Evidence for God from Science

the first was not really the Son of God[Lk.3:38] but was created in the image and likeness of the Son of God and a replica woman[bone of my bone,flesh of my flesh] was how it was - the second was really the Son of God and man from a woman[bone of her bone,flesh of her flesh]was how it was - twinc

I'm sorry, when you said "the two ADAMS", I thought you were talking about John Quincy, and Abigail.

I never heard of Eve being referred to as a "replica" of Adam.
Would that mean that since the first Eve was adam's replica, then Mary, who you refer to as the second Eve, is Jesus' replica?

Rick - you must read carefully and prayerfully instead of just nit picking - twinc

Twinc, when I prayed for God to show me what you were saying, He said that He had no idea what you mean either.
He also told me to tell you to stop being so vague.

twinc wrote:the first was not really the Son of God[Lk.3:38] but was created in the image and likeness of the Son of God and a replica woman[bone of my bone,flesh of my flesh] was how it was - the second was really the Son of God and man from a woman[bone of her bone,flesh of her flesh]was how it was - twinc

If Luke called Adam "Son of God" and Adam wasn't, was Luke wrong? Does the Gospel of Luke have errors then ??

All i can say is Twincs one line statements have just about ruined the board for me lately.

jlay wrote:All i can say is Twincs one line statements have just about ruined the board for me lately.

And I thought it was only me thinking this...
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

jlay wrote:All i can say is Twincs one line statements have just about ruined the board for me lately.

And I thought it was only me thinking this...
.

jlay, and Bav, come come home-twinc

RickD wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

jlay wrote:All i can say is Twincs one line statements have just about ruined the board for me lately.

And I thought it was only me thinking this...
.

jlay, and Bav, come come home-twinc

We'll all have a big happy family reunion.

PaulSacramento wrote:

twinc wrote:the first was not really the Son of God[Lk.3:38] but was created in the image and likeness of the Son of God and a replica woman[bone of my bone,flesh of my flesh] was how it was - the second was really the Son of God and man from a woman[bone of her bone,flesh of her flesh]was how it was - twinc

If Luke called Adam "Son of God" and Adam wasn't, was Luke wrong? Does the Gospel of Luke have errors then ??

Adam was not God who was sinless and resisted the Devil's temptation - the son of God ,being God,was not created by God - Adam was created in the image and likeness of God - btw the literal and obvious sense must always be accepted unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise - this is the case here - twinc

If a moderator could at least offer Twinc some guidance by pmail. Are new post necessary everytime this guy has a thought pop in his head? It is literally ruining the discussion forum. Enough of these vague blips and blurbs.

A second Adam that was a literal son of the uncreated God who had a lineage of descendants witht he exact same names as the first one? That seems pretty (by that I mean astronomically) farfetched to me.