FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

No ads, no mods, Frankly Anonymous (you can join w/fake name/email, are not tracked)!
It is currently 16 Jul 2019, 04:38

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Same rules as other frankforums: spammers, stalkers and anti-semites will be booted, deleted, banned without notice.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 00:23 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
For my own videos on Genesis, demonstrating live from Hebrew and sometimes Greek what Bible says about origin, click here.

By contrast or similarity, your own ideas positions proofs are to be the substance of this topic. So use the videos or not as your framework. I won't debate this issue anymore, the proof against the young earthers is too obvious from Bible itself, and the whole topic is irrelevant.

Evolution too is a non-argument, for you can easily see it as a decree for flora and fauna in Gen 1:24-25, but not for man, who is immaterial by nature, Gen 1:26-27. If immaterial, directly created by God at birth (the 'at birth' being covered in Gen 2:7 and many later passages), then man cannot be evolved, as what makes you HUMAN is immaterial, not biological.

Now, maybe you disagree with that, which is your prerogative. But I won't debate these topics anymore. Ask questions, I'll answer; but not debate or argue. Not here to sell you anything.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2015, 07:16 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
brainout wrote:
Evolution too is a non-argument, for you can easily see it as a decree for flora and fauna in Gen 1:24-25, but not for man, who is immaterial by nature, Gen 1:26-27. If immaterial, directly created by God at birth (the 'at birth' being covered in Gen 2:7 and many later passages), then man cannot be evolved, as what makes you HUMAN is immaterial, not biological.


Interesting aspect about the soul is revealed in verse 27. Souls were created "male" and "female." Both are in God's image. As the Father initiates, the Son and Holy Spirit respond.

Its not the body that determines what sex we are. God simply provided an appropriate body to suit the souls he created. In Heaven there will be male and female souls in resurrection bodies. Just no reproduction. No marriage.

Just as the Father initiates, the Son and Holy Spirit respond. Within the unity of resurrected believers the same aspect will be reflected in love. IMHO.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2015, 15:04 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
If IMmaterial souls have gender, why does Christ say we have no gender in heaven, but are like the angels? You don't get a new soul at death. For the soul is the real you.

Verses: Matt. 22:30; Mk. 12:25; Lk. 20:34f


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2015, 16:59 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
Angels had the ability to produce nephilim. That is suggestive of gender.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2015, 17:09 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
BODY gender, not soul. Angels are made of light, so they can make their BODIES any way they want.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2015, 18:29 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
Maybe, but the fallen angels lusted after human women.
Quote:
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair

So what came first, the gender or the lust?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2015, 19:11 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
How is there lust if no body, since lust is a product OF the body that the soul gives into?


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2015, 19:30 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
Well, for us, temptation is in the flesh and we sin by giving in. But what about the fallen angels? If no body, then no temptation?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2015, 20:54 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Not all temptation is coming from the body. There are temptations of both kinds. LUST requires a body to fulfill it, and LUST is something felt IN the body. Angels' bodies are made of light, so they can MAKE themselves a PHYSICAL body which has gender.

Light has no gender.

The goal of taking on male bodies to copulate with women was actually an attempt to prevent the Humanity of Christ by tainting all humanity so that no pure humans would be left. So the 'lust' was secondary.

If you have the Genesis tapes you'll get more info on that, in the section on Genesis 6.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 20 Dec 2015, 11:06 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Our souls are running on biology (it needs 'something' to run on). And if that BODY has systems affixed to it, the soul will operate around that body. For example, if someone has an overwhelming 'feeling' of emotion, typically the soul reacts to it. Women are generally more emotional due to the BODY, but not the soul.

Therefore, your body is never 'you' and your soul has no gender-- it's especially ridiculous since gender comprises of physical components when the soul isn't. And it would be unjust for God to create our sole identities based on grab-bag characteristics from our parents! And you run into problems when you have twins (although it's proven that twins can be completely different from one another mentally).

It's very difficult for people to understand that our bodies are automatons that aren't 'us', however. And so you have people that gawk over their appearance and trivial things since they believe 'it's all they've got, in this one-shot lifetime'. Okay...

