The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by divegeester
(((((((((((((((((((((((((Not at all)))))))))))))))))))))))

no really you are, you cannot tell us a single thing about the garden of Eden nor the trees in it, you have slobbered out some pretty dire stuff and when called upon to substantiate it you and your scourgebag friend came up with the logically ludicrous assertion about a tree beheld in a vision from the book of revelation as a justification that the original tree in the garden of eden must be allegorical, bwahahaha,

your position so far amounts to the garden was literal but the trees in it were not! when pressed upon to tell us how its possible to eat a figurative fruit which God provided for Adam and Eve you became and remain silent. A ludicrous position you have made for yourself. You deserve to be mocked and so does your scourgebag friend, effhim the unsteady.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Genesis account relates that during the fourth creative “day,” God caused luminaries to “come to be in the expanse of the heavens.” (Ge 1:14, 19) This does not indicate the coming into existence of light (Heb, ʼohr) itself, since this is shown to have existed previously. (Ge 1:3) Nor does it state that the sun, moon, and stars were created at thi ...[text shortened]... 14-18; Ps 74:16; 148:3.

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/1/#v1001003

Thank you, robbie. That's an aspect I wasn't aware of.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Thank you, robbie. That's an aspect I wasn't aware of.

no problemo 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Genesis account relates that during the fourth creative “day,” God caused luminaries to “come to be in the expanse of the heavens.” (Ge 1:14, 19) This does not indicate the coming into existence of light (Heb, ʼohr) itself, since this is shown to have existed previously. (Ge 1:3) Nor does it state that the sun, moon, and stars were created at thi ...[text shortened]... 14-18; Ps 74:16; 148:3.

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/1/#v1001003

The Holy Bible says that light was created by God on the first day so that rules out that the sun and stars were created billions of years before that. Nothing is said about the sun and stars being formed until the 4th day. So you evolution theory of billions of years is busted.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible says that light was created by God on the first day so that rules out that the sun and stars were created billions of years before that. Nothing is said about the sun and stars being formed until the 4th day. So you evolution theory of billions of years is busted.

If we accept the Book of Genesis as fact, which it isn't. It's a wonderful legend, but no more than that.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
If we accept the Book of Genesis as fact, which it isn't. It's a wonderful legend, but no more than that.

It is what it is. And we can believe what we wish to believe, whether that is true or false. But if we are going to accept the Holy Bible as the word of God, we should try to be consistent with our interpretation of its meaning.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is what it is. And we can believe what we wish to believe, whether that is true or false. But if we are going to accept the Holy Bible as the word of God, we should try to be consistent with our interpretation of its meaning.

Agreed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no really you are, you cannot tell us a single thing about the garden of Eden nor the trees in it, you have slobbered out some pretty dire stuff and when called upon to substantiate it you and your scourgebag friend came up with the logically ludicrous assertion about a tree beheld in a vision from the book of revelation as a justification that the o ...[text shortened]... for yourself. You deserve to be mocked and so does your scourgebag friend, effhim the unsteady.

Where is Galveston when his church needs him.

[multiple parenthesis]LOL[/multiple parenthesis]

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no really you are, you cannot tell us a single thing about the garden of Eden nor the trees in it, you have slobbered out some pretty dire stuff and when called upon to substantiate it you and your scourgebag friend came up with the logically ludicrous assertion about a tree beheld in a vision from the book of revelation as a justification that the o ...[text shortened]... for yourself. You deserve to be mocked and so does your scourgebag friend, effhim the unsteady.

I think readers here will will be satisfied that my point was made succinctly and with scriptural reference, and that Galveston has added to biblical scripture using his "self certified opinion".

That this pisses you off is just one of life's small bonuses.

Originally posted by divegeester
I think readers here will will be satisfied that my point was made succinctly and with scriptural reference, and that Galveston has added to biblical scripture using his "self certified opinion".

That this pisses you off is just one of life's small bonuses.

I have no idea what you are slobbering about and I suspect neither has anyone else.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have no idea what you are slobbering about and I suspect neither has anyone else.

The first line plays to the gallery*, and in the second line he is being himself.


*thumbs

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible says that light was created by God on the first day so that rules out that the sun and stars were created billions of years before that. Nothing is said about the sun and stars being formed until the 4th day. So you evolution theory of billions of years is busted.

Evidence from the cosmic microwave background indicates that light decoupled from matter at year 300,000. Star formation did not happen for another 100 million years or so. So you at least have the order of events right for the first light, the universe was opaque before recombination so there was, in a sense, no light. Your timescale is a little flakey though.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Agreed.

Fist bump

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by DeepThought
Evidence from the cosmic microwave background indicates that light decoupled from matter at year 300,000. Star formation did not happen for another 100 million years or so. So you at least have the order of events right for the first light, the universe was opaque before recombination so there was, in a sense, no light. Your timescale is a little flakey though.

I will still stick to 6,000 years being closer than 100,000 years.

Originally posted by divegeester
It's ok you don't have to answer to your erroneous statements; in fact I prefer it when you don't as it proves my point without me having to deal with another slice of your evasion and deflection.

Only two reasons I don't answer you as quickly as you prefer. One is I get tired or your endless ramblings with no scriptural proof at all on ANYTHING and some of us do actually have jobs that we have to actually work at.....
It seems if I don't drop everything and run to your endless whinning you get really uptight about it. What's up with that?