Total Posts:179|Showing Posts:121-150|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How Was Man Made?

Les_Rong
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 12:38:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2016 8:04:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:49:25 AM, Willows wrote:
There have been many detailed books written on how mankind evolved through a process of evolution.
If mankind was created by God could someone please explain what processes God used?

Unfortunately scripture does not describe the exact process, but then do we really need to now?

There are many thing scripture doesn't describe..

It doesn't tel us exactly what "spirit" is.

It doesn't tell us how Jehovah created the various basic materials that make up this universe from spirit.

It doesn't tell us how he wrote the DNA sequences which control how everything grows and adapts.

It doesn't tell us how our diet and lifestyle can alter that DNA.

It doesn't tell us how long Jehovah took to create the universe.

Do we really need to know them?

What good would it do us if we did?

Yeah, what good is knowledge, anyhow? Let's just go on being ignorant and religious.
Les_Rong
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 12:41:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
God breathed, means God inspired or imbued with God's spirit.

That is because all that have life in them have a tiny portion of Jehovah's spirit maintaining that life and the ability to think or react.

So what happened exactly? One second there was an empty place, and the next a person standing there?


Evolution is not only far fetched it is absolutely impossible, as Biology, and especially Micro-biology are continually revealing.

Please explain to us exactly why the foundational theory of modern Biology is impossible.

There are too many complicated systems and procedures which had to come into being intact for evolution to be even remotely reasonable as an explanation.

Can you show your math? Thanks.

You only have to examine how complex a series of events, every one of them vital to life, have to occur in a given sequence for even the simplest mammal to be conceived developed and birthed, for that ever to have evolved a bit at a time.

Why not?

Don;t forget we all start life as two cells which interact, and end up with many different types of cell, each performing a specific task and each forming in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. And that is the simplest aspect of mammalian reproduction.

Yes, cool, isn't it?

No, the whole of the Universe almost literally screams "intelligent design", and only the profoundly "deaf" can fail to hear it. Ones such as Jesus describes at Matthew 13:15 "For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them."", ad whom Paul describes as "inexcusable".

If you have an argument as opposed to a Bible verse, please make it. I don't now why people think quoting their holy book is a convincing argument for anything.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 1:41:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2016 6:49:25 AM, Willows wrote:
There have been many detailed books written on how mankind evolved through a process of evolution.
If mankind was created by God could someone please explain what processes God used?

Well ya see, there was this stork. It carried a bundle and dropped off the first man. Or? Nuttin done it. Atheism 101
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 2:16:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2016 8:05:28 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 7:16:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
Magic.

The oh so typical answer of s superstitious man who puts everything he doesn't understand down to "magic", even though there is no such thing, lol.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C Clark 3rd law
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 9:55:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 2:16:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/22/2016 8:05:28 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 7:16:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
Magic.

The oh so typical answer of s superstitious man who puts everything he doesn't understand down to "magic", even though there is no such thing, lol.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C Clark 3rd law

Only in the minds of those ignorant ones who are superstitious enough to see it that way.

To the rest of us it is simply something harnessing the laws of creation in ways we do not yet understand.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 10:09:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 12:41:55 AM, Les_Rong wrote:
God breathed, means God inspired or imbued with God's spirit.

That is because all that have life in them have a tiny portion of Jehovah's spirit maintaining that life and the ability to think or react.

So what happened exactly? One second there was an empty place, and the next a person standing there?

I don't know, I wasn't there, but I doubt it was that instant.


Evolution is not only far fetched it is absolutely impossible, as Biology, and especially Micro-biology are continually revealing.


Please explain to us exactly why the foundational theory of modern Biology is impossible.

I suggest you swot up on "Intelligent Design" and especially look at the things which could not possibly have evolved that inspired that particular theory, which is simply creation without crediting the creator.


There are too many complicated systems and procedures which had to come into being intact for evolution to be even remotely reasonable as an explanation.

Can you show your math? Thanks.

See the above response.


You only have to examine how complex a series of events, every one of them vital to life, have to occur in a given sequence for even the simplest mammal to be conceived developed and birthed, for that ever to have evolved a bit at a time.

Why not?

Because had they not come about all together the result would not have, could not have, survived.


Don;t forget we all start life as two cells which interact, and end up with many different types of cell, each performing a specific task and each forming in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. And that is the simplest aspect of mammalian reproduction.

Yes, cool, isn't it?

Oh yes, absolutely cool, absolutely controlled, and absolutely designed.


No, the whole of the Universe almost literally screams "intelligent design", and only the profoundly "deaf" can fail to hear it. Ones such as Jesus describes at Matthew 13:15 "For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them."", ad whom Paul describes as "inexcusable".

If you have an argument as opposed to a Bible verse, please make it. I don't now why people think quoting their holy book is a convincing argument for anything.

My non scriptural arguments are based on a DVD entitled "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" which I bought off Amazon, and books entitled "SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN IN THE UNIVERSE - The proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute". ISBN 0-89870-809-5 and "The Design Revolution" ISBN 978-0-8308-3216-3

I suggest you watch the DVD and read the books.

We do not think the BIble is a convincing argument for anything, we simply know that it is the truth.

We don;t expect people to take the word of the creator for what he did. Most don;t want to even admit the fact that there is an intelligence far greater than man's in existence, let alone one capable of designing a Universe so complex and yet so predictable.

People are so afraid of truth, it is so uncomfortable at ties.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 10:15:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 12:38:33 AM, Les_Rong wrote:
At 6/22/2016 8:04:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:49:25 AM, Willows wrote:
There have been many detailed books written on how mankind evolved through a process of evolution.
If mankind was created by God could someone please explain what processes God used?

Unfortunately scripture does not describe the exact process, but then do we really need to now?

There are many thing scripture doesn't describe..

It doesn't tel us exactly what "spirit" is.