My 'automaton' should be dead-- but God was able to plan everything out in advanced; and balance every little detail. How God orchestrates your life as a royal priest is very overwhelming.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2015, 04:31 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
Look: you're not hearing Thieme's teaching rightly on that and you're not reading the Greek rightly, either. THEY DO NOT MARRY NOR ARE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE means not male or female. Why don't you understand that? God made the Eden couple MALE AND FEMALE for MARRIAGE, to depict the MARRIAGE of God and creation. In heaven, that MARRIAGE is consummated between God and creation, so marriage between creatures is no longer necessary. That's the ONENESS Christ prayed for in John 17, and that's why CHURCH is Bride. So we have no gender in heaven also, because as a GROUP we are HIS Bride.

All this is patent. Thieme taught it, too.

You know I like you a bunch, but on this one topic you are so blind and stubborn, no further discourse between you and me is possible. You and I might talk on other topics, but I will no longer reply to you on this one. You have much homework to do.

brainout wrote:
If IMmaterial souls have gender, why does Christ say we have no gender in heaven, but are like the angels? You don't get a new soul at death. For the soul is the real you.

Verses: Matt. 22:30; Mk. 12:25; Lk. 20:34f


Brainout? Are you ready that accurately?

Jesus did not say that angels have no gender. Angels in the Greek always appear in the masculine gender.

Jesus never said they have no gender. He simply said they do not marry. Paul did not marry. John did not marry. Jeremiah did not marry. They had no gender?

God created (bara) man 'male and female' in Genesis 1:27. No bodies for the souls were provided yet until the next chapter. Those bodies were not created (bara). Adam's body was molded and formed (jatsar) from what had already been created, elements of the earth. In contrast to Adam's body, the woman's body was taken from the material removed of Adam's body and built up from a little, into a lot. Just like Jesus took the few loaves and produced enough bread to feed thousands.


Grace and peace....

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2015, 05:45 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
Genez has a good point. Gen 1:26 repeats three times that human souls where created from nothing (bara).

Quote:
Gen 1:26And God created man in His own image,

in the image of God He created him;

male and female He created them.


Gen 5:2 repeats the last portion of that statement. If God simply formed man to be male and female, why not use yatsar rather than bara?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2015, 20:13 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Yatser means to SCULPT; bara, to CREATE FROM NOTHING (though some scholars dispute that); bana means TO BUILD. So you sculpt from something MATERIAL. God is not material. Gender is material. Not a soul. A body. Something built or sculpted.

So THINK, please: Gen 1:27 is a DECREE when there IS NOTHING. So bara is used throughout. God is precise.

So would you claim God is male or female? Seriously? Like the pagans do? When the Bible flat contradicts that, God is Spirit, John 4:24? So then like the Mormons, you claim God has a body? SERIOUSLY?

I guess Bible and Thieme's classes in Genesis are confusing to you?


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2015, 05:10 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
brainout wrote:
Yatser means to SCULPT; bara, to CREATE FROM NOTHING (though some scholars dispute that); bana means TO BUILD. So you sculpt from something MATERIAL. God is not material. Gender is material. Not a soul. A body. Something built or sculpted.


You are confusing sexual ability with gender. A little boy, or girl, are not sexual. Yet, they are genders. The Father and Son are gender specific in the Greek. Are they not? Is the Father material?

Jesus is the husband and the church is his bride. Gender has to do with mindset. Initiator and responder. Male and female. Put them in a body and require them to reproduce? We then find male and female "sexuality."

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2015, 19:05 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
Male and female in the spiritual realm has to do with "give and take." Which in turn, becomes "take and give." Initiation and response... and then the responding to the response of the responder. "Give and take."

In the material realm God has provided (for today) bodies that manifest this expression of one's soul in sexuality. But sexuality is not exclusively the basis for determining gender. For, the wise grandfather who is not sexually active may very well be masculine in his thought pattern... While Abraham was sexually dead? He was still being male in gender of his soul.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2015, 19:17 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
Anonynomenon wrote:
Genez has a good point. Gen 1:26 repeats three times that human souls where created from nothing (bara).

Quote:
Gen 1:26And God created man in His own image,

in the image of God He created him;

male and female He created them.


Gen 5:2 repeats the last portion of that statement. If God simply formed man to be male and female, why not use yatsar rather than bara?



The Word tells us that after Genesis 1 was completed? That God rested from any more "bara." No more creating something out from nothing. That is what He rested from.


Genesis 2:1-3

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed
the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all
the work of creating (bara) that he had done.


