Sound like Christians to me.

[stu]

Quote from rcanfiel:
The second is a much fuller elaboration of the same event. Hebrew often uses repetition. Sometimes the repetition is very local.

Thanks for the explanation.
I accept the notion of repetition here , although a collection of tales brought together clumsily would also fit the bill. Obviously God was intending to pass the word whilst being at Its most lucid, telling the same story at least twice each in contradiction to the other within the same story ! Sounding more in the way of man made pantomome.

Quote from rcanfiel:

The second is a much fuller elaboration of the same event.

OK, the same event creation of man .
According to the story, man is said to be made like God in Its image. Then in the same story, man is not made like God (in Its image) but from dust. Was God made from dust with nostrils?

No?..So which is it?

Quote from rcanfiel:

The first is spiritual. The second is physical.

You mean the first is the story's appeal is for an emotional pretence and the second is supposed to be what actually happens?

 

[Cache Landing]

Quote from rcanfiel:



LATER THEY HAVE CHILDREN. AND THERE IS NOTHING IN GENESIS THAT AFTER THEY FALL, THAT THEY THEN GET BODIES.

I wasn't claiming that Adam and Eve didn't have bodies. I was referring to all the other sons and daughters of God. God created the physical bodies of Adam and Eve, but the rest were created through the woman.

Mormon Doctrine teaches that we need a physical body. It must be important. The major events in the life of Christ are his birth, death, and resurrection. If he didn't really need a body, why would he ressurrect His?

 

[Cache Landing]

Quote from stu:

OK, the same event creation of man .
According to the story, man is said to be made like God in Its image. Then in the same story, man is not made like God (in Its image) but from dust. Was God made from dust with nostrils?

Unless both actually mean the same thing. Does it really sound that proposterous that we are literally created in God's likeness? Could it be that the reason Christ resurrected His body of flesh and bones was because God also has a body?

Christ demonstrated that he now has a glorified/immortal body that is quite tangible. Did he just dump it on the path back to heaven?

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from stu:

Thanks for the explanation.
I accept the notion of repetition here , although a collection of tales brought together clumsily would also fit the bill. Obviously God was intending to pass the word whilst being at Its most lucid, telling the same story at least twice each in contradiction to the other within the same story ! Sounding more in the way of man made pantomome. OK, the same event creation of man .
According to the story, man is said to be made like God in Its image. Then in the same story, man is not made like God (in Its image) but from dust. Was God made from dust with nostrils?

No?..So which is it?You mean the first is the story's appeal is for an emotional pretence and the second is supposed to be what actually happens?

The first deals with that man is spiritually made in God's image. God is spirit, not physical. No animal possesses this. The second deals with that man is made from the earth. Man has a physical body. Man has a spirit/soul and man has a body.

A semi-similar phenomena happens in the geneologies of Jesus in the gospels in Matthew and Luke. They diverge after David (King). One goes through Solomon and one through Nathan. Most people think this is one through his mother (his only earthly parent) and through Joseph (since it says "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph). But this is too simplistic. It is possible that one of the lineages does not represent biologic heritage, but a kingly heritage. It is widely debated.

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from Cache Landing:

I wasn't claiming that Adam and Eve didn't have bodies. I was referring to all the other sons and daughters of God. God created the physical bodies of Adam and Eve, but the rest were created through the woman.

Of course you did. Your post said "All people were pure but had no body". The definition of "all" includes Adam and Eve. And their children also had bodies, pure or not:

EVE BEARS PHYSICAL CHILDREN VIA CONCEPTION & CHILDBIRTH
"Gen 3:16 To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; "

CAIN TILLS THE GROUND AND ABEL IS A SHEPHERD
Gen 4:1-2 "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.” Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

CAIN MURDERS ABEL, ABEL BLEEDS
Gen 3:8-12 Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” And He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground. So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth.”

Frankly in your last many posts, you say almost nothing that is factual. You keep pulling in Mormon doctrine, which almost consistently is unscriptural. I don't think you know where Mormon beliefs end and God's Word begins.

You constantly ignore things that disprove Mormon beliefs from scripture, using the "1 at a time please." Why do you keep avoiding the obvious?

I have shown:

-- Joseph Smith was a false prophet and an unreliable source
-- The Book of Mormon and Mormon beliefs consistently violoate scripture.
-- Mormonism tries to paper over things, to pretend and be of the house of God. However, thier beliefs paint a much different picture.

All people were pure but had no body. I don't see getting a body as being a punishment. We have a just God, he doesn't punish me for someone else's sins.

Another incorrect belief:
(Exodus 20:5): "you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,"; and (Matthew 23:34-35): "Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

 

[stu]

Quote from Cache Landing:
... Does it really sound that proposterous that we are literally created in God's likeness?

um yes it does sound preposterous. We are not literally created in the likeness of an invisible sky daddy .

Quote from Cache Landing:

Could it be that the reason Christ resurrected His body of flesh and bones was because God also has a body?

No and no, unless you think make-believe can be literally factual.

Quote from Cache Landing:

Christ demonstrated that he now has a glorified/immortal body that is quite tangible. Did he just dump it on the path back to heaven?

Well, there was a character called Christ in a story and from there on, one can interpret to one's heart's content.

 

[stu]

Quote from rcanfiel:
The first deals with that man is spiritually made in God's image. God is spirit, not physical. No animal possesses this.

"Spiritually made in God's image". I ask again, what do you mean to say by the word spiritually? How are you interpreting Genesis 1 here? Inserting words to make another meaning? "spiritually".. Is it - man is sort of made , emotionally maginary,... religiously made?

Quote from rcanfiel:

The second deals with that man is made from the earth. Man has a physical body. Man has a spirit/soul and man has a body.

It doesn't deal with anything. Genesis 2 just says there are no men so man was made by something called God from dust.

It contradicts Genesis 1 and you have to assume contrary connections between - in God's image then - not in God's image - then in and not in God's image at the same time.

Quote from rcanfiel:

A semi-similar phenomena happens in the geneologies of Jesus in the gospels in Matthew and Luke.

More quirky stories from the same tale doesn't help much, sorry..

 

[Supermax]

a tale told by idiots full of sound and fury signifying nothing..

you better do what you can to hang on to what you got RIGHT NOW cause when it's over it;;'s over!!

you better start eating right, better start livin' right

ps i wouldn't be surprised if oil goes up from here

 

[Cache Landing]

Quote from stu:

um yes it does sound preposterous. We are not literally created in the likeness of an invisible sky daddy . No and no, unless you think make-believe can be literally factual.
Well, there was a character called Christ in a story and from there on, one can interpret to one's heart's content.

Sorry for the misspelling.

My question wasn't aimed at one who doesn't believe in God. My question was assuming that a person believes in God.

If indeed a person believes in God, and that person believes that Genesis tells the story of the creation, is the version that I proposed any less correct?

 

[Cache Landing]

Quote from rcanfiel:

Of course you did. Your post said "All people were pure but had no body". The definition of "all" includes Adam and Eve. And their children also had bodies, pure or not:

C'mon, you're just trying to be argumentative. I don't understand why you are so riled up. I attempted to explain what I meant by a certain statement, and you are clinging to what you think I meant by a statement. If I'm not allowed to clarify my own statements then this discussion is pointless.

Good trading to you all.