It doesn't tell us how Jehovah created the various basic materials that make up this universe from spirit.

It doesn't tell us how he wrote the DNA sequences which control how everything grows and adapts.

It doesn't tell us how our diet and lifestyle can alter that DNA.

It doesn't tell us how long Jehovah took to create the universe.

Do we really need to know them?

What good would it do us if we did?

Yeah, what good is knowledge, anyhow? Let's just go on being ignorant and religious.

Accurate knowledge is vital, without it you cannot know the truth about Jehovah, his son, where we came from or why we are here. Let alone the truth behind why this world is so cruel, irrational and illogical.

However there is no point in knowledge for it's own sake, and knowledge which is of little or no long term advantage is indeed useless, in fact as mankind has been proving repeatedly over the last 150+ years. some knowledge which may even seem advantageous in the short term is in fact deadly to life and the planet n the long term.

I need to now how to live well and make the best contribution to humanity and the whole of creation I can.

I do not need to know how to rob a bank successfully, or how to get every beautiful woman in the world to queue up to go to bed with me, those to me are useless knowledge.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 10:17:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2016 8:42:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:17:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:14:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:04:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:51:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Whilst it is true that snakes do take in dust with their kills, and possibly, like swimmers, get the occasional mouthful, they cannot truly be said to eat dust. Hence that eating was not literal either.

Look, we all know that a lion isn't literally going to lie down with a lamb, unless the lamb is in its stomach. Nor are mosquitoes going to miraculously stop sucking blood. Nor are snakes going to get their nourishment from dust.

No, we do not know any of that it is just what you prefer to think.

Then I guess you really do think that snakes will get their nourishment from dust, unless you want to flip-flop between literal and figurative at will in the passage. And I've never known a WatchTowerite who didn't do it.

No Anna I do not think that as I have already explained a number of times.

I do however agree that they will eat dust along with the food that they gain nourishment from, as I already explained.

Maybe if the "shall eat dust" isn't literal, then the "serpent" isn't literal either. Perhaps it's all figurative.

For a laugh, why don't you tell us if the following passage is literal or figurative?

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

Do try to stay consistent within the passage.

Why? The bible doesn't.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 10:25:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2016 8:42:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I do however agree that they will eat dust along with the food that they gain nourishment from, as I already explained.

Maybe if the "shall eat dust" isn't literal, then the "serpent" isn't literal either. Perhaps it's all figurative.

For a laugh, why don't you tell us if the following passage is literal or figurative?

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

Unlike you I do not treat scripture as a joke.

However as it happens that passage is all literal, in the sense the words are used.

Thin of the original curse on the serpent.

For instance a more accurate way of rendering the last bit would be "and the serpent will eat dust" as the original curse worded it.

Eat doesn't mean gain nourishment from. It merely means take in through the mouth.

It is easy to eat things from which we do not gain nourishment. A snake will eat a lot of dust, as it crawls along the ground for no other reasons than that that it either comes with it's food, or that swallowing it is the only way to get it out of its mouth.

The wording may not always be consistent. That is because men have translated it and for one reason or another not thought deeply enough about the way it fits into the overall context of scripture.

That is why the Bible's wording is not always consistent, though it's meanings are.


Do try to stay consistent within the passage.

It would do you more god to stay consistent within the Bible than just the wording. That is just one of the many reasons you get so much wrong all the time.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 10:49:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2016 8:36:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

They do eat it, they cannot avoid eating it, but they do not gain nourishment from it. They never have, they never will, and that is not what Jehovah meant by "eat dust".

"Eat dust" is not literal, either?

Yes it is literal, they just do not eat it voluntarily or gain nourishment from it.


Ever heard the old saying "We will all eat a bushel of dirt before we die"? You may not have because it is a very English saying but may have come over on the Mayflower.

Does it men we will gain nourishment from it?

Of course not, just that we will eat it.

You can't resist twisting things to mean what they do not can you.

I'm not twisting anything. You are. In fact, if you run down through Isaiah 65, for instance, you'll have to violate every rule of exegesis in order to get it to even slightly support WatchTower teachings. You'll have to call one passage literal, the next figurative, then flip back to literal, then back to figurative all the way down. That is what is known as irresponsible exegesis.


I have jut proved exactly how you are doing just that.

You are treating "eat" as "gain nourishment from" and that is not what it means.

I've never seen a WatchTower follower YET who could stay anywhere near consistent on Isa 65: 17-24. They make a total mess of it.

OK lets have a section by section breakdown shall we:

Isaiah 65:17-24
17 For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth;
And the former things will not be called to mind,
Nor will they come up into the heart.

Post Armageddon, and certainly post final test, no-one will look back on what went before. They will be fr too content with what they have and what is ahead of them to want to look back.


18 So exult and be joyful forever in what I am creating.
For look! I am creating Jerusalem a cause for joy
And her people a cause for exultation.

Do you understand what "Jerusalem is being referred to here?

Revelation 21:2
2 I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Do you have the faintest idea of the spiritual meaning behind Jerusalem, and especially the design of Temple?
Obviously not.


19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem and exult in my people;
No more will there be heard in her the sound of weeping or a cry of distress."
20 "No more will there be an infant from that place who lives but a few days,
Nor an old man who fails to live out his days.
For anyone who dies at a hundred will be considered a mere boy,
And the sinner will be cursed, even though he is a hundred years of age.

As I have always pointed out, post Armageddon we will have the prospect of eternal life on earth.

People will only die if, like Adam, they prove unfaithful.

Aging will be no more, so if one sins at 100 years of age they will still be physically young.


21 They will build houses and live in them,
And they will plant vineyards and eat their fruitage.

22 They will not build for someone else to inhabit,
Nor will they plant for others to eat.
For the days of my people will be like the days of a tree,
And the work of their hands my chosen ones will enjoy to the full.