There was no more seeing God performing "bara" to be found after Genesis 1. Starting with Genesis 2, we now find only Jatsar and Banah in regards to the bodies of Adam and the woman.

Yet? It says in Genesis 1:27 that God (Elohyim) created (bara) the souls male and female! There were no male and female bodies yet to be found when God created them male and female.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2016, 10:24 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Anonynomenon wrote:
Genez has a good point. Gen 1:26 repeats three times that human souls where created from nothing (bara).

Quote:
Gen 1:26And God created man in His own image,

in the image of God He created him;

male and female He created them.


Gen 5:2 repeats the last portion of that statement. If God simply formed man to be male and female, why not use yatsar rather than bara?


But back up a little, if we're created in God's image (sentience), that would mean God is both male and female if our souls had gender attributed to them. Obviously our souls are GENDERLESS so too is God. If our souls were gendered then God is a hermaphrodite since 'His image' would demand both to be affixed to it.

Or-- we could take it another avenue. If God was male as a part of "His image", then all females would have to have male souls, yet somehow female souls at the same time. And you get a big cesspit of nonsensicality.

Genez wrote:
You are confusing sexual ability with gender. A little boy, or girl, are not sexual. Yet, they are genders. The Father and Son are gender specific in the Greek. Are they not? Is the Father material?

Jesus is the husband and the church is his bride. Gender has to do with mindset. Initiator and responder. Male and female. Put them in a body and require them to reproduce? We then find male and female "sexuality."

Your analogy falls flat, in everything with life there are exceptions (i.e. sexual boys and girls). But that's not even necessary to say since gender's whole point is reproduction.

The father and son being one has nothing to do with gender, since Elohim predates mammals and planet earth (NOT TO MENTION; GOD CREATED GENDER AND WOULDN'T BE LIMITED TO HIS OWN DESIGNS SINCE HE IS THE DESIGNER AND THUS ALWAYS 'BEYOND' WHAT WE SEE AND KNOW; saying He is a gender is like saying the baker IS the rolling pin). Since us humans are so STUPID God has to create baby analogies for us. And we always turn the analogies into literal meanings (re: God being gendered, the eucharist cookie, baptismal regeneration, etc).

"oh but Jesus Christ is a man blub blub blub"-- Jesus Christ took on the role of a man, but never had a physical human body prior. That's a unique element and I would reiterate the Father still is genderless.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2016, 03:37 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
Genesis 1:26-27



26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the
livestock and all the wild animals,and over all the creatures that move along
the ground.”

27
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.


The Church is the "bride." And, forever will the Holy Spirit be indwelling the Bride. The Son is not going to be married to another male. Females were also created in God's image. Male and Female has to do with response and initiation, not sexual gender.

Simply, said.. Both souls were created male and female before any body was provided. Souls, created "ex nihilio." Out from nothing. Male and female could not have been referring to the body.

That requires faith to accept. Just like Abraham could not understand how Sarah and him were to have a son at their very advanced age. Faith makes no sense to those who require concrete proof.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2016, 05:06 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
@ Genez

I'm still undecided on the soul gender issue (I'll have to do more research on the subject), but the Bride's relationship with Christ only identies God with masculinity as the authority, and Humanity with femininity as the responder to authority.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2016, 06:18 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Genez wrote:
Genesis 1:26-27

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the
livestock and all the wild animals,and over all the creatures that move along
the ground.”

27
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

The Church is the "bride." And, forever will the Holy Spirit be indwelling the Bride. The Son is not going to be married to another male. Females were also created in God's image. Male and Female has to do with response and initiation, not sexual gender.

Simply, said.. Both souls were created male and female before any body was provided. Souls, created "ex nihilio." Out from nothing. Male and female could not have been referring to the body.

That requires faith to accept. Just like Abraham could not understand how Sarah and him were to have a son at their very advanced age. Faith makes no sense to those who require concrete proof.


You're mixing two concepts together that have nothing to do with one another (like a Catholicke priest saying he can turn a cookie into the body of Christ with some magickal movements). God says mankind is to be made in His image (SENTIENCE, WHICH MEANS SOUL). This cannot have a gender since it would make God into a hermaphrodite. You haven't addressed this problem, either.

