Posted on 10/16/2005 1:28:00 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
No. Someone who leaps to the conclusion that they actually had realtions is making something up. However, it is clear in the text that they were capable of having relations.
If you're saying people are anteriors, we're in complete agreement.
The most evil theory in the world of science is QM. It has everything -- true randomness, uncaused causes, the works. Good thing the folks at DI haven't heard of it.
No, we're not either. I think people are mostly posteriors.
She's dead, but thanks for asking.
If science were to show how resurrection were possible, you would be jumping up and down on the side of science, no?
Actually, science already *has* shown that. There are a ton of documented cases of people, even in this day and age, who were thought dead but had that "fact" improperly verified (instead, they were deeply unconscious due to injury or other factor) who then subsequently "rose from the dead" after several days, much to the shock of their mourners.
And needless to say, this was likely much more common in the days a couple thousand years ago, before stethoscopes, EEG machines, basal thermometers, etc.
Plus, people are routinely "raised from the dead" in hospitals on a daily basis, via CPR, defibrillator, and so on.
Finally, even if one accepts the story about finding Christ walking around a few days after he had been nailed to the cross (and as we know, the written accounts are second-hand at best), there is *no* evidence offerred that he had ever actually been properly declared dead in the first place, in a manner known today to be reliable.
*** that rabbits chew their cud***
Those Wascally Wabbits!
Skeptical Crud About Cud
James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html
Do rabbits chew their cud?
The Bible beats the sceptics (again)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
I so glad your moral compass has more that one needle.
No. We simply don't know whether it happened, and we should leave it at that.
How do you know? The Bible doesn't say He created a fully formed, mature human! You must be thinking about the movie, not the Bible.
Sorry, but these are the facts:
"...Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. ... Here's why:
It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields.
Obviously the vast majority of believers spend their entire lives doing little more than reading the Bible in English (or whatever native tongue) and importing into its words whatever ideas they derive from their own experiences. This process is very often one of "decontextualizing" -- what I have here called "reading it like it was written yesterday and for you personally." Of course if the church as a whole is locked into this mentality, you may well suspect that critics (whether Skeptics or other) and those in alternate faiths are no better off.
Let's anticipate and toss off the obvious objection: "Why did God make the Bible so hard to understand, then?" It isn't -- none of this keeps a person from grasping the message of the Bible to the extent required to be saved; where the line is to be drawn is upon those who gratuitously assume that such base knowledge allows them to be competent critics of the text, and make that assumption in absolute ignorance of their own lack of knowledge -- what I have elsewhere spoken of in terms of being "unskilled and unaware of it."
And is my observation to this effect justified? Well, ask yourself this question after considering what various fields of knowledge a complete and thorough (not to say sufficient for intelligent discourse, though few even reach that pinnacle, especially in the critical realm) study of the Bible requires: [snip]
Continue here.
***Which one gave rise to the Inquisition?***
The lie that the Roman Catholic Church rightly inherited imperial powers.
And the lie that Jesus is OK with killing those who disagree with you.
Then don't imply that Adam and Eve had sex for pleasure before the fall when there is nothing there to base it on and everything in the Bible implies they did not.
Actually, that text proves the opposite. God said he'd increase her sorrow in conception and childbearing. That implies she already was capable of conceiving.
The second half simply says that Adam will have authority over her that he did not have before.
There isn't even such a claim made.
The lie that the Roman Catholic Church rightly inherited imperial powers.
And the lie that Jesus is OK with killing those who disagree with you.
And the lie that it is OK to lie about evolution ...
I never implied such a thing, and the Bible implies nothing either way. It clearly indicates, however, that they had the capability of having sex before the Fall. Whether or not they did is simply unknown.
Yes. Read them. Nice try. Why would God deliberately mislead his chosen people. The words in the Bible are His words, right? God couldn't figure out a word for "cud"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.