Their homes will be their own as will the produce of the land they settle on.

They won't have to buy or rent a house. It will be theirs.

They won't have to move unless they wish to, nor will they rent out their homes.

Their age will be lost in the mists of time, since they need never die.


23 They will not toil for nothing,
Nor will they bear children for distress,
Because they are the offspring made up of those blessed by Jehovah,
And their descendants with them.
24 Even before they call out, I will answer;
While they are yet speaking, I will hear.

Post the final test, Jehovah will once again be dealing with mankind direct, he will be involved with us, or, as Revelation puts it in the last 3 chapters, his "tent" will be with mankind. That may or may not be a reference to the Tabernacle in the Wilderness.

What is so difficult about that? You must have met some very inexperience JWs.

That is simply a description of life post Armageddon, and even more so post final test. It is a description of the paradise which Jesus promise the wrong-doer alongside him he would be "with" him in.

It is the earth as it was originally meant to be.

Perfect peace, perfect security, no divisions amongst people, no sickness, no crime, no death, unless someone is unfaithful, no war, abundant food, meaningful work, peasant company.

Everything to make the human condition perfect.

You have to remember, no JW learns everything overnight. Some learn fast, some do not. In other words they are human.

I would ask you for another passage you don;t understand, but that would mean the whole of the Bible.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
Fatihah
Posts: 9,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 10:59:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2016 6:49:25 AM, Willows wrote:
There have been many detailed books written on how mankind evolved through a process of evolution.
If mankind was created by God could someone please explain what processes God used?

Response: The first man (Adam) was formed from clay (dust and water mixed) and his wife, Eve was the first woman who was created from his rib. Then both was given a soul for the clay figures to come to life and take on the biology of a human.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 11:50:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 10:59:21 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:49:25 AM, Willows wrote:
There have been many detailed books written on how mankind evolved through a process of evolution.
If mankind was created by God could someone please explain what processes God used?

Response: The first man (Adam) was formed from clay (dust and water mixed) and his wife, Eve was the first woman who was created from his rib. Then both was given a soul for the clay figures to come to life and take on the biology of a human.

That sounds strangely like the story of Pinocchio.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:11:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 10:17:16 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:42:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:17:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:14:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:04:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:51:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Whilst it is true that snakes do take in dust with their kills, and possibly, like swimmers, get the occasional mouthful, they cannot truly be said to eat dust. Hence that eating was not literal either.

Look, we all know that a lion isn't literally going to lie down with a lamb, unless the lamb is in its stomach. Nor are mosquitoes going to miraculously stop sucking blood. Nor are snakes going to get their nourishment from dust.

No, we do not know any of that it is just what you prefer to think.

Then I guess you really do think that snakes will get their nourishment from dust, unless you want to flip-flop between literal and figurative at will in the passage. And I've never known a WatchTowerite who didn't do it.

No Anna I do not think that as I have already explained a number of times.

I do however agree that they will eat dust along with the food that they gain nourishment from, as I already explained.

Maybe if the "shall eat dust" isn't literal, then the "serpent" isn't literal either. Perhaps it's all figurative.

For a laugh, why don't you tell us if the following passage is literal or figurative?

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

Do try to stay consistent within the passage.

Why? The bible doesn't.

Really? Could you cite for us another passage that contains two extremely illogical and unnatural events (i. e., not occurring under normal circumstances now), and one of the two is literal, yet the other is figurative? You'll need some Holy Spirit guidance on that one.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:14:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 10:25:53 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:42:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I do however agree that they will eat dust along with the food that they gain nourishment from, as I already explained.

Maybe if the "shall eat dust" isn't literal, then the "serpent" isn't literal either. Perhaps it's all figurative.

For a laugh, why don't you tell us if the following passage is literal or figurative?

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

Unlike you I do not treat scripture as a joke.

I don't. I'm going to treat your explanation as a joke.

However as it happens that passage is all literal, in the sense the words are used.

"In the sense the words are used"?

Thin of the original curse on the serpent.

For instance a more accurate way of rendering the last bit would be "and the serpent will eat dust" as the original curse worded it.

Eat doesn't mean gain nourishment from. It merely means take in through the mouth.

It is easy to eat things from which we do not gain nourishment. A snake will eat a lot of dust, as it crawls along the ground for no other reasons than that that it either comes with it's food, or that swallowing it is the only way to get it out of its mouth.

The wording may not always be consistent. That is because men have translated it and for one reason or another not thought deeply enough about the way it fits into the overall context of scripture.

That is why the Bible's wording is not always consistent, though it's meanings are.


Do try to stay consistent within the passage.

It would do you more god to stay consistent within the Bible than just the wording. That is just one of the many reasons you get so much wrong all the time.

Then the serpent is eating dust NOW, and your explanation of the passage renders nothing any different in the future for the snake.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:19:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 10:49:03 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:36:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

They do eat it, they cannot avoid eating it, but they do not gain nourishment from it. They never have, they never will, and that is not what Jehovah meant by "eat dust".

"Eat dust" is not literal, either?

Yes it is literal, they just do not eat it voluntarily or gain nourishment from it.

The passage does not say "do". The passage says "shall".


Ever heard the old saying "We will all eat a bushel of dirt before we die"? You may not have because it is a very English saying but may have come over on the Mayflower.

Does it men we will gain nourishment from it?

Of course not, just that we will eat it.

You can't resist twisting things to mean what they do not can you.

I'm not twisting anything. You are. In fact, if you run down through Isaiah 65, for instance, you'll have to violate every rule of exegesis in order to get it to even slightly support WatchTower teachings. You'll have to call one passage literal, the next figurative, then flip back to literal, then back to figurative all the way down. That is what is known as irresponsible exegesis.


I have jut proved exactly how you are doing just that.