I haven't got to Genesis 27 in the Hebrew yet (taking a long time to go through all of it)-- but the soul and gender faculties are separated-- God didn't create a living soul or bodies at that point yet. So to say that the TEMPLATE God created of nonliving souls and bodies soon to be created, are actually gendereized souls is ridiculous.

God created Soul (His image), and genderized bodies like the animals. Note that IN HIS IMAGE does not refer to 'male and female' (they're split). It would have to, to allow gender to be applied to soul. Also, as we mentioned, God would also have to be a hermaphrodite.

The church being the bride and Paul's sex analogies are... analogies. It's not literal. Christ's flesh and blood, the church being the bride? Not literal.

It's still a dead end argument because if we share what is God's, His image would also have to have both genders. But if you say that we simply share sentience then everything makes sense, and we can say the church being the bride is not literal.


Last edited by hupostasis on 13 Jan 2016, 14:22, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2016, 06:24 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Anonynomenon wrote:
@ Genez

I'm still undecided on the soul gender issue (I'll have to do more research on the subject), but the Bride's relationship with Christ only identies God with masculinity as the authority, and Humanity with femininity as the responder to authority.


ROLES are just that, roles. This does not change your soul. Roles are necessary for order.

To say that our souls are gender-hard coded would be like saying the Godhead roles are hard-coded. God is co-equal and BY CHOICE operates on different tiers. Likewise our SOULS operate on different tiers given the circumstances of gender, occupation, maturity, etc etc.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2016, 15:53 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
@Hupostasis

I wasn't implying that God is masculine by nature, but that God takes on the role of what we understand as masculinity. I was simply pointing out that our Bridal relationship with Christ does not support soul gender in any way.

It would make sense that gender only exists for the Husband-wife relationship on earth to mirror the believer's relationship with Christ. In that case, no soul gender needed.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2016, 04:22 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
hupostasis wrote:
Anonynomenon wrote:
@ Genez

I'm still undecided on the soul gender issue (I'll have to do more research on the subject), but the Bride's relationship with Christ only identies God with masculinity as the authority, and Humanity with femininity as the responder to authority.


ROLES are just that, roles. This does not change your soul.



In the beginning Adam and the woman were not trained to function in any role. They were what they were designed to be.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2016, 05:20 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
@ Genez

You have a good point, but at the same time, Adam was created before Eve, and Eve's body was crafted from Adam's rib. So maybe that foreshadows the Husband-wife relationship. But like I said, I'm not prepared to make a conclusive decision on the subject yet.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2016, 07:01 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
Anonynomenon wrote:
@ Genez

You have a good point, but at the same time, Adam was created before Eve, and Eve's body was crafted from Adam's rib. So maybe that foreshadows the Husband-wife relationship. But like I said, I'm not prepared to make a conclusive decision on the subject yet.


Adam and Eve's souls were created (bara) at the same time in Genesis 1:27. They were created (bara) out from nothing.

Its the body which was not created (bara), but was made from what had already been created, was technically produced at the same time. For the exact same substance for Adam's body was the same for the woman. It had been removed from Adam's body. They shared the same body separately... For they were "one flesh."

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2016, 21:17 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Genez wrote:
Adam and Eve's souls were created (bara) at the same time in Genesis 1:27. They were created (bara) out from nothing.

Its the body which was not created (bara), but was made from what had already been created, was technically produced at the same time. For the exact same substance for Adam's body was the same for the woman. It had been removed from Adam's body. They shared the same body separately... For they were "one flesh."

Actually, Genesis 1:27 doesn't seem to imply that God created Adam and Eve's souls exclusively, but rather Psalm 139:16.
So God created SOULS (after sentience like him), and then the template system for the capacity of reproduction and roles afterwards-- which has nothing to DO with the soul specifically (like in James 1 and 2, gender here would only be 'inadvertently' referenced). I don't have BW installed on my system since it was re-imaged to Windows 8.1 (which I had to install twice):
Quote:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him | *space* | male and female created he them.


There's a lot to this actually (because it's implying God foreknew the fall of man--of course He did-- but if man didn't fall and that was always a possibility, then those souls would have to be reallocated somewhere else after Adam would have completed the angelic trial). Which is most likely what would have happened, since God would have always had 'us' in mind even if Adam didn't fall.

