at straws at all. Are you merely parroting phrases used against you?

And you lied about blocking the slam dunk. You are the incompetent player that just got dunked on. Denying facts is a form of lying, it is not blocking.

Wow. So desperate to cling to your beloved religion, you don't seem able to tell the difference between future or past tense.
"To be" is future tense. Has been is past tense. I did not say, has been blocked.
Anyway, there are more important things at hand.

Your claim was this...
The theory of evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I asked that you back up your claim with something credible, or prove it.
You gave me...
DNA evidence of Endogenous Retroviruses - the slam dunk evidence that we share a common ancestor with other apes:
Endogenous Retroviruses and Human Evolution

I looked at the article, and
1. I don't see anything that supports your claim that the theory of evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, nor do I see any evidence supporting this.
2. I see evidence disproving your claim.

This is what I see.
1. Scientist know and understand little about ERVs, but still not enough. Research is still needed and ongoing.

2. Scientists do not know how when and where ERVs originated, and what role they play in evolution.
Scientists can only make guesses, speculations, assumptions, suggestions, supposition and propositions, when answering these questions.
Human endogenous retroviruses
There are two proposals for how HERVs became fixed in the human genome. The first assumes that sometime during human evolution, exogenous progenitors of HERV inserted themselves into germ line cells and then replicated along with the host's genes using and exploiting the host's cellular mechanisms. Because of their distinct genomic structure, HERVs were subjected to many rounds of amplification and transposition, which lead to a widespread distribution of retroviral DNA. The second hypothesis claims the continuous evolution of retro-elements from more simple structured ancestors.

3. They also do not have all the facts, since the sequencing the human genome is still not accurate, as well as the animals, most of which has not been sequenced.
Endogenous retrovirus-mediated genomic variations in chimpanzees
...the quality of the latest version of the chimpanzee and other primate genome sequences is not good as much as that of the human genome sequence, and the reference genome sequence data still contain unsequenced genomic regions and assembly errors. The relatively poor quality of non-human primate genome sequences is somewhat troublesome because it leads to a high proportion of false positives of TEs.

So Move that!

Now your slam dunk has been blocked.

So the ball is still in your court.
You have not supported your claim.
You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilt, by supposing, or assuming that they are... because they look guilty.

Still, there is a reason why what you are wishing so badly for, will never be a reality.

Common misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

I'll like to say too...
Scientist presuppose 1. that evolution happened, 2. that certain organisms are related - they also assume this from the fossils record, and homology, etc. Then they use these assumptions to further assume that ERVs prove their assumptions. Hence ERVs are proof of their presupposition that life evolved from one common ancestor.
What we have then, is a circular "mechanism" to support evolution.
Something like this...
Human, mouse and other mammals shared a common ancestor approximately 80 million years ago. Therefore the genomes of all mammals are comparably similar.

I was meaning to ask, are you seeing blue okay, or do you prefer the color in red? I asked because I heard you complain about green.
Please let me know if you want the color changed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow. So desperate to cling to your beloved religion, you don't seem able to tell the difference between future or past tense.
"To be" is future tense. Has been is past tense. I did not say, has been blocked.
Anyway, there are more important things at hand.

Your claim was this...
The theory of evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I asked that you back up your claim with something credible, or prove it.
You gave me...
DNA evidence of Endogenous Retroviruses - the slam dunk evidence that we share a common ancestor with other apes:
Endogenous Retroviruses and Human Evolution

I looked at the article, and
1. I don't see anything that supports your claim that the theory of evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, nor do I see any evidence supporting this.
2. I see evidence disproving your claim.

This is what I see.
1. Scientist know and understand little about ERVs, but still not enough. Research is still needed and ongoing.

2. Scientists do not know how when and where ERVs originated, and what role they play in evolution.
Scientists can only make guesses, speculations, assumptions, suggestions, supposition and propositions, when answering these questions.
Human endogenous retroviruses
There are two proposals for how HERVs became fixed in the human genome. The first assumes that sometime during human evolution, exogenous progenitors of HERV inserted themselves into germ line cells and then replicated along with the host's genes using and exploiting the host's cellular mechanisms. Because of their distinct genomic structure, HERVs were subjected to many rounds of amplification and transposition, which lead to a widespread distribution of retroviral DNA. The second hypothesis claims the continuous evolution of retro-elements from more simple structured ancestors.