You are treating "eat" as "gain nourishment from" and that is not what it means.

The Bible doesn't mention the snake eating anything else.


I've never seen a WatchTower follower YET who could stay anywhere near consistent on Isa 65: 17-24. They make a total mess of it.

OK lets have a section by section breakdown shall we:

Isaiah 65:17-24
17 For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth;
And the former things will not be called to mind,
Nor will they come up into the heart.

Post Armageddon, and certainly post final test, no-one will look back on what went before. They will be fr too content with what they have and what is ahead of them to want to look back.


You won't have any knowledge of your former life?

18 So exult and be joyful forever in what I am creating.
For look! I am creating Jerusalem a cause for joy
And her people a cause for exultation.

Do you understand what "Jerusalem is being referred to here?

You've said it is literal, all literal.

Revelation 21:2
2 I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Do you have the faintest idea of the spiritual meaning behind Jerusalem, and especially the design of Temple?
Obviously not.


19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem and exult in my people;
No more will there be heard in her the sound of weeping or a cry of distress."
20 "No more will there be an infant from that place who lives but a few days,
Nor an old man who fails to live out his days.
For anyone who dies at a hundred will be considered a mere boy,
And the sinner will be cursed, even though he is a hundred years of age.

As I have always pointed out, post Armageddon we will have the prospect of eternal life on earth.

People will only die if, like Adam, they prove unfaithful.

Apparently the passage teaches that folks will lose the ability to sin until they get close to the century mark.

Aging will be no more, so if one sins at 100 years of age they will still be physically young.


21 They will build houses and live in them,
And they will plant vineyards and eat their fruitage.


22 They will not build for someone else to inhabit,
Nor will they plant for others to eat.
For the days of my people will be like the days of a tree,
And the work of their hands my chosen ones will enjoy to the full.

Their homes will be their own as will the produce of the land they settle on.

They won't have to buy or rent a house. It will be theirs.

They won't have to move unless they wish to, nor will they rent out their homes.

Their age will be lost in the mists of time, since they need never die.


23 They will not toil for nothing,
Nor will they bear children for distress,
Because they are the offspring made up of those blessed by Jehovah,
And their descendants with them.
24 Even before they call out, I will answer;
While they are yet speaking, I will hear.

Post the final test, Jehovah will once again be dealing with mankind direct, he will be involved with us, or, as Revelation puts it in the last 3 chapters, his "tent" will be with mankind. That may or may not be a reference to the Tabernacle in the Wilderness.

What is so difficult about that? You must have met some very inexperience JWs.

That is simply a description of life post Armageddon, and even more so post final test. It is a description of the paradise which Jesus promise the wrong-doer alongside him he would be "with" him in.

It is the earth as it was originally meant to be.

Perfect peace, perfect security, no divisions amongst people, no sickness, no crime, no death, unless someone is unfaithful, no war, abundant food, meaningful work, peasant company.

Everything to make the human condition perfect.

You have to remember, no JW learns everything overnight. Some learn fast, some do not. In other words they are human.

I would ask you for another passage you don;t understand, but that would mean the whole of the Bible.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:40:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 10:25:53 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:42:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I do however agree that they will eat dust along with the food that they gain nourishment from, as I already explained.

Maybe if the "shall eat dust" isn't literal, then the "serpent" isn't literal either. Perhaps it's all figurative.

For a laugh, why don't you tell us if the following passage is literal or figurative?

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

Unlike you I do not treat scripture as a joke.

However as it happens that passage is all literal, in the sense the words are used.

Thin of the original curse on the serpent.

Why, your position is that things will be returned to their original state, "as God intended." And you claim the passage depicts this scene. You have the lion and lamb lying down together "as originally created and intended", but we find you leaving the poor serpent in it's current situation, slithering along on its belly and eating dust.

Could you elaborate on the return of the serpent to its original state after Armageddon in the "paradise earth" stage? Will it be eating dust on paradise earth as it is now?
lannan13
Posts: 24,704
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 4:18:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2016 6:49:25 AM, Willows wrote:
There have been many detailed books written on how mankind evolved through a process of evolution.
If mankind was created by God could someone please explain what processes God used?

Well, it could go either way. Evolution doesn't contradict the Bible as Pope Francis has stated.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

"Sometimes it is hell, trying to get to heaven."- Undertaker

Keep a Positive Mental Attitude!

DDO Hall of Famer
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 4:45:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 3:40:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 10:25:53 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:42:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I do however agree that they will eat dust along with the food that they gain nourishment from, as I already explained.

Maybe if the "shall eat dust" isn't literal, then the "serpent" isn't literal either. Perhaps it's all figurative.

For a laugh, why don't you tell us if the following passage is literal or figurative?

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

Unlike you I do not treat scripture as a joke.

However as it happens that passage is all literal, in the sense the words are used.

Thin of the original curse on the serpent.

Why, your position is that things will be returned to their original state, "as God intended." And you claim the passage depicts this scene. You have the lion and lamb lying down together "as originally created and intended", but we find you leaving the poor serpent in it's current situation, slithering along on its belly and eating dust.

Could you elaborate on the return of the serpent to its original state after Armageddon in the "paradise earth" stage? Will it be eating dust on paradise earth as it is now?
What a great get Annie. Well played.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 6:48:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 3:11:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 10:17:16 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:42:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:17:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:14:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:04:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:51:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Whilst it is true that snakes do take in dust with their kills, and possibly, like swimmers, get the occasional mouthful, they cannot truly be said to eat dust. Hence that eating was not literal either.

Look, we all know that a lion isn't literally going to lie down with a lamb, unless the lamb is in its stomach. Nor are mosquitoes going to miraculously stop sucking blood. Nor are snakes going to get their nourishment from dust.

No, we do not know any of that it is just what you prefer to think.

