re: Republican Lawmaker believes Earth is 6,000 years old

That you do. It is your thing. I do it as well, but to a lesser extent. I find anyone that is assured to the point of absurdity to be entertaining. No one, regardless as to what they believe can actually be that sure of their belief system. There are gaps in all of them.

I practice a faith. It is based on a set of beliefs. But in the end, it is a belief. Will see how it all pans out. I am good.

quote:

---

It is your thing.

---

Killing coyotes has become my thing. Mocking people fills the enormous amount of time between sightings.

quote:

---

I am good.

---

Same.

quote:

---

Most educated christians don't believe that Adam and Eve actually existed.

...

You can be Christian, believe that Christ died for your sins, and not believe ludicrous, proven false stories

---

From a theological standpoint, if there were no real Adam, then there is no original sin and no death because of it. If Adam didn't exist to disobey then it would make no sense for Jesus to be the second Adam to obey.

Christ's mission on Earth was because of Adam's sin. If there was no Adam, Jesus was a liar and not God and we are all still in sin with no hope for salvation.

quote:

---

From a theological standpoint, if there were no real Adam, then there is no original sin and no death because of it. If Adam didn't exist to disobey then it would make no sense for Jesus to be the second Adam to obey.

---

Kind of invalidates the entire book of Romans and the theological principles the Apostle Paul was articulating. I can see how people disagree with the Genesis timeline. But I cannot see how Christians cannot see the importance of this creative act. Much of the doctrine of salvation is tied to the necessity for a Savior based upon the rebellion in the Garden of Eden. If there is no Adam and Eve then when did sin enter the world? Who is the allegorical "First Adam" that introduced sin? And were there humans that lived extended periods in a sinless state until the first sin took place?

Questions, questions.

ok

in Hebrew please, because we all know the book was not Genesis it was Bereshit in the beginning.

As in verse one (chapter one) there's the has-sa-ma-yim (shaw-mah'-yim) which certainly could mean the Heavens, however it could also stand for the air or the sky. And ha-a-res (eh'-rets) which could potentially mean Earth, but could also be translated earth as in land, dirt, minerals And the word tohu (to'-hoo) or without form ...

... as in land was not yet formed into our planet Earth. Because as it was translated, it was void, empty, without form.... certainly not rock solid as a planet. This is something before the planet we are on (the 3rd day) and as such is not ruled by a 24hour cycle of day-n-night. It could have likely been an illustration of all matter. That which was both gaseous (airy stuff) and that stuff which was particulate matter (solid elements), all mixed together and flowing together like water.

The biblical translators simply tried their best to get this right; however being the most learned of their day, and steeped in the best science they allowed this to cloud their work. These Ptolemaic-Trained men knew the earth was center of all and the sun traveled around it, and so they translated the tale to best fit what they knew. A earth centered creation and hence it must also be an earth day. We are simply paying the price today, by allowing the science of that day, to shape the argument of what we believe is in the Torah (the pre-translated manuscript).

Much the same way as the Europeans in their infinite wisdom re-translated all the 'J'names in their bible. The Johns, Jesus, Jews, and Jerusalem got re-introduced to the world when they had always been spelled with a "Y" in Aramaic and Hebrew (since there was no J letter in their alphabet)... these had always been Yehohanan, Yeshua, Yehuda, Yerushalayim. Although not germane to the question at hand, it does show a certain manner in which we are certain, beyond doubt, and yet can be wrong. Because we all know his name was Jesus, and yes maybe he'll answer to it; however Miriam his mom would have called him by the "Y" name.

Uhm, if you believe in Christianity then Jesus was the Son of God. As God, He was all knowing. And there are multiple instances in the New Testament where theological experts of His day marveled at His understanding of the Word of God. So, was Jesus lying when He said God created them male and female? Or possibly deliberately misleading people on the true origin of the species?

We have a paradox here.

Literal Eve.

Does that make you feel better?

God did create male and female. Through the process of evolution.

(I don't believe in God. However I'm just pointing out how to reconcile it )

quote:

---

Sure it can. It's allegorical.

Adam is a placeholder for all mankind and their sins. Jesus was here to show us the way to live

---

There is a Christian doctrine called federal headship which says that Adam is/was the representative for all mankind. Because he sinned, we all have his sin imputed to us (original sin). Jesus was incarnate to be the second Adam and become the representative (federal head) for all those who have faith in Him. If Adam wasn't a real person, then he is not a federal head and therefore no one is judged for his sin. It also makes no sense that Jesus would be a representative in the same vein as someone that didn't even exist.

There are other problems with an allegorical Adam, such as mankind being made/created in God's image.

The fact of the matter is that there has to be a real Adam for Christianity to "work". If he is just allegory, you don't have Christianity but some other self-help book written by men who didn't know what they were talking about and a Messiah who saved no one since he was a liar.

quote:

---

Is asinine.

---

Have you seen mankind lately