A Picture of Jesus

[bbyrd009]

And hopefully it should be obvious that Abel is not in Adam's lineage because he died w/o having children.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by acerrak

science is a great thing but some times science is wrong.

This, to me, is like saying "Christian rapist,"
or "Osama bin Laden was a Muslim."
Science that is incorrect is not science.
You cannot point out one single thing
proven by science to be incorrect.

That satan actually physically fathered Cain is
doubtful even to me, as I don't imagine that
Adam would be interested, a la some
Rocky Horror scenario; however,
you no doubt find the most likely scenario
equally unpalatable, especially if you assume
the common magical thinking here, that God waved
His magic wand or whatever to create our race,
which I just find unnecessary, and mostly obfuscating.

When you can explain Adam,
which I don't believe you can right now, no offense-
-and "Ish," and "Geber," then one of you might be better
qualified to tell me where I might be confused, Prax.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

And hopefully it should be obvious that Abel is not in Adam's lineage because he died w/o having children.

well if we look at it like it is, noahs lineage it explains it all. Noah came from seth, not cain or abel thus the time line shows Noahs geneology.

one of these days i my great great great great great great great grandkids do a geneology, it will linkthem through me and not my brother. fairly simple stuff imho.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

This, to me, is like saying "Christian rapist,"
or "Osama bin Laden was a Muslim."
Science that is incorrect is not science.
You cannot point out one single thing
proven by science to be incorrect.

That satan actually physically fathered Cain is
doubtful even to me, as I don't imagine that
Adam would be interested, a la some
Rocky Horror scenario; however,
you no doubt find the most likely scenario
equally unpalatable, especially if you assume
the common magical thinking here, that God waved
His magic wand or whatever to create our race,
which I just find unnecessary, and mostly obfuscating.

When you can explain Adam,
which I don't believe you can right now, no offense-
-and "Ish," and "Geber," then one of you might be better
qualified to tell me where I might be confused, Prax.

of course i can, at one time science sad the world was flat, just as one time science thought every planet revolved around the earth. dont make science your god, cause in the end the wisdom of this world will perish.

No i dont believe in evolution, there is so many holes in that fake theory it should be expelled from and reading. even some athiest dont agree with it. its a dumb hypothesis of a man who was wrong.

God formed us from clay and breathed life, it was instant not billions of years sorry to burst your bubble. just like trying to carbon date a snail that is alive and saying its over 10k years old.

science is good but its not always truthfull.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by acerrak

well if we look at it like it is, noahs lineage it explains it all. Noah came from seth, not cain or abel thus the time line shows Noahs geneology.

one of these days i my great great great great great great great grandkids do a geneology, it will linkthem through me and not my brother. fairly simple stuff imho.

Ok, you're referring to Noah's geneology, and not Adam's descendants, I guess it is. I'll dig up a ref. There are other indications, but you surely don't need a rehash of Branham. The point was that there is doubt about the fine points;
the serpent obv won the day, so to speak. Others went in to earthly women,
producing Geber, etc. and men are referred to as Ish or Adam in Scripture.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by acerrak

of course i can, at one time science sad the world was flat, just as one time science thought every planet revolved around the earth. dont make science your god, cause in the end the wisdom of this world will perish.

No i dont believe in evolution, there is so many holes in that fake theory it should be expelled from and reading. even some athiest dont agree with it. its a dumb hypothesis of a man who was wrong.

God formed us from clay and breathed life, it was instant not billions of years sorry to burst your bubble. just like trying to carbon date a snail that is alive and saying its over 10k years old.

science is good but its not always truthfull.

Actually the examples you cite predate the science we know today;
the scientific method isn't that old...um, instantaneous Adam, ya,
I have no problem with that, but doubt it; God just doesn't seem to work like that, in my experience. We commonly assume "instanter," and sure God could, but I have had my notions of "instantly" too often corrected to not be suspicious there. Doesn't make them any less miracles, imo.

At science not truthful...science should not be approached as truth, imo.
The scientific method rigorously excludes the physically impossible,
and is not at odds with God. At evolution, which is I guess what this ends up

being about? Hmm, I've had my notions of "instantly" too often corrected, lol,
and ya, I don't see evolution as an alternate, but as a complementary story,
and Adam still as "the first," "made from clay," my father, all that.

Really, it's kind of like eschatology to me-
-not "now"--and so lacking relevance.

[strait shooter]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

This, to me, is like saying "Christian rapist,"
or "Osama bin Laden was a Muslim."
Science that is incorrect is not science.
You cannot point out one single thing
proven by science to be incorrect.

That satan actually physically fathered Cain is
doubtful even to me, as I don't imagine that
Adam would be interested, a la some
Rocky Horror scenario; however,
you no doubt find the most likely scenario
equally unpalatable, especially if you assume
the common magical thinking here, that God waved
His magic wand or whatever to create our race,
which I just find unnecessary, and mostly obfuscating.

When you can explain Adam,
which I don't believe you can right now, no offense-
-and "Ish," and "Geber," then one of you might be better
qualified to tell me where I might be confused, Prax.

You keep talking about
Geber
and "Ish"

Most of what you have said on this thread is "GeberIsh"


Hey...I made a funny...

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by strait shooter

You keep talking about
Geber
and "Ish"

Most of what you have said on this thread is "GeberIsh"


Hey...I made a funny...

Yes, Timmy, that is hilarious.
Way to totally ignore the point.
Hey, you got the "shooter" part right, at least.

[strait shooter]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Yes, Timmy, that is hilarious.
Way to totally ignore the point.
Hey, you got the "shooter" part right, at least.

My dear man....you are the one ignoring the point.

The point is that there is no way to get around Gen 4:1 without doing severe disservice to the Holy Writ.

No amount of twisting, "GeberIsh" or circumvention will take away from the fact that the scripture VERY CLEARLY shows us that Cain was a product of a sexual union between Adam and Eve.

And since that is the foundation for "Serpent Seed" and other erroneous doctrines, you haven't a leg to stand on.....

That is the point.

[Dordrecht]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

I will be disputing that. You might also be descended from Eve and the Serpent, through Cain (Scripture verifies this in many places) or, there is ample evidence of an eighth day creation, as reflected in Scripture's delineation of men into "ish" or "adam." This delineation has not survived translation, but may be seen in the primitive texts, or by clicking "lexicon" in the relevant verses online.

This also clarifies who Cain could have married in the Land of Nod.
We surely did not all descend from Adam and Eve.

Maybe you didn't.