Then I guess you really do think that snakes will get their nourishment from dust, unless you want to flip-flop between literal and figurative at will in the passage. And I've never known a WatchTowerite who didn't do it.

No Anna I do not think that as I have already explained a number of times.

I do however agree that they will eat dust along with the food that they gain nourishment from, as I already explained.

Maybe if the "shall eat dust" isn't literal, then the "serpent" isn't literal either. Perhaps it's all figurative.

For a laugh, why don't you tell us if the following passage is literal or figurative?

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

Do try to stay consistent within the passage.

Why? The bible doesn't.

Really? Could you cite for us another passage that contains two extremely illogical and unnatural events (i. e., not occurring under normal circumstances now), and one of the two is literal, yet the other is figurative? You'll need some Holy Spirit guidance on that one.

I suggest rather than publicly displaying your ignorance of scripture you actually read it. Also that you actually read my replies properly for a change.

Where have I ever said that the serpent eating dust was figurative?

Never.

It is you who is confusing "eating" with "gaining nourishment from".

Of course snakes eat dust, they can't help it because of the way they live and crawl around the floor, but it is not a part of their diet, just the "seasoning" on it.

Everything that goes in a snake's mouth comes out the other end, after anything nutricious has been striped off it by the snake's digestive processes, that includes the dust that inevitable gets in their mouths as the6 flick their tongue in and out on the ground.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 6:55:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 6:48:18 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:11:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 10:17:16 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:42:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:17:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:14:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:04:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:51:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Whilst it is true that snakes do take in dust with their kills, and possibly, like swimmers, get the occasional mouthful, they cannot truly be said to eat dust. Hence that eating was not literal either.

Look, we all know that a lion isn't literally going to lie down with a lamb, unless the lamb is in its stomach. Nor are mosquitoes going to miraculously stop sucking blood. Nor are snakes going to get their nourishment from dust.

No, we do not know any of that it is just what you prefer to think.

Then I guess you really do think that snakes will get their nourishment from dust, unless you want to flip-flop between literal and figurative at will in the passage. And I've never known a WatchTowerite who didn't do it.

No Anna I do not think that as I have already explained a number of times.

I do however agree that they will eat dust along with the food that they gain nourishment from, as I already explained.

Maybe if the "shall eat dust" isn't literal, then the "serpent" isn't literal either. Perhaps it's all figurative.

For a laugh, why don't you tell us if the following passage is literal or figurative?

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

Do try to stay consistent within the passage.

Why? The bible doesn't.

Really? Could you cite for us another passage that contains two extremely illogical and unnatural events (i. e., not occurring under normal circumstances now), and one of the two is literal, yet the other is figurative? You'll need some Holy Spirit guidance on that one.

I suggest rather than publicly displaying your ignorance of scripture you actually read it. Also that you actually read my replies properly for a change.

Where have I ever said that the serpent eating dust was figurative?

That was my mistake: I had no idea you'd be fool enough to claim that the serpent would be "eating dust" when returned to its original pristine and perfect state on paradise earth, as God originally created it.

It is you who is confusing "eating" with "gaining nourishment from".

The passage says, "dust shall be the serpent's food" = not "the serpent will accidentally suck up a few particles of dust along the way."

Nonetheless, your twisting of the passage does NOT have the serpent returned to its former position in "God's perfect creation". By your own twisted and illogical logic, i. e. squirming, you still have the poor serpent slithering along the ground. THAT was not its original state. THAT was the curse placed upon it later.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 6:55:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 3:14:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 10:25:53 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:42:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I do however agree that they will eat dust along with the food that they gain nourishment from, as I already explained.

Maybe if the "shall eat dust" isn't literal, then the "serpent" isn't literal either. Perhaps it's all figurative.

For a laugh, why don't you tell us if the following passage is literal or figurative?

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

Unlike you I do not treat scripture as a joke.

I don't. I'm going to treat your explanation as a joke.

However as it happens that passage is all literal, in the sense the words are used.

"In the sense the words are used"?

Well, as regards the serpent the cuse that it will eat dust is describing the fact that having been condemned to crawl along the ground it will inevitably ingest dust, not that it will be the basis of it's diet.

Again, you confuse "eat" with "gain nourishment from".

Have you never eaten something tat got into your mouth and that you had no other easy, or polite, way of getting rid of? I am sure we all have.


Thin of the original curse on the serpent.

For instance a more accurate way of rendering the last bit would be "and the serpent will eat dust" as the original curse worded it.

Eat doesn't mean gain nourishment from. It merely means take in through the mouth.

It is easy to eat things from which we do not gain nourishment. A snake will eat a lot of dust, as it crawls along the ground for no other reasons than that that it either comes with it's food, or that swallowing it is the only way to get it out of its mouth.

The wording may not always be consistent. That is because men have translated it and for one reason or another not thought deeply enough about the way it fits into the overall context of scripture.

That is why the Bible's wording is not always consistent, though it's meanings are.


Do try to stay consistent within the passage.

It would do you more god to stay consistent within the Bible than just the wording. That is just one of the many reasons you get so much wrong all the time.

Then the serpent is eating dust NOW, and your explanation of the passage renders nothing any different in the future for the snake.

No you are right, it doesn't for perfectly good reason.

Scripture doesn't tell us what sort of life the snake led before it was cursed. for all we know it may well have lived a purely arboreal life, and never needed to take to the ground.

It will return to that lifestyle if that is the case, as is highly likely.

I should have thought that was obvious, but I keep forgetting you only rason on bits you want to reason on and then only to twist them to what you want.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:00:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 6:55:11 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:14:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 10:25:53 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:42:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I do however agree that they will eat dust along with the food that they gain nourishment from, as I already explained.

Maybe if the "shall eat dust" isn't literal, then the "serpent" isn't literal either. Perhaps it's all figurative.

For a laugh, why don't you tell us if the following passage is literal or figurative?

