creationism is the truth
-
not necessary to use bad words here lah.....Originally posted by the.owl:davidche is such a fucking idiot, he is so ignorant and stupid and keeps talking retarded crap, what the hell. please die, thanks. -
see what i mean by generating hatred?
I wish i can be cleverer and not make others angry. -
Please people... let's keep our discussion objective.
Davidche, you're not stupid. You just need to read more and think a lot more into your answers before you respond. -
he is just a secondary school kid ..Originally posted by kaister:Please people... let's keep our discussion objective.
Davidche, you're not stupid. You just need to read more and think a lot more into your answers before you respond.
-
i believe that a primary school kiddie would know to shut up if ppls asked him to and questions his supposingly low intelligence if kept being bombarded with the word 'stupid'.Originally posted by Icemoon:he is just a secondary school kid .. -
I not stupid IIIOriginally posted by Icemoon:he is just a secondary school kid .. -
You are not really making people angry or generating hatred. It is just that some people here like to make use of you to feed upon their malicious need to step others down. So think more before you post. Then you wouldnt become a bait to feed such sad needs of the others.Originally posted by davidche:see what i mean by generating hatred?
I wish i can be cleverer and not make others angry. -
for starters you can stop acting like a retard.Originally posted by davidche:I wish i can be cleverer and not make others angry. -
I think he is trying to sound retard.Originally posted by klydeer:You are not really making people angry or generating hatred. It is just that some people here like to make use of you to feed upon their malicious need to step others down. So think more before you post. Then you wouldnt become a bait to feed such sad needs of the others. -
I hate the existence of sacarsm cos it arouses suspision, dont you think?
-
-
It's - sarcasm, dave.... and how does it arouse suspicion.... it's suspicion, dave...Originally posted by davidche:I hate the existence of sacarsm cos it arouses suspision, dont you think? -
And they say sarcasm is the highest form of communication.Originally posted by M©+square: -
see what i mean by generating hatred?
If u felt u r stupid, then the best thing is to keep a low profile and just humbly read. If u think u r stupid, keep high profile, say stupid things and assume u can answer every question anyone asked, then u deserve reprimanded by everyone
I wish i can be cleverer and not make others angry. -
SIS is back!
-
...and who are THEY?Originally posted by davidche:And they say sarcasm is the highest form of communication.
-
Genisis 1:1
the biggining, does this mean that all things need a beginning?
This begining is different from the one in John 1:1
In john 1:1, tai4 chu1 means the most begining.
Genisis is chi3 chu1 -
Huh??!! What are you talking?Originally posted by davidche:Genisis 1:1
the biggining, does this mean that all things need a beginning?
This begining is different from the one in John 1:1
In john 1:1, tai4 chu1 means the most begining.
Genisis is chi3 chu1
I don't dare to say that everything has a beginning but what I do know is that Genesis is trying to explain how all things begin. It implies that everything has a beginning and had tried very hard to explain that with knowledge and science more than 2,000 years ago.
Nothing in it makes sense in today's world. Just to raise a few non-logical bits:
1. Adam was created from dirt by God but God needed his rib to create a woman. If that's not a crude joke from God, I dunno what is. After all, he did create all the animals from dirt as well. Imagine this conversation:
God: I need your rib to create a woman.
Adam: Why can't you create her from dirt like me and all the other beasts?
God: Shut up!!1!1111oneone!!1!
Genesis 2:21 - And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2. According to Genesis, the earth was created before the formation of stars, so did plants and fruit bearing trees. Why are astronomers still observing creation of stars as we speak? Life on earth only appeared around 3.5 million years ago, and they are not even plants then, just some simple bacteria. There were already star systems that were few billion years old then, isn't that contradicting?
3. Yes, if we take things out of context, all humans are products of incest from the offsprings of adam and eve. Disturbing thought?
Again, you're trying to argue for creationism using the ONE AND ONLY prove you've got - the bible. Want to convince evolutionists? Try refuting our points instead of insisting your point is right. -
Oh .. that part I can understand.Originally posted by kaister:Huh??!! What are you talking?
I don't dare to say that everything has a beginning but what I do know is that Genesis is trying to explain how all things begin. It implies that everything has a beginning and had tried very hard to explain that with knowledge and science more than 2,000 years ago.
Nothing in it makes sense in today's world. Just to raise a few non-logical bits:
1. Adam was created from dirt by God but God needed his rib to create a woman. If that's not a crude joke from God, I dunno what is. After all, he did create all the animals from dirt as well. Imagine this conversation:
God: I need your rib to create a woman.
