Allah made man from clay..what did God...

Eilzel wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

again why marvel at a minor amendment, God made the whole universe...  

If you'd like to explain how God exactly made man or the universe I'd be amazed to hear. Though I find the origin of man incredibly marvelous, whether it was God or evolution or both to be honest- I am just inquiring as to how exactly God went about it.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

If you'd like to explain how God exactly made man or the universe I'd be amazed to hear. Though I find the origin of man incredibly marvelous, whether it was God or evolution or both to be honest- I am just inquiring as to how exactly God went about it.

well if you read the bible it will tell you....  

Eilzel wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

well if you read the bible it will tell you....  

That old thing, I have a copy of the Bible GIG (New International Version, pretty little thing it is), sadly it rarely goes into details about anything.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

That old thing, I have a copy of the Bible GIG (New International Version, pretty little thing it is), sadly it rarely goes into details about anything.

really i find it goes in too amazing sometimes unnecessary detail, perhaps its how you look in to it, I'm pleased you have a bible though...

the NIV  is ok but the language it uses actually loses some of the understanding you would gain from the king james or the new king james version and sometimes when we see words we think we know what they mean but it can be quite different when we study the word so a good exhaustive concordance always helps me study the word and get better understanding.

Guest wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

a lung as we have two same with kidneys, appendix yep, anything altogether or anything else...  
lets face it lungs  and kidneys do not develope separately do they,,  

Worst counter ever, asked if there is anything we can live without and then has examples given and posts a cringe worthy reply, hilarious

Eilzel wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

really i find it goes in too amazing sometimes unnecessary detail, perhaps its how you look in to it, I'm pleased you have a bible though...

the NIV  is ok but the language it uses actually loses some of the understanding you would gain from the king james or the new king james version and sometimes when we see words we think we know what they mean but it can be quite different when we study the word so a good exhaustive concordance always helps me study the word and get better understanding.

Don't be too happy about my owning a Bible, I also own a Koran, gorgeous green cover with gold embossed writing; they sit side by side. I find if I am discussing and reading a lot of religion (which I do) it is pretty important to have the primary source materials there   

And there is very little detail. The Genesis sections read as though God is a physical entity doing things by hand (without saying as much) and are as such devoid of any real visualization of how he is doing things- either everything is floating like in an episode of Wizardora (a kids show from when I was in school lol) or God is physically there- both are equally absurd of course.

Eilzel wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

really i find it goes in too amazing sometimes unnecessary detail, perhaps its how you look in to it, I'm pleased you have a bible though...

the NIV  is ok but the language it uses actually loses some of the understanding you would gain from the king james or the new king james version and sometimes when we see words we think we know what they mean but it can be quite different when we study the word so a good exhaustive concordance always helps me study the word and get better understanding.

Don't be too happy about my owning a Bible, I also own a Koran, gorgeous green cover with gold embossed writing; they sit side by side. I find if I am discussing and reading a lot of religion (which I do) it is pretty important to have the primary source materials there   

And there is very little detail. The Genesis sections read as though God is a physical entity doing things by hand (without saying as much) and are as such devoid of any real visualization of how he is doing things- either everything is floating like in an episode of Wizardora (a kids show from when I was in school lol) or God is physically there- both are equally absurd of course.

Eilzel wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:Lez i would try to explain but i have faith what God has said , i am fearfully and wonderfully made  :curtsy: 

I was wondering more of the physical details. Was it a magic stirring of the first and then the rib floated out (telekinetically like); or did a magical 'hand of God' do it?

victorismyhero wrote:@JD.....You mean when the godS made man. As it says in "that" book..."Let US make man in OUR image"

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Don't be too happy about my owning a Bible, I also own a Koran, gorgeous green cover with gold embossed writing; they sit side by side. I find if I am discussing and reading a lot of religion (which I do) it is pretty important to have the primary source materials there   

And there is very little detail. The Genesis sections read as though God is a physical entity doing things by hand (without saying as much) and are as such devoid of any real visualization of how he is doing things- either everything is floating like in an episode of Wizardora (a kids show from when I was in school lol) or God is physically there- both are equally absurd of course.

the terminology of God making the earth etc is literally a making, moulding, shaping yes it is, as opposed to a click his fingers done, miracle sort of thing, the same with the light of day and night the word used is permission to shine, not the actually making of the light sources...all very interesting stuff though...

why absurd how do you think the universe was made and how life started on the planet...