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

Unlike you I do not treat scripture as a joke.

I don't. I'm going to treat your explanation as a joke.

However as it happens that passage is all literal, in the sense the words are used.

"In the sense the words are used"?

Well, as regards the serpent the cuse that it will eat dust is describing the fact that having been condemned to crawl along the ground it will inevitably ingest dust, not that it will be the basis of it's diet.

Again, you confuse "eat" with "gain nourishment from".

Have you never eaten something tat got into your mouth and that you had no other easy, or polite, way of getting rid of? I am sure we all have.


Thin of the original curse on the serpent.

For instance a more accurate way of rendering the last bit would be "and the serpent will eat dust" as the original curse worded it.

Eat doesn't mean gain nourishment from. It merely means take in through the mouth.

It is easy to eat things from which we do not gain nourishment. A snake will eat a lot of dust, as it crawls along the ground for no other reasons than that that it either comes with it's food, or that swallowing it is the only way to get it out of its mouth.

The wording may not always be consistent. That is because men have translated it and for one reason or another not thought deeply enough about the way it fits into the overall context of scripture.

That is why the Bible's wording is not always consistent, though it's meanings are.


Do try to stay consistent within the passage.

It would do you more god to stay consistent within the Bible than just the wording. That is just one of the many reasons you get so much wrong all the time.

Then the serpent is eating dust NOW, and your explanation of the passage renders nothing any different in the future for the snake.

No you are right, it doesn't for perfectly good reason.

Scripture doesn't tell us what sort of life the snake led before it was cursed. for all we know it may well have lived a purely arboreal life, and never needed to take to the ground.

It will return to that lifestyle if that is the case, as is highly likely.

I should have thought that was obvious, but I keep forgetting you only rason on bits you want to reason on and then only to twist them to what you want.

You dimwit. "Eating dust" was a part of the curse. Don't you get that?

God said, "Thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."

The "eating dust" was a consequence of the "upon thy belly shalt thou go." Now you are in the unenviable and borderline ridiculous position of claiming that the serpent ate dust to begin with! LMAO. That's a heck of a curse, dude!

God: "Thou are cursed ... dust shall thou eat all the days of thy life."

Snake: "So what? According the MadClown, I was eating dust to start with, so I won't know the difference."

THAT is a prime example of the type of silliness you preach.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:06:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 3:19:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 10:49:03 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:36:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:23:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

They do eat it, they cannot avoid eating it, but they do not gain nourishment from it. They never have, they never will, and that is not what Jehovah meant by "eat dust".

"Eat dust" is not literal, either?

Yes it is literal, they just do not eat it voluntarily or gain nourishment from it.

The passage does not say "do". The passage says "shall".


Ever heard the old saying "We will all eat a bushel of dirt before we die"? You may not have because it is a very English saying but may have come over on the Mayflower.

Does it men we will gain nourishment from it?

Of course not, just that we will eat it.

You can't resist twisting things to mean what they do not can you.

I'm not twisting anything. You are. In fact, if you run down through Isaiah 65, for instance, you'll have to violate every rule of exegesis in order to get it to even slightly support WatchTower teachings. You'll have to call one passage literal, the next figurative, then flip back to literal, then back to figurative all the way down. That is what is known as irresponsible exegesis.


I have jut proved exactly how you are doing just that.

You are treating "eat" as "gain nourishment from" and that is not what it means.

The Bible doesn't mention the snake eating anything else.

Neither does it say "you will only eat dust", which is both literal and figurative in that it will literally happen and also is descriptive of it crawling on the ground, as I have tried to get you to see.

That's true, but so what. How many animals does the Bible give us the dietary habits of?

How can any animal gain nourishment from dust?

The curse has never been lifted. Yet at any rate.




I've never seen a WatchTower follower YET who could stay anywhere near consistent on Isa 65: 17-24. They make a total mess of it.

OK lets have a section by section breakdown shall we:

Isaiah 65:17-24
17 For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth;
And the former things will not be called to mind,
Nor will they come up into the heart.

Post Armageddon, and certainly post final test, no-one will look back on what went before. They will be fr too content with what they have and what is ahead of them to want to look back.


You won't have any knowledge of your former life?

Not after a few thousand years have passed I shouldn't imagine, maybe even less.

After all why would we want to remember the horrors that we come across every day in this life and the sadness it causes those of us who actually care about the suffering of others?

No, I cannot imagine us looking backwards, and the less we look back, the less we will remember about what is behind us.

How much do you remember of the early years of your life?

How far back does your memory go to any detail?


18 So exult and be joyful forever in what I am creating.
For look! I am creating Jerusalem a cause for joy
And her people a cause for exultation.

Do you understand what "Jerusalem is being referred to here?

You've said it is literal, all literal.

That Jerusalem will come down to earth from heaven is literal, but what Jerusalem is will not be the literal Jerusalem you think of.

It will likely be what the Jerusalem we know used to represent, the centre of Jehovah's organisation.


Revelation 21:2
2 I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Do you have the faintest idea of the spiritual meaning behind Jerusalem, and especially the design of Temple?
Obviously not.


19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem and exult in my people;
No more will there be heard in her the sound of weeping or a cry of distress."
20 "No more will there be an infant from that place who lives but a few days,
Nor an old man who fails to live out his days.
For anyone who dies at a hundred will be considered a mere boy,
And the sinner will be cursed, even though he is a hundred years of age.

As I have always pointed out, post Armageddon we will have the prospect of eternal life on earth.

People will only die if, like Adam, they prove unfaithful.

Apparently the passage teaches that folks will lose the ability to sin until they get close to the century mark.

No it does not indicate that at all. We will never lose the capacity to sin. What we will lose is the desire to sin, unless we allow it to grow in our own hearts, as Satan did, and Adam did.

