No it doesn't.
You're interpreting the text to imply that while ignoring other lines of text that are directly contradictory.
I'm really not interested in going through this yet another time, but I couldn't let your assertion remain unchallenged.
Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertation.
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
No it doesn't.
You're interpreting the text to imply that while ignoring other lines of text that are directly contradictory.
I'm really not interested in going through this yet another time, but I couldn't let your assertion remain unchallenged.
The theological view is interesting, because one idea here requires a trickster god that created all the evidence pointing to an old earth. And when we die, he'll be gleefully pointing out how he fooled us and how we didn't catch on.
Apparently some people want to believe in such a god. (Actually, if they're trying to emulate such a god, that does explain some things...)
Berzerker
Deity
I also have north, south and up, or down... and... the possibilities are effectively endless. You see two sides of a coin and I see too many to list. How do you boil all that down to something called Eden and pointing east or west? Genesis says mankind was made in one locale and told to fill the earth while 1 man was taken eastward to Eden, the Persian Gulf region.
The Out of Africa theory says mankind appeared in one locale (E Africa, west of Eden) and spread out from there.
"No it doesn't" aint much of a challenge and we're all interpreting the text. What verse directly contradicts what I said?
C'mon. East Africa isn't at all "west" of babylon. It's south. Quite distinctly South. Like, almost due south. Perhaps deflected 5 or 10 degrees, but that's it. Have you ever looked at a map of the areas in question??
As for the bible, I'm not going to get into this again. It's all interpretation and you have to really pervert the verses in order to get them to align with stuff we know about how the universe, solar system, planet, life, and humans developed. The bible is almost completely wrong. Those few places where it isn't directly contradictory to established scientific understanding can be easily attributed to a stopped clock being correct twice a day.
As for the bible, I'm not going to get into this again. It's all interpretation and you have to really pervert the verses in order to get them to align with stuff we know about how the universe, solar system, planet, life, and humans developed. The bible is almost completely wrong. Those few places where it isn't directly contradictory to established scientific understanding can be easily attributed to a stopped clock being correct twice a day.
Berzerker
Deity
Eden is not Babylon and the text says it was eastward, that makes NE Africa a viable location
as for the rest of that, Genesis aint about the universe and I never said it was so I dont know what debate you're reluctant to repeat much less your proof Genesis directly contradicts what I said.
I shouldn't have to keep asking for your proof
as for the rest of that, Genesis aint about the universe and I never said it was so I dont know what debate you're reluctant to repeat much less your proof Genesis directly contradicts what I said.
I shouldn't have to keep asking for your proof
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
In that case it really is south-south-south west of Eden and Genesis got it wrong.
Genesis would have been more right if it had said: "1 man was taken Northward to Eden"
If you disagree, please show me on a map how you figure your interpretation makes sense.
We just look at the evidence through the wrong paradigm. YEC is basically: I'll see you your mountain of evidence and raise you FAITH. There are some legit YEC scientists who freely admit that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming or that the evidence for an old earth is overwhelming, but that since this contradicts their modern interpretation of Genesis, they must conclude there's a piece of the puzzle missing. Thus: faith.
When you talk to a YEC, it's important to understand you're speaking different languages even if you can hear the words.
I somewhat get the faith part and in my view it isn't a problem if someone admits that almost all evidence points the other way. When people try to insist that the evidence actually supports YEC, then things get very strange and extremely problematic.
Goodfella
Showing results for
I skipped straight to the end:
Berzerker
Deity
In that case it really is south-south-south west of Eden and Genesis got it wrong.
Genesis would have been more right if it had said: "1 man was taken Northward to Eden"
If you disagree, please show me on a map how you figure your interpretation makes sense.
See them earliest lines leaving Africa? They head east thru and around the Persian Gulf region
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Place Eden in India or Alaska and that's still true. 
But in light of this:
But in light of this:
it's still North.
Berzerker
Deity
Not north, not east, just eastward... Judging by the fossils so far we originated in Ethiopia and expanded toward the juncture of the Red and Aden Seas. From there eastward is the Arabian peninsula leading to the Persian Gulf. During ice ages the Persian Gulf was a drainage system for the 4 biblical rivers feeding Eden. All people had to do was hop on a boat and follow the Arabian coast eastward and they'd find that delta.
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/06/various-options-for-migration-out-of.html
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/06/various-options-for-migration-out-of.html
As I said above, you're forcing a certain interpretation out of words that have gone through several translations and transcriptions.
Clearly you already have the conclusion you're trying (desperately!) to derive.
Clearly you already have the conclusion you're trying (desperately!) to derive.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Since when does that factor into anything here?
I think all of us should care about the opinions of others on wide ranging issues. That's the essence of empathy, understanding, and society. Unless you're a hermit mountain man recluse you *will* interact with people who don't share your views. Those interactions are more likely to be positive for everyone if all people involved make an effort to understand the other people's points of view.
The basis of any community is mutual effort towards solving mutual problems. In this case, berserker and I are both citizens of the same political unit. His views will have an impact on solutions applied to my problems. I therefore care what he thinks about those solutions, and I expect him to care about my views. They will impact him.
If he thinks that answers to scientific or historical questions of our origins can be found in a religious text that's been shown to be overwhelmingly wrong, then I have a vested interest in either trying to correct his understanding or preventing him from expressing his views.
Since I fundamentally reject the notion that ignorant views should be censored in polite discourse, I'm left with the compulsion to try to inform and reform the incorrect viewpoint.
Make sense?
The basis of any community is mutual effort towards solving mutual problems. In this case, berserker and I are both citizens of the same political unit. His views will have an impact on solutions applied to my problems. I therefore care what he thinks about those solutions, and I expect him to care about my views. They will impact him.
If he thinks that answers to scientific or historical questions of our origins can be found in a religious text that's been shown to be overwhelmingly wrong, then I have a vested interest in either trying to correct his understanding or preventing him from expressing his views.
Since I fundamentally reject the notion that ignorant views should be censored in polite discourse, I'm left with the compulsion to try to inform and reform the incorrect viewpoint.
Make sense?