Sassy wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:@JD.....You mean when the godS made man. As it says in "that" book..."Let US make man in OUR image"

Well, you learn something new every day!

As for what we can live without:

Appendix
Gall Bladder
women - Fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, breasts
One kidney
One lung
legs and feet
arms and hands

Eilzel wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

the terminology of God making the earth etc is literally a making, moulding, shaping yes it is, as opposed to a click his fingers done, miracle sort of thing, the same with the light of day and night the word used is permission to shine, not the actually making of the light sources...all very interesting stuff though...

why absurd how do you think the universe was made and how life started on the planet...

But there must have been a kind of 'click of the fingers' for all the raw materials the universe was made of to appear in the first place right?

And what is he molding it with, his mind or hands?

I think it is absurd because you say this is what happened but seem unable to say how...

The Sinai Bible’s version of the Gospel of Mark ends its story with Mary Magdalene arriving at the tomb and finding it empty. Yet, in modern-day versions of the Gospel of Mark, resurrection narratives now appear (16: 9-20), and the Vatican universally acknowledges that they are forgeries;

‘The conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine … almost the entire section is a later compilation’.

(‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Vol., iii, p. 274, published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; also, ‘Encyclopedia Biblica’, ii, 1880; 1767, n. 3; 1781, and n. 1, on ‘The Evidence of its Spuriousness’)

The Vatican claims that ‘the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792), adding that a resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the ‘sine qua non’ of Christianity, ‘without which, nothing’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792). St. Paul agreed, saying; ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain’ (1 Cor. 15:17). Yet no appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in the oldest Gospel in the oldest Bible in the world. Nor are there resurrection narratives in any other old Bibles, for a comparison shows they are non-existent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark code-named ‘K’ by analysts. Some manuscripts of the 15th and 16th centuries have the fictitious verses written in asterisks, a mark used by ancient scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document. Resurrection narratives are also absent in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, and a number of Sixth Century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. That is because the resurrection narratives in today’s Gospels of Mark are later priesthood forgeries.

veya_victaous wrote:King James Bible is from the 1600's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Use the Codex Sinaiticus for the Original(oldest) Texts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

Interesting The Bits that aren't there

http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/A_glaring_omission_in_World%E2%80%99s_oldest_Bible/

The Sinai Bible’s version of the Gospel of Mark ends its story with Mary Magdalene arriving at the tomb and finding it empty. Yet, in modern-day versions of the Gospel of Mark, resurrection narratives now appear (16: 9-20), and the Vatican universally acknowledges that they are forgeries;

   ‘The conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine … almost the entire section is a later compilation’.

   (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Vol., iii, p. 274, published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; also, ‘Encyclopedia Biblica’, ii, 1880; 1767, n. 3; 1781, and n. 1, on ‘The Evidence of its Spuriousness’)

The Vatican claims that ‘the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792), adding that a resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the ‘sine qua non’ of Christianity, ‘without which, nothing’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792). St. Paul agreed, saying; ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain’ (1 Cor. 15:17). Yet no appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in the oldest Gospel in the oldest Bible in the world. Nor are there resurrection narratives in any other old Bibles, for a comparison shows they are non-existent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark code-named ‘K’ by analysts. Some manuscripts of the 15th and 16th centuries have the fictitious verses written in asterisks, a mark used by ancient scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document. Resurrection narratives are also absent in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, and a number of Sixth Century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. That is because the resurrection narratives in today’s Gospels of Mark are later priesthood forgeries.

groomsy wrote:Eating Shellfish is a sin go figure