I don't know how you manage to twist the passage to mean that, it doesn't even make sense.


Aging will be no more, so if one sins at 100 years of age they will still be physically young.


21 They will build houses and live in them,
And they will plant vineyards and eat their fruitage.


22 They will not build for someone else to inhabit,
Nor will they plant for others to eat.
For the days of my people will be like the days of a tree,
And the work of their hands my chosen ones will enjoy to the full.

Their homes will be their own as will the produce of the land they settle on.

They won't have to buy or rent a house. It will be theirs.

They won't have to move unless they wish to, nor will they rent out their homes.

Their age will be lost in the mists of time, since they need never die.


23 They will not toil for nothing,
Nor will they bear children for distress,
Because they are the offspring made up of those blessed by Jehovah,
And their descendants with them.
24 Even before they call out, I will answer;
While they are yet speaking, I will hear.

Post the final test, Jehovah will once again be dealing with mankind direct, he will be involved with us, or, as Revelation puts it in the last 3 chapters, his "tent" will be with mankind. That may or may not be a reference to the Tabernacle in the Wilderness.

What is so difficult about that? You must have met some very inexperience JWs.

That is simply a description of life post Armageddon, and even more so post final test. It is a description of the paradise which Jesus promise the wrong-doer alongside him he would be "with" him in.

It is the earth as it was originally meant to be.

Perfect peace, perfect security, no divisions amongst people, no sickness, no crime, no death, unless someone is unfaithful, no war, abundant food, meaningful work, peasant company.

Everything to make the human condition perfect.

You have to remember, no JW learns everything overnight. Some learn fast, some do not. In other words they are human.

I would ask you for another passage you don;t understand, but that would mean the whole of the Bible.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:15:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 6:55:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:48:18 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Where have I ever said that the serpent eating dust was figurative?

That was my mistake: I had no idea you'd be fool enough to claim that the serpent would be "eating dust" when returned to its original pristine and perfect state on paradise earth, as God originally created it.

We don't know if that will be the case. It may return to a purely arboreal existence with no need to come down to the ground.


It is you who is confusing "eating" with "gaining nourishment from".

The passage says, "dust shall be the serpent's food" = not "the serpent will accidentally suck up a few particles of dust along the way."

That I suppose depends on how the Apostate human translators chose to word it. Some translations say that the serpent will eat dust.

This is the trouble when you are dealing with translations which can't even get John 1:1 right, but stupidly make it seem as if the Word was God instead of what it should say.

Are you suggesting that snakes have ever gained their nourishment from dust? Surely even you aren't that stupid?


Nonetheless, your twisting of the passage does NOT have the serpent returned to its former position in "God's perfect creation". By your own twisted and illogical logic, i. e. squirming, you still have the poor serpent slithering along the ground. THAT was not its original state. THAT was the curse placed upon it later.

I have never discussed what will happen to the serpent in the New System. However as I said earlier, if the snake is returned to a purely arboreal existence it will not need to.

Also if the earth is returned to it's original fertile state before the ground was cursed dust, in the sense of dried up earth, may well not exist.

Deserts certainly won't, they will be returned to fertile land as they were long after the expulsion from Eden.

Even the Sahara is known to have been fertile once, according to botanists.

There are many reasons why snakes may not have any need to "eat dust" when the earth is returned to the Paradise the Garden of Eden was.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:22:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 7:15:56 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:55:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:48:18 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Where have I ever said that the serpent eating dust was figurative?

That was my mistake: I had no idea you'd be fool enough to claim that the serpent would be "eating dust" when returned to its original pristine and perfect state on paradise earth, as God originally created it.

We don't know if that will be the case. It may return to a purely arboreal existence with no need to come down to the ground.


It is you who is confusing "eating" with "gaining nourishment from".

The passage says, "dust shall be the serpent's food" = not "the serpent will accidentally suck up a few particles of dust along the way."

That I suppose depends on how the Apostate human translators chose to word it. Some translations say that the serpent will eat dust.

This is the trouble when you are dealing with translations which can't even get John 1:1 right, but stupidly make it seem as if the Word was God instead of what it should say.

Are you suggesting that snakes have ever gained their nourishment from dust? Surely even you aren't that stupid?


Nonetheless, your twisting of the passage does NOT have the serpent returned to its former position in "God's perfect creation". By your own twisted and illogical logic, i. e. squirming, you still have the poor serpent slithering along the ground. THAT was not its original state. THAT was the curse placed upon it later.

I have never discussed what will happen to the serpent in the New System. However as I said earlier, if the snake is returned to a purely arboreal existence it will not need to.

Also if the earth is returned to it's original fertile state before the ground was cursed dust, in the sense of dried up earth, may well not exist.

Deserts certainly won't, they will be returned to fertile land as they were long after the expulsion from Eden.

Even the Sahara is known to have been fertile once, according to botanists.

There are many reasons why snakes may not have any need to "eat dust" when the earth is returned to the Paradise the Garden of Eden was.

The passage, according to you, DESCRIBES the paradise earth state. That's the time that you claim it depicts. And here are a few of the characteristics:

(1) "They shall not build, and another inhabit"
(2) "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together"
(3) "The lion shall eat straw like the ox"
(4) "Dust shall be the serpent"s food"

When do the preceding four points occur? Paradise earth, according to you. What will the serpent be eating then? Dust, according to the passage. What does it eat now? Dust. Why? The curse. Therefore, according to your own illogical logic, the serpent will be eating the SAME THING in the future that it is now. But that's not what it always ate, is it? Of course not. "Eating dust" was a part of the curse, the punishment.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:23:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 7:15:56 PM, MadCornishBiker
So there will be a tree of life outside each and every cave? Cool!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:23:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 7:00:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:55:11 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I should have thought that was obvious, but I keep forgetting you only rason on bits you want to reason on and then only to twist them to what you want.