Genesis 1:27 from my observations looks to be agnostic from explicitly referring to Adam & Eve but to all of humanity. Because Adam and Eve didn't have their souls active yet, and when their bodies were finally created Adam was first. So then it would be impossible for gender to have a space here... since gender was not yet associated to the souls. And here's the kicker, if God had all souls in mind, and Adam DIDN'T fall, then it would be *impossible* for the souls to be keyed to gender, as the other sons--us who came after adam--would probably not be in a genderized body.

Now what God *does* do is figure out the variables and impute a soul to whichever gender *best suits* the soul (which is where we get into the 'inadvertently' referencing gender). The best way for someone to figure that out is to see what God has provisioned in their life, and what He wants you to do. There's situations where everyone violates their roles; and often it is done out of not having Bible Doctrine in your frontal lobe, so you LOSE freedom since without doctrine, you're barely aware of what's happening).

God creating Eve from Adam is purely for a concept for us to think about, it has nothing to do with souls in Genesis 1:27 directly. It would be like saying God re-using the TOHUWABOHU earth is somehow related to our souls. Not really. The concept implies God using what's there-- of course this is changed when the lake of fire and new jerusalem are created from scratch and all of the 'old world' is *completely* burned up. God using biological hierarchy wouldn't have a direct effect on the soul's independence. It would actually be unjust for God to do, as he'd be hard-coding a soul with no choice. Whereas if God gives you a body based on what He thinks is best contoured to you, is upholding your freedom.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2016, 03:48 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
hupostasis wrote:
Genez wrote:
Adam and Eve's souls were created (bara) at the same time in Genesis 1:27. They were created (bara) out from nothing.

Its the body which was not created (bara), but was made from what had already been created, was technically produced at the same time. For the exact same substance for Adam's body was the same for the woman. It had been removed from Adam's body. They shared the same body separately... For they were "one flesh."

Actually, Genesis 1:27 doesn't seem to imply that God created Adam and Eve's souls exclusively


Exclusively? I had no intention to jump where you may want me to leap. God created Adam and the woman's souls that we see in Genesis 2. The soul is created (bara). The bodies are not.

That's all I wanted to say.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 19 Jan 2016, 09:06 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Genez wrote:
hupostasis wrote:
Genez wrote:
Adam and Eve's souls were created (bara) at the same time in Genesis 1:27. They were created (bara) out from nothing.

Its the body which was not created (bara), but was made from what had already been created, was technically produced at the same time. For the exact same substance for Adam's body was the same for the woman. It had been removed from Adam's body. They shared the same body separately... For they were "one flesh."

Actually, Genesis 1:27 doesn't seem to imply that God created Adam and Eve's souls exclusively


Exclusively? I had no intention to jump where you may want me to leap. God created Adam and the woman's souls that we see in Genesis 2. The soul is created (bara). The bodies are not.

That's all I wanted to say.


You've created that box yourself by using that to say God created genderized souls (NOT me).


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 06:48 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
hupostasis wrote:
You've created that box yourself by using that to say God created genderized souls (NOT me).


I did? Genesis 1:27

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God
He created him; male and female He created them."


Male and female.... Please exegete? The bodies in Genesis 2 were not 'bara.' Only in Genesis 1 were male and female created *out from nothing.* The bodies were produced out from what was already created.

I would like to see you present to me how what was created out from nothing was not male and female. Not our concept of male and female in our limited scope of understanding, of course. Yet, male and female just the same. Just look at how males and females think and feel differently. Now, remove their genitals and think of them as being both male and female. One is the initiator... and one by design is the responder. Gender will be taken to a new level in eternity. That's what is indicated in Genesis 1:27.

Both male and female were created in God's image... (shadow image). God created the fierce warrior, and also created the nursemaid. Both in his image. Both expressing differently towards the same situations. We are being male and female all day long. Sex? All day long? That is not the only thing that makes us male and female. The woman's heart is also the Lord's... as well as the brave soldier.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2016, 01:28 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Genez wrote:
hupostasis wrote:
You've created that box yourself by using that to say God created genderized souls (NOT me).


I did? Genesis 1:27

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God
He created him; male and female He created them."


Male and female.... Please exegete? The bodies in Genesis 2 were not 'bara.' Only in Genesis 1 were male and female created *out from nothing.* The bodies were produced out from what was already created.

