Evolution v Creationism

[Askthepizzaguy]

If God's laws don't change, we are SERIOUSLY behind on all those animal and plant offerings and sacrifices.

ATPG, the Bible story doesn't go that we are all descended from Adam and Eve directly. Other people come out of nowhere, so the only answer from a Christian point of view is that God created them seperately. Not to mention the Bible is against incest so they would hardly make the human race through incest plus that's disgusting anway.

Ummm.... That's so DEAD WRONG. It says, explicitly, in the Bible that Eve was the mother of ALL MANKIND. That means everyone in existence (except Adam, supposedly) came from her womb or her children.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...was-cains-wife

In Genesis 3:20 we read, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” In other words, all people other than Adam are descendants of Eve—she was the first woman.

Eve was made from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:21–24)—this was a unique event. In the New Testament, Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) use this historical and onetime event as the foundation for the marriage of one man and one woman.

Also, in Genesis 2:20, we are told that when Adam looked at the animals, he couldn’t find a mate—there was no one of his kind.

All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Adam’s wife, from the beginning. There could not have been a “race” of women.

Thus, if Christians cannot defend that all humans, including Cain’s wife, can trace their ancestry ultimately to Adam and Eve, then how can they understand and explain the gospel? How can they justify sending missionaries to every tribe and nation? Therefore, one needs to be able to explain Cain’s wife, to illustrate that Christians can defend the gospel and all that it teaches.

All human beings came from this supposed "Eve", according to the Bible itself and your Christian scholars and "scientists".

You continue to espouse your personal, contradictory views as if they are the only accepted explanation of the Bible, often times directly opposing what is actually written in the scripture. You are free to do this, my faithful friend, but you cannot actually say that you're literally following the word of the Bible, and if so, then WHY must you continually harp on what amounts to a couple lines out of thousands and thousands regarding the gays, for example? If the Bible isn't literal and it's open to such wild misinterpretations (interpretations regarded as false by the religious authorities) then who are YOU to be the authority on what the Bible says? If it's open to interpretation, I'm just as much of a Biblical authority as you are, and one of the bonuses in my favor is that I seem to understand what the Bible actually says, no offense.

One cannot truly criticize religion without studying it in great detail. I understand you feel you must defend your faith, but you simply haven't ever done so convincingly. Your interpretations about hell, for example, are quite unique and aren't found in the Bible. Your interpretation on the lineage of mankind is directly refuted by Biblical passages.

Should I get you the white-out? Apparently you want to make numerous changes and call it what the Bible says. That makes you no different from most Christian denominations though, so join the hypocrisy club. Especially when it's written in the Bible that those who alter the word of God are in some pretty deep doo-doo.



Believe what you want; but all your arguments to date indicate that basically, you do believe whatever you want, regardless of what the Bible says. So... why bother quoting it? It's not even an authority in your own mind. It certainly isn't in mine, unless you're discussing what it says, in which case I have the Bible handy and we can debate what it actually says all day long.

It's much like your interpretation of the English language. In prior debates, you would come up with definitions of words entirely the opposite and contradictory from the actual definitions found in a dictionary.

There can be no debate until we agree on what is actually written in the books we use as authoritative references on the subjects we discuss, and in the language we discuss them in. Since you refuse to do so, you've conceded the argument by default.