3. They also do not have all the facts, since the sequencing the human genome is still not accurate, as well as the animals, most of which has not been sequenced.
Endogenous retrovirus-mediated genomic variations in chimpanzees
...the quality of the latest version of the chimpanzee and other primate genome sequences is not good as much as that of the human genome sequence, and the reference genome sequence data still contain unsequenced genomic regions and assembly errors. The relatively poor quality of non-human primate genome sequences is somewhat troublesome because it leads to a high proportion of false positives of TEs.

So Move that!

Now your slam dunk has been blocked.

So the ball is still in your court.
You have not supported your claim.
You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilt, by supposing, or assuming that they are... because they look guilty.

Still, there is a reason why what you are wishing so badly for, will never be a reality.

Common misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

I'll like to say too...
Scientist presuppose 1. that evolution happened, 2. that certain organisms are related - they also assume this from the fossils record, and homology, etc. Then they use these assumptions to further assume that ERVs prove their assumptions. Hence ERVs are proof of their presupposition that life evolved from one common ancestor.
What we have then, is a circular "mechanism" to support evolution.
Something like this...
Human, mouse and other mammals shared a common ancestor approximately 80 million years ago. Therefore the genomes of all mammals are comparably similar.

I was meaning to ask, are you seeing blue okay, or do you prefer the color in red? I asked because I heard you complain about green.
Please let me know if you want the color changed.

Why do you waste your time with excessively long posts that only demonstrate your ignorance of the sciences. If you did not understand you should have said so. You should not have lied.

 

[nPeace]

None of the quotes that I used were paraphrased. Where did you get that crazy claim from? I got them from Biblehub, a Christian site that quotes from various translations of the Bible.


You kept saying that what I said was not in the Bible. Biblehub shows that they were.

Biblehub is a website.
Translations of the Bible on Biblehub are taken from the actual translation in electronic format.
You can research each translation outside of Biblehub, for a review of the translation.
For example, the Foreword of the Good News Bible tells the reader that it is a paraphrased Bible.
Do you know what a paraphrased Bible is?
I'm assume anyone today can find the answer to that question.

 

[nPeace]

Why do you waste your time with excessively long posts that only demonstrate your ignorance of the sciences. If you did not understand you should have said so. You should not have lied.

Again, you didn't read. Yet you gave me a link to read. Are you happy with the kind of person you are? No wonder you accuse others of being dishonest. Please check the mirror. Michael Jackson sang a song - "Man in the Mirror" remember?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblehub is a website.
Translations of the Bible on Biblehub are taken from the actual translation in electronic format.
You can research each translation outside of Biblehub, for a review of the translation.
For example, the Foreword of the Good News Bible tells the reader that it is a paraphrased Bible.
Do you know what a paraphrased Bible is?
I'm assume anyone today can find the answer to that question.

So one source was supposedly paraphrased so you incorrectly assumed they all were. You need to work on your basic logic skills.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, you didn't read. Yet you gave me a link to read. Are you happy with the kind of person you are? No wonder you accuse others of being dishonest. Please check the mirror. Michael Jackson sang a song - "Man in the Mirror" remember?

I gave you a link to read. If you read it and understood it you would have seen that it was a slam dunk that showed you are related to chimps.

Your predictable reaction was why I offered to go over the basics of science before I posted it. One more time, would you like to go over the basics of science so that you have a chance of understanding more complex matters?

 

[YoursTrue]

Be reasonable please.
You did not write the text.
You read it to mean what you think it means.
Another reads it as they understand it.
You don't know that it means what you think it does?
However, the Bible interprets itself, because only the author can confirm what it means.
So have you considered why Creationists understand it different to you? Do you care to know why they are right, and you are wrong?

Five reasons.
1. The text says, 'In the day you eat of it, you will surely die."
That doesn't automatically mean that the speaker is saying, "You will die on this particular day." Rather @Sharikind nicely explained, so there is no need for me to repeat. Just go back and read it.