I would like to see you present to me how what was created out from nothing was not male and female. Not our concept of male and female in our limited scope of understanding, of course. Yet, male and female just the same. Just look at how males and females think and feel differently. Now, remove their genitals and think of them as being both male and female. One is the initiator... and one by design is the responder. Gender will be taken to a new level in eternity. That's what is indicated in Genesis 1:27.

Both male and female were created in God's image... (shadow image). God created the fierce warrior, and also created the nursemaid. Both in his image. Both expressing differently towards the same situations. We are being male and female all day long. Sex? All day long? That is not the only thing that makes us male and female. The woman's heart is also the Lord's... as well as the brave soldier.


Here's a better listing of the verse:
Quote:
KJV Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
NIV Genesis 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
BGT Genesis 1:27 καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς
WTT Genesis 1:27 וַיִּבְרָ֙א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃


Notice in both Greek and Hebrew (heck even English) the image of God is *devoid* of gender. There is no gender in εἰκόνα θεοῦ / tselem elohim. What you're saying above in teal is that tselem elohim DOES have a gender, but not just one, but both (because you're twisting the verse in an unusual way you get an unusual outcome). MALE and FEMALE were *not* created in God's image, it was the sentience. But you're putting yourself in a box by saying tselem elohim does annotate gender. Male and Female HAS NO TSELEM ELOHIM. NONE. And if tselem elohim has gender He will be debased by His own design.

In other words, God can 'bara' sentience or 'bara' a physical body, but they are not the same. That's really all there is to it. Repeating that God 'bara' male and female physical bodies does not change that tselem elohim is genderless.

How men and women respond to different situations can have a lot of biological factors influenced by hormones. You're basically saying that sentience alone is the cause for how people (typically) behave instead of biology! Wow. You should know that EMOTION is a BIOLOGICAL function, not that of the soul-- but because you demand tselem elohim to have a gender, now emotion becomes an aspect of the soul instead of biology. Doctrine broken. Twice.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2016, 19:14 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
hupostasis wrote:
Notice in both Greek and Hebrew (heck even English) the image of God is *devoid* of gender. There is no gender in εἰκόνα θεοῦ / tselem elohim.



Why should it be given? The context explains all we should need to know. After all... How can you put gender into an image that is to include both male and female? Tell us how that can be done, please.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 04:10 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Genez wrote:
hupostasis wrote:
Notice in both Greek and Hebrew (heck even English) the image of God is *devoid* of gender. There is no gender in εἰκόνα θεοῦ / tselem elohim.



Why should it be given? The context explains all we should need to know. After all... How can you put gender into an image that is to include both male and female? Tell us how that can be done, please.


So Genez, I don't understand why you're asking me to solve your own beliefs (especially when it's impossible to solve them). But let's go through it again.
genez wrote:
Both male and female were created in God's image... (shadow image). God created the fierce warrior, and also created the nursemaid. Both in his image. Both expressing differently towards the same situations. We are being male and female all day long. Sex?


Do you see the perpetual issue you're repeating? Male and female WERE NOT created in God's image. There is no male and female in tselem elohim, yet you keep on repeating this which results in the problem that you're asking me to solve (which I suppose somehow you're saying it doesn't cause that!). You can't say that God made male and female in His image *without* also saying God is male and female *as a result*. THEREFORE the ONLY proper response is that MAN is created in THE IMAGE OF GOD [INSERT LARGE SPACE HERE] male and female He created humans. Take note the male and female bit has nothing to do with the image of God-- hence the *large space*.

So my advice is to go over all of the verses I quoted and see that MALE and FEMALE *ARE NOT* created in God's image. You unfortunately have no choice but to reword the verse and cause that chaotic problem of gender being assigned to God. Let's put it this way, the angels are also created in God's image and yet they have no gender (unless you want to believe all of the angels are male somehow and it's a giant sausagefest).

Furthermore as I have already brought up-- IF THE SOUL (SENTIENCE) HAS GENDER HARD-CODED, THEN EMOTIONS ARE A PART OF THE SOUL SINCE EMOTION (BIOLOGY) IS WHAT SEPARATES the major aspects of both thinking *when in the flesh*. This is impossible since emotion is a part of the biology, yet by you saying God creating the "fierce warrior" and the "nursemaid" both emotional aspects would be hard-coded to the soul. You don't need an R.B. Thieme to tell you emotions are biological; even King James VI & I could have told you that! And what I mean by that is understanding emotions are biological is something very well-known that you don't need a complicated study for.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2016, 20:52 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
OK... just another crank wants to post in a forum. Not wasting time with you anymore. For you, this is a catharsis. Not me. I have no need to vent my frustration by being a source of frustration for those who frustrate you. :)

"Another wonderful crank. And, its another earthly day.
Lord please, take us to a new place. Where only you.
You only.. have the say.

