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