RE: The common ancestor

RE: The common ancestor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 4:23:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico A metaphor has to relate to the passage. I know because I'm a writer. And nothing in Genesis 2:7 relates to humans coming from the wombs of apes. It doesn't have to. It simply has to be a metaphor of making something--whatever the actual means. Compare for example the metaphor of the snake in Genesis 3. Nothing there relates the snake to Satan, yet we understand that it is a metaphor of Satan. quote: The dust found in the graves of rotted corpses isn't a metaphor. Read drj11's post above. Making something? [sm=purplelaugh.gif] So please show how Genesis 2:7 is metaphoric to man coming from the wombs of apes. It's time to be specific instead of talking in vague generalities. Otherwise you have no case. The bible says that the serpent is the devil in Rev. 12:9 and 20:2. So there's no metaphor at all there because it's very clear as the bible always is. [;)]Nowhere does the bible say that dust is the same as the wombs of apes. [sm=purplelaugh.gif] That's all from your imagination which makes it imaginary. [;)] So you're digging yourself deeper and deeper into a pit that threatens to engulf you if you keep on making up claims that aren't in the bible.

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 9:57:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico A metaphor has to relate to the passage. I know because I'm a writer. And nothing in Genesis 2:7 relates to humans coming from the wombs of apes. It doesn't have to. It simply has to be a metaphor of making something--whatever the actual means. Compare for example the metaphor of the snake in Genesis 3. Nothing there relates the snake to Satan, yet we understand that it is a metaphor of Satan. quote: The dust found in the graves of rotted corpses isn't a metaphor. Read drj11's post above. The bible says that the serpent is the devil in Rev. 12:9 and 20:2. So there's no metaphor at all there because it's very clear as the bible always is. [;)] Yes, there is a metaphor there and the writer of Revelation obviously understood the metaphor of Genesis since he refers to its meaning. If you really were a writer, you would be able to identify metaphors just as John did when he wrote about Genesis in Revelation. Nowhere did the writer of Genesis tell us the meaning of his metaphor. He assumed (apparently wrongly in your case) that most people were competent to understand metaphors when they came across them.

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 11:51:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico A metaphor has to relate to the passage. I know because I'm a writer. And nothing in Genesis 2:7 relates to humans coming from the wombs of apes. It doesn't have to. It simply has to be a metaphor of making something--whatever the actual means. Compare for example the metaphor of the snake in Genesis 3. Nothing there relates the snake to Satan, yet we understand that it is a metaphor of Satan. quote: The dust found in the graves of rotted corpses isn't a metaphor. Read drj11's post above. The bible says that the serpent is the devil in Rev. 12:9 and 20:2. So there's no metaphor at all there because it's very clear as the bible always is. [;)] Yes, there is a metaphor there and the writer of Revelation obviously understood the metaphor of Genesis since he refers to its meaning. If you really were a writer, you would be able to identify metaphors just as John did when he wrote about Genesis in Revelation. Nowhere did the writer of Genesis tell us the meaning of his metaphor. He assumed (apparently wrongly in your case) that most people were competent to understand metaphors when they came across them. The serpent being Satan is an obvious metaphor that the bible explains. So please describe the metaphor in Genesis 2:7 that I have repeatedly asked you to do and you have avoided it for obvious reasons. Then tell us where the bible explains that Genesis 2:7 means that man came from the wombs of apes. Then address the issue of Adam and Eve since you claim that the world is 4.5 billion years old. How old was Adam at the time of the fall? Then explain how you know who God is if you don't know where to find His words. You've got a lot of explaining to do before your claims can be considered credible.[8\|]

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/7/2008 8:38:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico The serpent being Satan is an obvious metaphor that the bible explains. Good, I am glad you have changed your tune and recognize it is a metaphor--even and obvious one. So obvious we would understand it even if the author of Revelation didn't spell it out for us. By the same token, Genesis 2:7 is obviously using the metaphor of a potter working in clay to describe the creation of humankind. This metaphor is very common in scripture as it is used by Isaiah, Jeremiah and Paul as well as here. No more need to literalize the metaphor here than on any of its other occurrences.

Consecrated2God -> RE: The common ancestor (8/7/2008 8:48:36 AM)
Attention: Moderator Note Many posts in this thread have gone off-topic. For your convenience, here is the question again from the OP: quote: There have been many stories from evolutionists about a common ancestor. Some say there was only one, others say, there were many. So my question is; why is this creature called a common ancestor? What is this common ancestor (or common ancestors) common to? All living things? If so, what would this beast look like in order to be common to all living things? or only humans? Or isn't it a fact that even evolutionists know that there was one source from which all living things came? If so, then what is the difference between making up a beast of your imagination and believing in God? But if you claim that the imagination is evidence, then we can claim the Jesus lived without needing any witnesses to prove it. In fact, we can even make up a new history of the Jews and any story that isn't verified in history & claim it's true since that's what scientists do. They make up new tribes of people and creatures that no one in history can verify. So using their criteria, it's true that Jesus is Lord. Amen. Please stick to the topic. Further off-topic posts will be deleted. Do not discuss this warning in the community or send me PMs about it. If you have questions, you may e-mail community@salemwebnetwork.com. Sincerely, Lisa Luper Moderator

swan42 -> RE: The common ancestor (8/10/2008 6:28:00 PM)
quote: So my question is; why is this creature called a common ancestor? What is this common ancestor (or common ancestors) common to? All living things? If so, what would this beast look like in order to be common to all living things? or only humans? Or isn't it a fact that even evolutionists know that there was one source from which all living things came? If so, then what is the difference between making up a beast of your imagination and believing in God? Carico, did you want answers to your question, or are you just trolling?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI