The BIBLE.

Hmmmm...What was Darwin's final analysis again?? It's interesting how that vital point he made seems to escape peoples memory quite frequently.

 

Please note that these are "theories" not "laws". Please note the "Big Bang Theory". Guess what word it has in there, "theory". A theory is only an idea with some scientific backing, nothing about it has been deemed law. People that don't believe in God just take it as fact and act like it's 100% real. Same thing w/ evolution, although evolution has much more scientific backing.

Also, if the Big Bang did occur, that primeval atom must have come from somewhere correct? It can't just pop out of nothing. I also realize that the human mind cannot picture nothing, but just think about that before you keep arguing.

 

Amen, Scheme, that's exactly what it proves.

What it categorically does NOT prove is that evolution was not God's method.

Now I'm not talking mainstream nothing. I'm talking what I read and what I study every single day and for many many years now.

The fact is that the Bible seems to suggest, for instance, that other humans, including women, were here on earth, that He had created them long before Adam: Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

What the Bible actually says after this passage is that, when He wanted to, He then: Gen 2:7 ... breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Scheme... the man's "nostrils" already existed. And the sense that I get from this is that the Bible ends this passage with "and man became a living soul" for a reason.

Even this final part of the sentence seems to suggest that not only was "man" already alive but that there was a change at this point in man in his physiological make-up. IN fact, he then evolved again - in fact, he lept. And that is referenced here inasmuch as now the man became a living soul.

It seems to me to suggest that God waited in His perfect time to breath into Man's nostril and create in him a soul.

Which, to my mind, bespeaks a kind of evolution, a very real evolution, in the evolvement of man to now not only the thinking creature he had probably been for many thousand centuries already, but now, additionally, God was creating him, evolving him again, now that much more, IN HIS [perfect] IMAGE in that man was now with "soul." Which means that man was now at the beginning of what C.S. Lewis refers to as "The Law of Human Nature." That single law, the only law of nature which can actually be obeyed or denied on an individual basis (for instance the Law of Gravity is universal) and further, that man, now that He had breathed His precious breath into our nostrils, is the only creature on earth that can obey or deny this law.

I appreciate very much how you are handling my participation.

 

I hope you are not stating that God put a "soul" into man or a "spirit" into a man? This would not fit in at all with other verses. Best you read this:

Soul

Definition: In the Bible, “soul” is translated from the Hebrew ne′phesh and the Greek psy·khe′. Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys. To many persons, however, “soul” means the immaterial or spirit part of a human being that survives the death of the physical body. Others understand it to be the principle of life. But these latter views are not Bible teachings.

Gen. 2:7: “God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” (Notice that this does not say that man was given a soul but that he became a soul, a living person.) (The part of the Hebrew word here rendered “soul” is ne′phesh. KJ, AS, and Dy agree with that rendering. RS, JB, NAB read “being.” NE says “creature.” Kx reads “person.”)

1 Cor. 15:45: “It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (So the Christian Greek Scriptures agree with the Hebrew Scriptures as to what the soul is.) (The Greek word here translated “soul” is the accusative case of psy·khe′. KJ, AS, Dy, JB, NAB, and Kx also read “soul.” RS, NE, and TEV say “being.”)

1 Pet. 3:20: “In Noah’s days . . . a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.” (The Greek word here translated “souls” is psy·khai′, the plural form of psy·khe′. KJ, AS, Dy, and Kx also read “souls.” JB and TEV say “people”; RS, NE, and NAB use “persons.”)

Gen. 9:5: “Besides that, your blood of your souls [or, “lives”; Hebrew, from ne′phesh] shall I ask back.” (Here the soul is said to have blood.)

Josh. 11:11: “They went striking every soul [Hebrew, ne′phesh] that was in it with the edge of the sword.” (The soul is here shown to be something that can be touched by the sword, so these souls could not have been spirits.)

Can the human soul die?

Ezek. 18:4: “Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul* that is sinning—it itself will die.” (*Hebrew reads “the ne′phesh.” KJ, AS, RS, NE, and Dy render it “the soul.” Some translations say “the man” or “the person.”)

Matt. 10:28: “Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul [or, “life”]; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul* and body in Gehenna.” (*Greek has the accusative case of psy·khe′. KJ, AS, RS, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, and NAB all render it “soul.”)

Acts 3:23: “Indeed, any soul [Greek, psy·khe′] that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.”

 

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

 

Darwinian Evolution is the biggest hoax the world has ever known, microevolution the theory is fine, survial of the fittest fine, but macroevolution explaining where we all come from fails on so many levels i can't go into them here..

http://www.thekn0wledge.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=32

 

Interesting SEO, thanks for the insight.

But, yes, I do believe Man was, at this particular moment in history acceptable to God in His perfect timing, and that HE breathed life, soul, into Man.

Some of the scripture which you graciously supplied seems to suggest, on the one hand, that the "man" and the soul are inseparable, to which I totally agree, (now that God in His mercy decided to breath life into our nostrils), and on the other hand - the opposite.

I will have to study your scriptures more closely to really get at what you're saying.

But I know this. I know the soul is not the body and the body not the soul.

Isa 10:18 And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be as when a standardbearer fainteth.

I believe your understanding of the hebrew term is too narrow.

Here is, I believe, a more full account of the uses of the term (nephash):

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion

a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man

b) living being

c) living being (with life in the blood)

d) the man himself, self, person or individual

e) seat of the appetites

f) seat of emotions and passions


I think we both agree that the soul can live on after the death of the body so, again, I am alittle confused by what you are saying.

Three distinct theories exist as to the origen of the "soul."

1. The Theory of Pre-Existence, of which some have interpreted in John 9:2, a proof: Jhn 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

2. The Creation Theory, which accords an immediacy to God's infusion into our bodies of the soul. And that the soul is quite distinct from the body, to support this theory we read:

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

3. The Traducian Theory which holds that the human race was immediately created in Adam. From what I gather of your post - you favor this theory.

Either way I do not. Especially when we fold both Gen 2:7 and Eccl 12:7 together.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth Gen 2:7 ...and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.[/B]

 

if the big bang created the universe who created the big bang

 

If god created the universe who created god?

 

what we have here is an assumption about the nature of time. namely that its linear and inorder for god to exist in the present something has to occur in the past.

Cause and effect - basic Newtonian physics.

However.. I have a feeling Newtonian physics don't apply to gods.

I suggest watching matrix reloaded again if your still have problems getting all this..

……………………………
www.thekn0wledge.com

 

might be one of the biggest mysteries to find answer to that
(or it might have been the big hairy turtle?? )

 

I just posted the answer!

god doesn't need a creator because he doesn't conform to a linear time law!

 

we must have posted at the same time,

are you saying we live in a matrix,

 

no.. im saying linear time is as much as an illusion as that of freewill and only of importance to people who fail to understand the determinisic nature of the univerise.. is me or i am in the wrong the forum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

 

no not in the wrong forum i just don't understand what linear physics is

 

linear physics - the notion that one thing happens after another in a line.

 

Whoa, lol, we're all over the place here.

I agree with the concept of time not neccesarily being linear. The example of this relative to God has often been how Man must read the sentence one word at a time across the page from top to bottom, while God sees the whole page all at once.

But that this ties into there being no free will I simply do not agree. You would have to demonstrate that possibility to me, and not just conceptually. As you hopefully can see from my previous post here to SEO I like particulars and hold myself accountable to the same.

 

All religion is nonsense.

Please stop teaching it to your kids.

 

As the history of Man clearly demonstrates, belief in God is intuitive not empirical knowledge. If no one on earth today taught another living soul about God. God would still exist in the mind, heart, and soul of Man. We do not need to teach anyone about the existence of God for everyone to know it.

And this is the obvious weakness to your argument - it is called fact. Historical fact. All men, all nations, all races - one common thread - belief in "God."

So to satisfy your agenda, actually one could never achieve the olibteration of God from the conscience of mankind by not teaching of Him. To the contrary, to achieve something akin to your lack of faith-base conscienceness, and the desire to remove God from Man, one would actually have to teach the opposite, not stop teaching the former. It would clearly be indoctrination, the very thing you apparently object to faith-based peoples practicing.