2. The spokesperson, said to the man, after he ate, “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life...."
So anyone reading the Bible with an honest humble heart, will see that the spokesperson made himself clear. So that anyone thinking he meant, that said day of Adam's life, would go, "Oh. I misunderstood."
Clear as day... In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. So he couldn't have meant what you think he did.

3. Another person can understand that Adam died the same day, nonetheless, in two ways. Spiritually - from God's point of view, and physically, since the day mentioned could also have referred to the creative day of Adam and Eve, which is not the same as a day from man's point of view. That day has not ended.
However, this one will be above your head.

4. I'm sure there were five reasons, but I think the fourth just slipped my mind, so...
5. Only persons who read the Bible with a sincere heart, desiring to understand it, will grasp the things that are hidden by skeptics, and Bible bashers, because God will not allow them to see it. He will let them find fault, so that they never get the truth.

Does that make God immoral? No, but to those who view him as a monster, they will see him that way.
God is good, wise, and just, so he does what is right.
He knows that they are persons who hate him without just cause, only because they are selfish like the first selfish person Satan, who hates righteousness, and truth, and only want to do whatever they want, So God makes sure that no such person will get the reward of those that love him, and love right.

That seems fair to me.
Would you build a nice house, and decorate it with the finest things, and then put a whole bunch of animals - namely pigs and dogs in it? That's to me quite absurd.
God is more intelligent than we are.
That's why he even refuses to feed these animals (spiritually speaking). He knows their nature. - Matthew 7:6 . . .“Do not give what is holy to dogs nor throw your pearls before swine, so that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open.

I think this should be clearer to you now SZ, on Genesis 2:17.
If it is not, then I would suggest you ask yourself the question you put to me... Do you understand English?

Brilliant post, thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

So God lied. They did not die on that day. Sentenced to die is not the same as dying.

They were punished that day. Death was some time away, but that day they were going to die. Before that day, if they obeyed God, they were not going to die. So on that day or in that day, they will surely die. If you want to go into the Hebrew we can do that, but the English is clear enough. They were punished from the day they ate the forbidden fruit.

English Standard Version
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for IN the day that you eat of it you SHALL SURELY die.”

Berean Study Bible
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for IN the day that you eat of it, you WILL surely die.”

New American Standard Bible
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for IN the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

King James Bible
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 SHALL surely die.

Ever watch The Sharks? Mr. Wonderful sometimes says to someone,, "You're dead to me."

 

[YoursTrue]

"18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; nI will makehim a helper fit for5 him.” 19 oNow out of the ground the LORD God had formed6 everybeast of the field and every bird of the heavens and pbrought them to the man to see whathe would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beastof the field. But for AdamOr the man" style="color: rgb(114, 171, 191);">7 there was not found a helper fit for him. "

As you see none of the animals was a "fit helper" for him.

So?

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that believers cannot honestly translate this from the original without running into a problem yet there are versions that do so. The KJV is one.

You pointed to the phrase on that day, or in that day. But it speaks of the future time. In or on that day you SHALL or WILL die. Take it as you will, but since we know they did not go back to the ground that day,, we know it meant they were going to -- die from that day on.
.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sorry, but what sort of respect did Jacob have for his father (Isaac) and his brother (Easu) when he deceive them both?

What sort of respect did David have for his friend by sleeping with and impregnating Uriah’s beautiful wife, and then set up Uriah to be killed, not only to hide the adultery, but to marry Bathsheba for himself.

Both Jacob and David were considered men of great characters, integrity and piety, and yet they have both resort to deception for their selfish needs. They were role models, but their respects for others, have been rather selective.

That's a good point!

We have our faults and make mistakes, don't we?

(Actually, Jacob wasn't viewed by God as rebellious for what he did.... it shows he appreciated spiritual things more than his brother, who was quick to sell his birthright. That was Esau's fault: Jacob didn't twist his arm. Misleading his father Isaac, though... how was he to receive the blessing, otherwise? Don't forget, his Mother Rebecca supported him.)

David was another story, though. He did bad things, but he always showed repentance!

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and the Hebrew version appears to match the interpretations that I linked. I mentioned that yesterday.

And please, a judge would never use such poor English.

Languages cannot always be perfectly understood in the inflections. Surely die is an expression of future certain occurrence.