You dimwit. "Eating dust" was a part of the curse. Don't you get that?

God said, "Thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."

I have no argument with that Anna, it is not me who is being the dimwit.

The thign that you are proving to be somewhat dim witted over is exactly what the curse meant.

Have snakes ever gained nourishment from dust?

Of course not, so that cannot be what the curse implies.

No, it can only mean precisely what I have said it means, and there are a number of ways that has worked out.


The "eating dust" was a consequence of the "upon thy belly shalt thou go." Now you are in the unenviable and borderline ridiculous position of claiming that the serpent ate dust to begin with! LMAO. That's a heck of a curse, dude!

No Anna I am not, I have never claimed that. I assume that the snake had a purely arboreal existence before being cursed to spend much of it's time on the ground, in desolate p[aces where it would encounter much dust.

Sorry Anna it is you who is revealing yourself to be the dimwit because you are assuming I mean things I haven't said and made yourself look a complete fool by arguing with statements that I haven't even made.

It is no wonder you make such a hash of scripture if you can't even understand what I am saying and more importantly what I am not saying.


God: "Thou are cursed ... dust shall thou eat all the days of thy life."

Snake: "So what? According the MadClown, I was eating dust to start with, so I won't know the difference."

THAT is a prime example of the type of silliness you preach.

As I say, I have never claimed that. you are making unwarranted assumptions about what my beliefs are and making yourself look a complete idiot arguing with things I have never said.

Have you never considered what the snakes lifestyle may have been before the curse?
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 7:22:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:15:56 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There are many reasons why snakes may not have any need to "eat dust" when the earth is returned to the Paradise the Garden of Eden was.

The passage, according to you, DESCRIBES the paradise earth state. That's the time that you claim it depicts. And here are a few of the characteristics:

(1) "They shall not build, and another inhabit"

Yes, and your problem with that is?

(2) "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together"

Considering that they are going to be returned to their original vegetarian diet, why would that be a problem?

(3) "The lion shall eat straw like the ox"

That's what they ate before the flood, as scripture tells us.

(4) "Dust shall be the serpent"s food"

That is as you know a mistranslation, it has to be, because though snakes have eaten dust since the curse, it has never been their food, just a side effect of spending so much time on their bellies in desolate places.

I still believe their pre-curse life was almost purely arboreal, plus of course in the Garden of Eden there were no desolate places for dust to be found in in any quantity.

Since, by the time the earth has been restored to what it was originally intended to be there will be no desolate places anywhere on the globe, "eating dust" will be easy to avoid.


When do the preceding four points occur? Paradise earth, according to you. What will the serpent be eating then? Dust, according to the passage. What does it eat now? Dust. Why? The curse. Therefore, according to your own illogical logic, the serpent will be eating the SAME THING in the future that it is now. But that's not what it always ate, is it? Of course not. "Eating dust" was a part of the curse, the punishment.

You really don't think things through to any depth o you Anna. All of your questions about the snake should have been very easy for you to answer for yourself with a little thought and a little knowledge of how snakes actually live eventoday.

No Anna it will not be the same in the future for the serpent, snake, whichever you wish to use., and I have explained enough times why now.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:39:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:22:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:15:56 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There are many reasons why snakes may not have any need to "eat dust" when the earth is returned to the Paradise the Garden of Eden was.

The passage, according to you, DESCRIBES the paradise earth state. That's the time that you claim it depicts. And here are a few of the characteristics:

(1) "They shall not build, and another inhabit"

Yes, and your problem with that is?

(2) "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together"

Considering that they are going to be returned to their original vegetarian diet, why would that be a problem?

(3) "The lion shall eat straw like the ox"

That's what they ate before the flood, as scripture tells us.

(4) "Dust shall be the serpent"s food"

That is as you know a mistranslation, it has to be, because though snakes have eaten dust since the curse, it has never been their food, just a side effect of spending so much time on their bellies in desolate places.
Life would be so much easier if you didn't have to continually correct your god, wouldn't it mad?
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:52:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 7:23:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:00:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:55:11 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I should have thought that was obvious, but I keep forgetting you only rason on bits you want to reason on and then only to twist them to what you want.

You dimwit. "Eating dust" was a part of the curse. Don't you get that?

God said, "Thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."

I have no argument with that Anna, it is not me who is being the dimwit.

The thign that you are proving to be somewhat dim witted over is exactly what the curse meant.

Have snakes ever gained nourishment from dust?

Of course not, so that cannot be what the curse implies.

Whether they did or not is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that in this supposed paradise earth that you envision, the poor serpent has not yet been returned to it's original perfect state, as God created it.


The "eating dust" was a consequence of the "upon thy belly shalt thou go." Now you are in the unenviable and borderline ridiculous position of claiming that the serpent ate dust to begin with! LMAO. That's a heck of a curse, dude!

No Anna I am not, I have never claimed that. I assume that the snake had a purely arboreal existence before being cursed to spend much of it's time on the ground, in desolate p[aces where it would encounter much dust.

Sorry Anna it is you who is revealing yourself to be the dimwit because you are assuming I mean things I haven't said and made yourself look a complete fool by arguing with statements that I haven't even made.

It is no wonder you make such a hash of scripture if you can't even understand what I am saying and more importantly what I am not saying.


God: "Thou are cursed ... dust shall thou eat all the days of thy life."

Snake: "So what? According the MadClown, I was eating dust to start with, so I won't know the difference."

THAT is a prime example of the type of silliness you preach.

As I say, I have never claimed that. you are making unwarranted assumptions about what my beliefs are and making yourself look a complete idiot arguing with things I have never said.

Have you never considered what the snakes lifestyle may have been before the curse?

What we are considering now is the snake's lifestyle when paradise earth is in full motion. And YOU claim that Isa 65 teaches that it will not be returned to its original state.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.