Adam: Why can't you create her from dirt like me and all the other beasts?
God: Shut up!!1!1111oneone!!1!
Genesis 2:21 - And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Davidche was trying to differentiate the "beginning" of Genesis 1 from John 1. In English it is the same word right? But pity, because the reader will miss the subtle difference. If you read the chinese bible, you realize they are translated differently. In Genesis 1, it is qi3 chu1. In John 1, it is tai4 chu1.
tai4 means very old, like tai4 shang4 lao3 jing1 in Taoism.
And the Adam part I also understand, thanks to Judaism.
Anyway, animals were not created from dirt, they could be but it is not specifically mentioned in the bible.
As to why Eve was not created from dust like Adam, Jewish tradition has this explanation:
1. Eve was created from his ribs because that is where you find the heart. Eve was created as a companion for Adam and Adam was to love her. It makes sense also to think of the woman as sheltering and providing his emotional needs?
2. Furthermore, the rib can be considered the middle part of the body, as opposed to the cranium? and the foot. This could be God's way of telling us - there is no discrimination between the male and the female. Adam could not lord over her (if she was created from the foot) and neither was Eve superior to Adam (if she was created from the cranium)
Hence if you put these two reasons together .. the rib is actually a logical choice.
-
I understand what he said literally but just not the intent behind why it was mentioned in this thread. So inferring from his line of logical thoughts (can be hard), I deducted that he's trying to say that why must evolutionist insist on finding a beginning when all else begins with God?Originally posted by Icemoon:Oh .. that part I can understand.
Davidche was trying to differentiate the "beginning" of Genesis 1 from John 1. In English it is the same word right? But pity, because the reader will miss the subtle difference. If you read the chinese bible, you realize they are translated differently. In Genesis 1, it is qi3 chu1. In John 1, it is tai4 chu1.
tai4 means very old, like tai4 shang4 lao3 jing1 in Taoism.
And the Adam part I also understand, thanks to Judaism.
Anyway, animals were not created from dirt, they could be but it is not specifically mentioned in the bible.
As to why Eve was not created from dust like Adam, Jewish tradition has this explanation:
1. Eve was created from his ribs because that is where you find the heart. Eve was created as a companion for Adam and Adam was to love her. It makes sense also to think of the woman as sheltering and providing his emotional needs?
2. Furthermore, the rib can be considered the middle part of the body, as opposed to the cranium? and the foot. This could be God's way of telling us - there is no discrimination between the male and the female. Adam could not lord over her (if she was created from the foot) and neither was Eve superior to Adam (if she was created from the cranium)
Hence if you put these two reasons together .. the rib is actually a logical choice.
So in counter, I offered to say that his arguements are circular, by referring back to his only source of reference - Genesis.
Ribs serve no function, except as supporting structures for respiratory muscles. It might have some limited function of protecting the heart. In terms of symbolism, it served no more significance than taking a piece of his heart - which is also in the middle of the body.
Also, if God wanted Adam to love Eve why didn't he take a part of his heart instead? Or even the emotional center of his brain? Both represents how Adam should love Eve just as well. Taking some of his heart also makes the story more poetic.
So when all inferences of logic fail, we can only deduct that Genesis is not accurate and was based on outdated knowledge of anatomy and science. It also did not explain thoroughly how the sequence of creation is all wrong as mentioned previously in my post. -
The heart was not taken because God wanted Eve to be independent from Adam.Originally posted by kaister:Ribs serve no function, except as supporting structures for respiratory muscles. It might have some limited function of protecting the heart. In terms of symbolism, it served no more significance than taking a piece of his heart - which is also in the middle of the body.
Also, if God wanted Adam to love Eve why didn't he take a part of his heart instead? Or even the emotional center of his brain? Both represents how Adam should love Eve just as well. Taking some of his heart also makes the story more poetic.
So when all inferences of logic fail, we can only deduct that Genesis is not accurate and was based on outdated knowledge of anatomy and science. It also did not explain thoroughly how the sequence of creation is all wrong as mentioned previously in my post.
If you take the heart or brain, symbolically it means Eve is going to think or feel like Adam? -
Actually when you try to link modern anatomy with Genesis together, alarm bells should have started to ring.Originally posted by kaister:So when all inferences of logic fail, we can only deduct that Genesis is not accurate and was based on outdated knowledge of anatomy and science. It also did not explain thoroughly how the sequence of creation is all wrong as mentioned previously in my post.
