We jumped from a pre-Adam Lucifer flood to Cain was an incestuous Alabama fan to carbon dating to lust?

I love this site.

We jumped from a pre-Adam Lucifer flood to Cain was an incestuous Alabama fan to carbon dating to lust?

I love this site.

In Context:

Matthew 5:27-30
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

This is a literal translation of what Christ said.

But now for the meaning...Lust is a problem that isn't easily corrected on our own because it is both visual and emotionally compelling. If, key word, IF we can't control our lusts of the flesh and IF we go on down that road (and stay on that road) of sexual immorality then it would indeed be better, eternally speaking, if we could not see the objects of our lust or touch the objects of our lust.

This is similar to saying if we have hatred in our heart for our brothers, then it is really the same as murder. It is all about the heart issues and our proclivity to sin and repeat our sins even when we know better.

The reason we know that this is a warning to us and not a command to dismember ourselves is the obvious...what about the left eye and left hand?? The right side is the noble side, the honored side--and this has been used throughout history. So to pluck out the right eye or right hand was one of those shocking statements by Christ to wake up his audience (there with him and us today reading his words) to come to the understanding that lust of the flesh has serious consequences and we would be wise to turn away, repent and lean of Christ for help navigating the world full of desires of the flesh.

I can absolutely back it up with scripture.

Yea I get that I just think disease coming about from a man eating an apple from a talking snake is allegory and not literal

*Not to mention the fact that the mere existence of "sin" denotes it has a creator, which in Biblical terms must be God, which is contradictory to the abilities of omnibenevolent being. You could argue not true because he only gave free will and then we chose to sin, but still he is denoting what is defined as sin. The roads led back to the Creator because everything has to come from somewhere. What I'm getting at is trying to reconcile Omni benevolence with sin and creation.

KJV and ESV are both word-for-word translations from the original texts, neither of which even remotely kinda sorta hint at any existence whatsoever prior to Adam. Any notion of that is fully extra-biblical.

I suspect we may be confusing the similar commands from the Lord in Genesis 1 (to Adam)and then again in Genesis 9 (to Noah and his family after the flood). Without writing a book, the whole "first Adam and last Adam" terminology also refutes it.

I said I was not gonna open this thread, much less post in it, but I am weak.

IKB, I've read enough of your posts over the years to be sure that you know better than this, and just posted without thinking. The KJV is not a word for word translation from the original text. The Church of England committee that produced it did not have an original text of any Book of the Bible. They did have a few texts that were in the original languages, but all were copies, and copies made centuries after the text was written. The committee said they made extensive use of the Latin Vulgate, so the KJV is to at least some extent a translation of a translation. That said, I love the KJV and it's impact on the world has been considerable. But it's still just a translation.

I don't think the age of the earth is a hill to die on, as someone else already said. I don't think the Scripture itself requires such an understanding. It's easy to use our view of the world to understand the Bible, but what we really need to do is to first strive to understand the world view of the original audience. If we can figure out what it meant to them, that gives us a better chance to understand what it means to us. There is no doubt that some of the genealogies given in the Bible are condensed. That might seem like an inaccuracy to us, but the original audience would not have seen it that way. They considered a grandfather to be their father just as much as the actual father. Jesus looked at it this way as well. He called Zacchaeus a son of Abraham and nobody misunderstood what he meant. We can't apply our view of the world to an ancient people and insist they communicated exactly the same as us.

There are most definitely hills I'm willing to die on, but I'm not qualified to have a strong opinion on the age of the earth. I have not been to the ark in KY and doubt I will ever go. If it were close by I would go, but it's too far for me. It would be interesting to see a reproduction of the ark in actual size; can't imagine what a miserable time that was for those that had to endure that experience.

I do most certainly believe that the flood actually happened, but Noah had to have been limited in the animals he selected. It would have been impossible to fit every subspecies on the ark, so it seems to me that quite a bit of time had to go by for the animals to adapt to different environments. I think it unlikely we could see the diversity we have today in just 4000 years. I am only speculating and I could be wrong. It doesn't matter; my faith is not based on an interpretation of Genesis. It is based on the message of the Gospel - that Christ died on a cross for our sins, was buried, and rose again. That is the hill I will die on.

[quote=ikillbux] my faith is not based on an interpretation of Genesis. It is based on the message of the Gospel - that Christ died on a cross for our sins, was buried, and rose again. That is the hill I will die on.

Well said.

Where did this come from in the thread?

Don't forget about the mold.

From Joemajors post directly above it. See his # 2

So, based on the human genome project, you can literally see how man populated the earth, and in what areas that some gene pools just died out. What's crazy, is that the archeological record matches most of the migration data from the genome project. Ya'll should google it, because it makes perfect sense. What I have decided to do is to take actual scientific FACTS and find how the Bible agrees with it. I steer away from the magic side, which is unnecessary, and stick with the idea that every scientific discovery was backed by the Bible.

The only thing that concerns me about the Ark recreation and the young earth theory is that a few of the people that I know and go to church with that fully believe it, are so adamant about it that one in particular throws out sayings such as: "if you don't believe that the Creation event happened in 6 literal days, what other parts of the Bible do you not believe?" It's that type of "my way" thinking that drives wedges between believers. IMO, there is no place for that in Christianity. There's already a dump truck full of wedges that get driven between believers of different denominations, we don't need more. Like you, my faith isn't based on the Creation event, it's based on the Cross.