|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The common ancestor - 8/6/2008 9:57:00 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
A metaphor has to relate to the passage. I know because I'm a writer. And nothing in Genesis 2:7 relates to humans coming from the wombs of apes.
It doesn't have to. It simply has to be a metaphor of making something--whatever the actual means.
Compare for example the metaphor of the snake in Genesis 3. Nothing there relates the snake to Satan, yet we understand that it is a metaphor of Satan.
quote:
The dust found in the graves of rotted corpses isn't a metaphor.
Read drj11's post above.
The bible says that the serpent is the devil in Rev. 12:9 and 20:2. So there's no metaphor at all there because it's very clear as the bible always is. 
Yes, there is a metaphor there and the writer of Revelation obviously understood the metaphor of Genesis since he refers to its meaning. If you really were a writer, you would be able to identify metaphors just as John did when he wrote about Genesis in Revelation.
Nowhere did the writer of Genesis tell us the meaning of his metaphor. He assumed (apparently wrongly in your case) that most people were competent to understand metaphors when they came across them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 8/7/2008 8:38:29 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
The serpent being Satan is an obvious metaphor that the bible explains.
Good, I am glad you have changed your tune and recognize it is a metaphor--even and obvious one. So obvious we would understand it even if the author of Revelation didn't spell it out for us.
By the same token, Genesis 2:7 is obviously using the metaphor of a potter working in clay to describe the creation of humankind. This metaphor is very common in scripture as it is used by Isaiah, Jeremiah and Paul as well as here.
No more need to literalize the metaphor here than on any of its other occurrences.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 8/7/2008 8:48:36 AM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4984
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: online
|
Attention: Moderator Note
Many posts in this thread have gone off-topic. For your convenience, here is the question again from the OP:
quote:
There have been many stories from evolutionists about a common ancestor. Some say there was only one, others say, there were many.
So my question is; why is this creature called a common ancestor? What is this common ancestor (or common ancestors) common to? All living things? If so, what would this beast look like in order to be common to all living things? or only humans? Or isn't it a fact that even evolutionists know that there was one source from which all living things came? If so, then what is the difference between making up a beast of your imagination and believing in God?
But if you claim that the imagination is evidence, then we can claim the Jesus lived without needing any witnesses to prove it. In fact, we can even make up a new history of the Jews and any story that isn't verified in history & claim it's true since that's what scientists do. They make up new tribes of people and creatures that no one in history can verify. So using their criteria, it's true that Jesus is Lord. Amen.
Please stick to the topic. Further off-topic posts will be deleted.
Do not discuss this warning in the community or send me PMs about it. If you have questions, you may e-mail community@salemwebnetwork.com.
Sincerely,
Lisa Luper
Moderator
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The common ancestor - 8/10/2008 6:28:00 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
So my question is; why is this creature called a common ancestor? What is this common ancestor (or common ancestors) common to? All living things? If so, what would this beast look like in order to be common to all living things? or only humans? Or isn't it a fact that even evolutionists know that there was one source from which all living things came? If so, then what is the difference between making up a beast of your imagination and believing in God?
Carico, did you want answers to your question, or are you just trolling?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
So please show how Genesis 2:7 is metaphoric to man coming from the wombs of apes. It's time to be specific instead of talking in vague generalities. Otherwise you have no case. 