Though 'ribs' is the translation we find in our bible, there could be alternate translations as well (but they don't deviate too much).
For example, the great Jewish commentator Rashi thought it should be translated as 'sides'.
In this, Strong's Hebrew dictionary and concordance is in agreement. There is no contradiction. Look up for Strong's number 6763:
According to the concordance, 6763 was tagged in the following places:
another
Eze 41:6
beams
1 Ki 7:3
boards
1 Ki 6:15, 1 Ki 6:16
chamber
1 Ki 6:8, Eze 41:5, Eze 41:9
chambers
1 Ki 6:5, Eze 41:6, Eze 41:6, Eze 41:7, Eze 41:8, Eze 41:9, Eze 41:11, Eze 41:26
corners
Exo 30:4, Exo 37:27
halting
Jer 20:10
leaves
1 Ki 6:34
planks
1 Ki 6:15
rib
Gen 2:22
ribs
Gen 2:21
side
Exo 25:12, Exo 25:12, Exo 26:20, Exo 26:26, Exo 26:27, Exo 26:27, Exo 26:35, Exo 26:35, Exo 36:25, Exo 36:31, Exo 36:32, Exo 37:3, Exo 37:3, 2 Sam 16:13, Job 18:12
sides
Exo 25:14, Exo 27:7, Exo 37:5, Exo 38:7
The dictionary explains it as:
or (feminine) tsalTah {tsal-aw'}; from 'tsala`' (6760); a rib (as curved), literally (of the body) or figuratively (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, literally (of a person) or figuratively (of an object or the sky, i.e. quarter); architecturally, a (especially floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collective, i.e. a flooring):--beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber). -
So I think it is quite senseless to debate whether Eve came from Adam's ribs or his lats. Genesis is telling us - Eve came from Adam, as opposed to being a new creation.
The Jewish tradition still applies, however, because it is telling us Eve was formed from some anatomy close to Adam's heart and it is not on top or at the bottom of the body.
I don't think there is anything illogical about this, that Eve came from Adam? -
You do not take the heart cos' it would mean that Eve will feel/think the same as Adam?Originally posted by Icemoon:The heart was not taken because God wanted Eve to be independent from Adam.
If you take the heart or brain, symbolically it means Eve is going to think or feel like Adam?
It seems tough for me to understand that Adam would love a piece of his rib more than a piece of his heart. It's less romantic and has less significance in terms of symbolism.
Also, to infer that if she was created with Adam's heart, Eve would think and feel like Adam is pure speculation. It is like trying to twist the symbolism in the favour of explaining why God took the non-functional, less-symbolic, less-poetic rib from Adam in his sleep.
All that trouble when God could just, in his almighty powers, create Eve from anything he wants.
In the end, God didn't create Eve out of nothing. Cos' he wanted the symbolism of love and equality of status to be represented by a rib. The discussion would never end cos' it will go round in circles in search of obscure symbolism to make up for any lacking in logic.
In the end, I can even see the conclusion of it all - we can't judge God cos' he's perfect and omnipotent. It would not bring us any closer from seeing the truth ourselves and only to force us to accept that as a fact.
Sorry Icemoon, I really can't figure out how different the bible is from your normal weekly horoscope. Perhaps I would need more convincing.
-
Let's see whether any Christian will try to explain the creation order to you .. hahaOriginally posted by kaister:2. According to Genesis, the earth was created before the formation of stars, so did plants and fruit bearing trees. Why are astronomers still observing creation of stars as we speak? Life on earth only appeared around 3.5 million years ago, and they are not even plants then, just some simple bacteria. There were already star systems that were few billion years old then, isn't that contradicting?
3. Yes, if we take things out of context, all humans are products of incest from the offsprings of adam and eve. Disturbing thought?
For me, I wouldn't want to read Genesis 1 literally, especially if I'm trying to understand scientific truths from a book written for the ancient mindset.
Actually Scripture did not say we are the product of incest from offsprings of Adam and Eve.
I give you a simple example. Genesis 4 (NIV):
So the story goes, Cain murdered his brother Abel and was banished.
13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.
17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.
But note what the text also says - Cain expected people to kill him! Who are these people, we ask?
Furthermore if Cain was in exile, are we saying one of his sisters also went into exile?!