These cosmos cranks in this world, can only vent their spleen.
We can tell them by their lack of love. How their word's intentions
are shown only to be mean."
© gz 2016

Go find some other forum to bitch in. Frustration is a horrible motivator. I do not desire cursing by association.

Was that frank enough for you? Frankly, it should be.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2016, 21:01 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
What is this forum for? It is not much different from other forums...

Other than one major difference. That being, I presume the ones here have been under good teachings, and therefore are much more so without excuse.

In the other forums there are always the cranks and creeps ready to ambush. But, with those who have been exposed to excellent teachings? No excuse. Which just goes to show. Its volition, not the teaching, that will be the root cause of LOST REWARDS for eternity. You can have the best teachings in the world the Lord has to offer and still be a loser in the end. Closed minds... lose.

The Bereans searched the Scriptures to prove what Paul said was truth. The world's way to to attack...

<sigh> It appears another crank is on the loose. He will chase believers away from this forum. The potential for this forum will be lost if the mental viciousness of some here goes unabated.

Its not a total loss. For it makes for some more material for my comedy, multi-personality disorder shtick. I collect cranks from time and try to time and work them into my act. Its Romans 8:28 for me..

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 07 Apr 2016, 16:04 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
So hupostasis responds to you with Bible substance, and you call him a crank, and insult this forum to boot? Because he and most of the rest of us, disagree with your anti-Biblical stance on souls being of a gender? Really? I've known you for over 10 years on the internet, and you didn't used to be this cranky. Instead, you talk like Trump tweets. You lose an argument and you pout, sulk, insult just like he does.

You didn't used to be like that. Maybe you too have #Trumpitis.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2016, 01:53 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
brainout wrote:
So hupostasis responds to you with Bible substance, and you call him a crank, and insult this forum to boot? Because he and most of the rest of us, disagree with your anti-Biblical stance on souls being of a gender? Really? I've known you for over 10 years on the internet, and you didn't used to be this cranky. Instead, you talk like Trump tweets. You lose an argument and you pout, sulk, insult just like he does.

You didn't used to be like that. Maybe you too have #Trumpitis.


We're in real trouble... Seems too many have no idea how much so. It was not Biblical substance that was cohesive. It leaps from one realm to another that really is not relevant. I saw no sense in arguing the point. I still don't.

BTW...the Colonel became cranky at times... You never make the connection. He was to establishment Churchianity what Trump is to the establishment political machine... Both offended and insulted those in the wrong. Both were working with different animals. But both were working. Don't you remember how the "establishment" bad mouthed and lied his best doctrinal teachings?

And, how the Colonel chided Christians who are always looking for a "nice Christian" president? Remember how he said he would prefer an unbeliever Hun who was establishment oriented, over some nice Christian president who is ineffectual? An "unbeliever Hun." Trump wants to put men in positions of military authority like a new Douglas MaCarther and Patton.. Two of Colonel's favorites who the establishment military mocked. If he were still young and alive today? I have a feeling RBT would be straightening out a those in his congregation who are evaluating Trump for the wrong reasons.

How quickly some forget. I haven't.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2016, 02:07 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
.



"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God
He created him; male and female He created them."


:devil: But, He didn't. Image is neuter in gender.

The Church will be removed from this earth. The Holy Spirit will be gone. "She"will be gone. Gender gets thrown around more than we realize. God did not create gender for solely reproduction. Just as the Holy Spirit "responds" to the Father and Son? So was a female soul created as a responder. It has nothing to do with sexuality per se. Sexuality is temporal. The natures of the souls will be everlasting.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2016, 19:10 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Honestly, now you compare the Colonel to Trump? When did the Colonel ever lie? Trump repeatedly and DAILY lies, and the proof against him is so overwhelming, it's a Twitter hashtag, #TrumpLie and #TrumpLies and #TrumpLiesMatter !

Bye, Gene. You're free to post here, but whatever you hallucinate hearing in Bible class, is in a carnal state. Surely.

