# ****Question for Bibleman

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on November 07, 1999 at 07:13:02 {zExURjw8QAMSSTtTA17sslyACFuF8c}:

In Reply to: ***Question for Bibleman posted by AF on November 07, 1999 at 06:00:53:

Hi AF,

Thanks so much for your vote of confidence. :>

But first of all, myth or otherwise, per the Bible itself, it clearly says Adam was not deceived. And it was Eve who was talked to by the snake. So you have to separate that. My take on this is likely Adam was around 30 and Satan had planned this rebellion early on. Thus Eve having just been created would have been told about the tree, probably right away. But that doesn't mean she was used to everything in the garden nor been aware that animals didn't generally talk. She was like a child mentally. So the wouldn't have thought much of it if this was a few weeks after she had been created.

And this is also a good time for the rebellion because Eve was a new sensation in his life. He was in love and just like a kid himself at this stage (not that love wouldn't have grown over the years or anything, but in the beginning we all know how intense things are.) So Satan planned this very well.

Therefore, there is no reason to wonder why Adam wouldn't have been surprised about a talking snake. He would have been and he knew it was a trick and so that is why he wasn't deceived. But Eve, likely still quite immature about these things was. So there is a critical premise, even if a myth, to separate out why Eve might not have been shocked whereas Adam should have been.
Besides that, we don' know how much contact he had with angels. Even the statement, "At last, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh..." works as a contrast with the animals as well as angels. This is a statement that someone else human in his form was here. Jehovah visited him in the garden so he knew about other life forms besides himself and the animals, but not of his own kind.

Now for my anti-propaganda blurb. Sorry, but mankind is less than 6,000 years and your archaeological evidence to the contrary doesn't exist. It's just deception and lies.

And please don't talk about "archaeology"! Please!. That's because the hard archaeology available, that is actual architecture, art, ruins etc. that are available only go back 4000 years. Even archaeology divide everything into "PRE-HISTORIC" and "POST-HISTORIC" reflecting that so-called "written history" is only as old as the Bible indicates mankind is.

And since we know this is true, the evidence you have about mankind being here 100,000s years is not substantiated. And especially is not the evolutionary record in fossils. Otherwise, we'd have 100 times more ape-men and Pilt-down men than normal man.

And that's another thing. Why is it that when "historic" man appeared he's the same kind of man as we are, not some evolutionary missing link. The Egyptian culture which left lots for us to see are people just like us. They aren't humped over.

So sorry, AF, but your impression of what the fossil record is telling you is just subjective and it doesnt' work since there is no cridible evidence that mankind is any older than 5,000 years or more. The only "evidence" to the contrary is based upon "theory" but not hard fact.
That is, in 100,000 years mankind managed not to leave any archaeological evidence in the way of ruins or the like to prove he was around all this time. But suddenly in Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, we have plenty of evidence of ancient civilizations but they don't go back father than the Bible says.

Evolution is a joke! And you don't have any proof! Otherwise, we'd all know about it. It would be in the common domain. Excuse me if I doubt your silly little radiocarbon theories. Scientists don't always know what they are doing.
They can't even figure out the Persians made up 82 years of fake history! Why should I believe anything archaeologists have to say.

So sorry, AF. But you'll have to do better. Evolution is contradicted by the laws of inorganic chemistry which makes ABIOGESIS unscientific. No evolutionist has an answer for that. And sorry, you've got to establish the beginning before you start building in the middle.

Now as far as your claims regarding the Messiah is concerned. Cute.

But I'm not worried about that. You see, the Bible's depiction of the Messiah's Second Coming is quite clear to those who understand it. Lazarus is in the "bossom position" of Abraham, whereas John said Jesus was the "only begotton god in the bossom position of the father." Hello?

Lazarus was "outside" the gate of the Rich man at first, then everything changed. Suddenly things were switched. This is the same pattern for the Prodigal Son. Once dead, then he comes to life and gets new robes and a banquet. Even high-priest Joshua has befouled garments which have to be replaced before he is anointed to rebuild god's house. So no matter what or who you believe the Messiah is or is not, and I'm not claiming to be this fake Messiah of yours..., no matter what, Biblically, the Messiah has to come in the imperfect flesh the second time. Easily established Biblically.

And guess what? Have you read Revelation? What does he do when he gets here? He has to battle with the nations with the "long sword of his mouth."

Have you thought about how he can do that? Well, this means not a physical fight but verbal! This is someone who is adept at defending God's word. And maybe it means that when the Messiah comes he will be a great debator who wins all his arguments! Sound like anybody we know?

At any rate, since it is obvious there will always be debate over the very ancient and prehistoric past, something that science prove inadequate to understand, when Armageddon comes it seems to me that issue will be resolved as well. After all, if Armageddon comes I would think that that is proof enough that God doesn't lie and the things in the Bible are true.

And then, maybe later during the millennium, science will advance sufficiently with added information and detail to be able to confirm why science is getting so many miscalculations about the age of things and once again, science and the truth of the Bible will be one.

Anyway, since we are ON SCHEDULE and well down the road now. Your fantasy facts period is soon to come to an end A.F. Get my drift!

I have proof of 529BCE but more importantly that means the EOGT was just in 1992! Christ has to gather his anointed ones in, seal them first and then everything hits the fan. 2000 years is just up last month from Jesus' birth in 2BCE (2000-2BC=1998+1=Fall of 1999).

So enjoy your fantasies. You've been deceived by science theory. Focus on the hard FACTS!

The Bible is absolutely true.

Know this.

And to think I used to think you were smart... What a joke!

Cheers,
Bibleman

Follow Ups:

- *****Question for Bibleman Elephantine 08:55:41 11/07/99 (1)
  - ******Question for Bibleman Bibleman 11:18:44 11/07/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *****Question for Bibleman

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]