Genez wrote:
brainout wrote:
So hupostasis responds to you with Bible substance, and you call him a crank, and insult this forum to boot? Because he and most of the rest of us, disagree with your anti-Biblical stance on souls being of a gender? Really? I've known you for over 10 years on the internet, and you didn't used to be this cranky. Instead, you talk like Trump tweets. You lose an argument and you pout, sulk, insult just like he does.

You didn't used to be like that. Maybe you too have #Trumpitis.


We're in real trouble... Seems too many have no idea how much so. It was not Biblical substance that was cohesive. It leaps from one realm to another that really is not relevant. I saw no sense in arguing the point. I still don't.

BTW...the Colonel became cranky at times... You never make the connection. He was to establishment Churchianity what Trump is to the establishment political machine... Both offended and insulted those in the wrong. Both were working with different animals. But both were working. Don't you remember how the "establishment" bad mouthed and lied his best doctrinal teachings?

And, how the Colonel chided Christians who are always looking for a "nice Christian" president? Remember how he said he would prefer an unbeliever Hun who was establishment oriented, over some nice Christian president who is ineffectual? An "unbeliever Hun." Trump wants to put men in positions of military authority like a new Douglas MaCarther and Patton.. Two of Colonel's favorites who the establishment military mocked. If he were still young and alive today? I have a feeling RBT would be straightening out a those in his congregation who are evaluating Trump for the wrong reasons.

How quickly some forget. I haven't.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2016, 19:26 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
brainout wrote:
Honestly, now you compare the Colonel to Trump?



I told you how.

You have chosen to ignore. In turn you turn me into a liar like the media does to Trump. The Colonel said he would rather have a Hun who is pro establishment than a Christian like we see running for office. You have forgotten. Trump might as well be that Hun. You missed that point the Colonel was making. And, while we are at it. Name one running candidate who has not said anything that can not be construed for a lie? The media is working overtime on the front runner. Try doing a Google on R.B. Thieme. He was said to be a horrible heretic and liar.

One man is doing in the secular world what the other did to the world of churchianity. Both were hated for exposing the lies and weaknesses of the "tradition-establishment." Both are lied about. Just ask Truthtesty. Ask those who wrote papers on the heresies of R.B. Thieme. Go ahead. Think with the critics if you want because Trump hurt your feelings...

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2016, 20:15 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Trump didn't hurt my feelings. YOU are under demon influence. Trump is backed by Dominionists, and Dominionism is the antithesis of everything Thieme taught. NO WONDER you can't tell the difference.

Dominionism backing Trump: https://www.google.com/search?q=Seven+M ... p+Anointed

Dominionism is POLITICAL CHURCHINANITY a demon doctrine the Colonel taught against for 50 years, see how Cruz is tied up in it too, https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com ... -in-yours/

But you won't see. You love being snowed. I won't post to you again.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2016, 23:20 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
brainout wrote:
Trump didn't hurt my feelings. YOU are under demon influence. Trump is backed by Dominionists, and Dominionism is the antithesis of everything Thieme taught. NO WONDER you can't tell the difference.

Dominionism backing Trump: https://www.google.com/search?q=Seven+M ... p+Anointed

Dominionism is POLITICAL CHURCHINANITY a demon doctrine the Colonel taught against for 50 years, see how Cruz is tied up in it too, https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com ... -in-yours/

But you won't see. You love being snowed. I won't post to you again.


oh boy..... A few weeks back you were telling us about Cruz's father being a dominionist. Now, that dominionists want to lay claim to someone who has nothing to do with them?

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2016, 23:23 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 105
:scratchead:

In contrast to Trump, whom Dominionists wish to lay claim to? Cruz is a Dominionist.



:!: http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/04/ted-cruzs-campaign-fueled-dominionist-vision-america-commentary/ :?:

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Young Earth Debate
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2016, 07:30 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
TO OTHERS: this is what happens with Trump supporters. They never read what you provide as clear proof (i.e., YOUTUBE VIDEOS of Dominionist key leaders backing Trump and even being with him, on his team, the backer making the video, not an anti-Trump rag) -- and then claim you didn't prove anything. This is why I stop talking to them, and block them in Twitter.

You can't talk to such people. They're deaf.


Report this post
Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ] 

All times are UTC


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited