Re: Genesis 1 & 2: Is There A Contradiction?
Terry Cross
> Many people of course, have opinions about this subject.
> But what's important is the Bible facts, amen? I mean,
> what it _actually_ says is what's important, is it not?
>
> Most people believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are
> two different stories about the Creation and that they
> have things being created in a different order and then
> of course, creeps in the story of "Lilith" and people
> assume that this was Adam's first wife and that she
> was created in Genesis 1 and that Eve was created
> in Genesis 2.
>
> But does this make sense? Let's examine it and see,
> because opinions do not equate to automatic fact. :)
>
> And you may want to have your Bible open while reading
> this, or e-Sword on your computer, or whatever Biblical
> text you use.
>
> Anyway... :)
>
> The problem here, is that these people misread the text,
> thinking that there is a contradiction between the two
> chapters and then scramble to find an explanation,
> based on that false conclusion.
>
> Knowing how to read, means looking at ALL of the words. :)
>
> Remember that man made the chapter divisions much,
> much later. There were no chapter divisions in the
> original text. No verse divisions either. While
> unbelievers like to claim that chapter 2 was inserted
> later, they forget that it was actually one continuous
> text. We must also ask ourselves, is any writer
> stupid enough to write Genesis 1 and then directly
> contradict himself like this? Hello??? :)
>
> And even if as some people claim, chapter 2 was
> later inserted, you still have to be pretty stupid to
> put it there and have it directly contradict the text!
>
> And as I said, there were no chapter divisions, to
> be able to insert a new chapter between two others.
>
> Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
> Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
> What you'll find, is that God made man. This is day 6.
> He planted him in the Garden of Eden. Then He made the
> things listed afterward, IN THE GARDEN. The trees,
> etc. and the animals and brought them to Adam, to see
> what he would name them. He didn't make all of the
> animals, but rather, one more of each, IN THE GARDEN.
> This is confirmed, by reading vs 9, 10, 16, etc., where
> it says, IN THE GARDEN. Chapter 2 is discussing THE
> GARDEN, not the entire Earth!
>
> To reiterate in a bit more detail...
>
> If we examine the text carefully, we see that Genesis 1
> is an overview of the entire Creation.
>
> Genesis 2 expands on the sixth day. It describes the
> Creation in the Garden of Eden. Read the text CAREFULLY.
> It describes the creation of the garden and THEN the
> creation of the things within the garden. The animals,
> for example, were created in the garden. Not the original
> creation of animals, but simply another one, to be put
> in front of Adam, for him to name.
>
> Note: As I said, read Genesis 2:1-6 as a continuation
> of Genesis 1 and you'll see it's a better fit there.
>
> Note: Genesis 2:7, goes into the sixth day, in which
> man is created.
>
> Note: Genesis 2:8 shows that God made the Garden of
> Eden.
>
> Note: As I said, Genesis 2:9 is discussing the creation
> of plants, etc., IN THE GARDEN.
>
> How do we know this? Read Genesis 2:10. It clearly
> talks about the river going into the garden. Thus,
> Genesis 2:9 is surrounded (v8 + v10) by two statements
> about the garden.
>
> Note: It continues to discuss the garden and then, in v19,
> makes the statement about the creation of animals, but only
> for the purpose of seeing what Adam will name them and
> THEY ARE STILL IN THE GARDEN, which is where the context
> of the verses say that this takes place. All of this was on
> the sixth day, AFTER the rest of the world and life was
> already created.
>
> Opinion: This is why Eve was fooled and not Adam.
> Adam saw God create. Eve didn't.
>
> The bottom line is that God's word does not contradict
> itself, period! And when someone thinks it does, then
> instead of jumping to conclusions and since God's word
> has proved itself to be true and accurate so many times,
> they should stop, realize that they're not as smart as God
> and _carefully_ examine the text, looking at each and
> every word slowly and with caution and respect and care
> and see where _they_ have erred, since God does _not_
> make mistakes and He is fully capable of preserving His
> truths for us to have!
>
> Amen and amen!!!
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
>
> The following is part of my auto-rotating
> sig file and not part of the message body.
>
> "Weakness of faith ought not be mistaken for falseness
> of promise." - Unknown
James A. Donald
> Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
> Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
> What you'll find, is that God made man. This is day
> 6. He planted him in the Garden of Eden. Then He made
> the things listed afterward, IN THE GARDEN. The
> trees, etc. and the animals and brought them to Adam,
> to see what he would name them. He didn't make all of
> the animals, but rather, one more of each, IN THE
> GARDEN.
This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
If the redactor was a much of a literalist as you are he
would have made a bigger effort to harmonize the
creation stories.
But even if we take it allegorically, the stories are
still somewhat contradictory. In the first story, to
fill the earth and subdue it is a duty and a right. In
the second story, a duty and a punishment.
Yap
He said the chapters were divisions and G2 was not inserted.
Therefore the whole thing was written by the same authors.....but he
did not touch on the contradiction, merely brushed it off.
Then when the stupid god created the animals and plants in the tiny
Middle-eastern land, how on earth other animals and plant species were
flourishing else where 10s of thousands of miles away?
If the naive pastor wish to justify his belief, he simply failed
miserably.
And weakness of faith creeps in from unfulfilled promises all the
time, eventually leading to "no faith".
Mike Painter
>> Most people believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are
>> two different stories about the Creation and that they
>> have things being created in a different order and then
>> of course, creeps in the story of "Lilith" and people
>> assume that this was Adam's first wife and that she
>> was created in Genesis 1 and that Eve was created
>> in Genesis 2.
>>
>> But does this make sense? Let's examine it and see,
>> because opinions do not equate to automatic fact. :)
It does not have to make sense because both works are fiction.
>>
>> Knowing how to read, means looking at ALL of the words. :)
>>
>> Remember that man made the chapter divisions much,
>> much later. There were no chapter divisions in the
>> original text. No verse divisions either. While
>> unbelievers like to claim that chapter 2 was inserted
>> later, they forget that it was actually one continuous
>> text. We must also ask ourselves, is any writer
>> stupid enough to write Genesis 1 and then directly
>> contradict himself like this? Hello??? :)
>>
Irrelevant as scholars do NOT make the distinction between the stories based
on an English translation. They do so based on "(1) the convergence of
several different lines of evidence; (2) the linguistic evidence (that the
stages of the biblical Hebrew of the sources enables us to identify when the
sources were written); and (3) the narrative flow of the text (we can
separate whole stories that each flow without a break, like the two flood
stories, when read independently)
>>
>> Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
>> Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
>> What you'll find, is that God made man.
As you said, read the text. In Chapter one god creates the animals and then,
unless you believe that god created a hermaphrodite in Chapter one he
created
man and woman.
that
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them.
and told them to reproduce.
In Chapter two he creates man then the animals and then, because it was not
smart enough, woman.
>>
>> To reiterate in a bit more detail...
>>
>> If we examine the text carefully, we see that Genesis 1
>> is an overview of the entire Creation.
>>
Something nobody from any major school of theology has believed in well over
100 years.
<snip>
Terry Cross
> > On Oct 19, 3:29 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Most people believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are
>
> >> two different stories about the Creation and that they
> >> have things being created in a different order and then
> >> of course, creeps in the story of "Lilith" and people
> >> assume that this was Adam's first wife and that she
> >> was created in Genesis 1 and that Eve was created
> >> in Genesis 2.
>
> >> But does this make sense? Let's examine it and see,
> >> because opinions do not equate to automatic fact. :)
>
> It does not have to make sense because both works are fiction.
>
>
>
> >> Knowing how to read, means looking at ALL of the words. :)
>
> >> Remember that man made the chapter divisions much,
> >> much later. There were no chapter divisions in the
> >> original text. No verse divisions either. While
> >> unbelievers like to claim that chapter 2 was inserted
> >> later, they forget that it was actually one continuous
> >> text. We must also ask ourselves, is any writer
> >> stupid enough to write Genesis 1 and then directly
> >> contradict himself like this? Hello??? :)
>
> Irrelevant as scholars do NOT make the distinction between the stories based
> on an English translation.
Literally, who cares what "scholars" think? Scholars of today do not
agree with scholars of previous ages, and scholars of the future will
not agree with those of today.
You quote them like they are demigods, when in fact they are mostly
rich kids who thought teaching would be better than working for a
living.
> They do so based on "(1) the convergence of
> several different lines of evidence; (2) the linguistic evidence (that the
> stages of the biblical Hebrew of the sources enables us to identify when the
> sources were written); and (3) the narrative flow of the text (we can
> separate whole stories that each flow without a break, like the two flood
> stories, when read independently)
>
> >>
>
> >> Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
> >> Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
> >> What you'll find, is that God made man.
>
> As you said, read the text. In Chapter one god creates the animals and then,
> unless you believe that god created a hermaphrodite in Chapter one he
> created
> man and woman.
> that
> 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
> him; male and female created he them.
> and told them to reproduce.
>
> In Chapter two he creates man then the animals and then, because it was not
> smart enough, woman.
MCP hormones at work, Mike?
> >> To reiterate in a bit more detail...
>
> >> If we examine the text carefully, we see that Genesis 1
> >> is an overview of the entire Creation.
>
> Something nobody from any major school of theology has believed in well over
> 100 years.
Again, who cares? One "major school of theology" opined that the sun
rotated around the earth. And -- who cares? The major school of
theology that wrote the Talmud insisted that pi is equal to three.
And -- who cares?
TCross
Yap
Yes you don't care.
But at the same time, why should you care about ancient myths which
are irrelevant to your modern life?
And those stories were supposed to con the Jews only.
Terry Cross
Only a fool would consider "ancient myths irrelevant to modern life."
The greatest humans of every age have always cared deeply for the
archetypes in ancient myths. Such stories have informed the poetry,
music, drama, and art on which humanity is nourished.
Even fools feed on those myths in their DVDs and video games, created
by humans who were not fools.
> And those stories were supposed to con the Jews only.
Why do you think so? Did you have lunch with the author of those
tales?
TCross
Uncle Vic
> This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
> observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
> good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
Lots of times I've seen this fruit represented by an apple. But apples are
available in grocery stores all the time. Yet christian morons still go to
grocery stores. And they buy apples.
Go figure...
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
My modern calendar ends on 12/31/09. There are no days after that, so it's
obviously the date of the end of the world!
Uncle Vic
> Literally, who cares what "scholars" think?
Especially those "biblical" scholars.
Uncle Vic
> Only a fool would consider "ancient myths irrelevant to modern life."
> The greatest humans of every age have always cared deeply for the
> archetypes in ancient myths. Such stories have informed the poetry,
> music, drama, and art on which humanity is nourished.
>
> Even fools feed on those myths in their DVDs and video games, created
> by humans who were not fools.
And those who are not fools are able to tell the difference between fiction
and reality.
Religious mythology is fiction, pure and simple. Reality is what we see,
day to day. What we witness. Not what we dream about after we kneel at
our beds and pray to imaginary gods.
Splicer
Genesis 2, properly titled Trespass, was the first album that truly
showcased the compositional chops of the young band from the Charterhouse
School. Pre-Collins and Hackett, it was the first album to be more than a
loose collection of pop songs and the first to feature lengthier tracks
and deeper lyrics. Although lacking some of the drive of the next album,
Nursery Cryme (provided by the aforementioned Collins & Hackett), it was
the first album that could be called Genesis.
Hope this helps.
Mike Painter
Why would a rich kid who does not have to work spend years learning
difficult dialects of past languages obtaining PhD's in subjects that don't
pay much when they could spend 6 hours a day four days a week working for
dad, or just not work at all.
Since these are also all people of faith why would they lie about their
beliefs?
But as you said, read the words. The words say one thing and you claim
something else.
>
>
>> They do so based on "(1) the convergence of
>> several different lines of evidence; (2) the linguistic evidence
>> (that the stages of the biblical Hebrew of the sources enables us to
>> identify when the sources were written); and (3) the narrative flow
>> of the text (we can separate whole stories that each flow without a
>> break, like the two flood stories, when read independently)
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
>>>> Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
>>>> What you'll find, is that God made man.
>>
>> As you said, read the text. In Chapter one god creates the animals
>> and then, unless you believe that god created a hermaphrodite in
>> Chapter one he created
>> man and woman.
>> that
>> 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
>> created he him; male and female created he them.
>> and told them to reproduce.
>>
>> In Chapter two he creates man then the animals and then, because it
>> was not smart enough, woman.
>
>
> MCP hormones at work, Mike?
Read the words. Why didn't god figure out that a llama would probably not be
a good helpmeet for Adam?
>
>
>>>> To reiterate in a bit more detail...
>>
>>>> If we examine the text carefully, we see that Genesis 1
>>>> is an overview of the entire Creation.
>>
>> Something nobody from any major school of theology has believed in
>> well over 100 years.
>
>
> Again, who cares? One "major school of theology" opined that the sun
> rotated around the earth. And -- who cares? The major school of
> theology that wrote the Talmud insisted that pi is equal to three.
> And -- who cares?
>
> TCross
You seem to care as you continue to defend what educated people have known
to be false for at least 100 years.
But which Talmud "major school of theology" are you talking about?
It would seem that your idea of a shool of theology is rather different from
most.
Your inane pi idea shows that you are truely ignorant of the book you seem
to worship.
9.6 cubits gives a circumference of 30.16 and rouded give 10 and 30.
DouhetSukd
What about "Turn the other cheek" vs. "eye for an eye"?
Basically, you have a fire and brimstone Old Testament, with the New
Testament preaching something entirely different. Vengeful old school
deity vs. nice new age deity (except for those pesky Temple sales
dudes). Nothing subtle or allegorical.
That dichotomy is something Christians understand quite well,
apparently, as an impressive amount are fans of the death penalty even
while they preach peace and love. To put it differently, 80+% of
Americans believe in God, and the death penalty is generally deeply
disliked in less religious Western countries. Yup, bet Jesus would
feel right at home in Texas.
The reason I am not religious is personal lack of belief. Something I
regret, as a belief in afterlife would be nicely comforting. The
reason I wonder about Christians is because few of them seem to have
internalized Christ's teachings and many are all about Hell instead.
I deeply respect "nice" Christians, but the rest amuse me.
On another note, I read an historical analysis of the New Testament
gospels and the author, a historian, did a pretty good job convincing
me they were actually _quite_ coherent with each other, if considered
as historical records of the same events written at different times by
different people. He managed to kind of tease out what seemed to be
little author "embellishments" by comparing the different versions
contents to each other.
I think it may have been "Jesus", by Michael Smith, who usually does
Roman & Ancient history. He never did say if he was a believer or
not, something quite refreshing. Can look it up.
* I understand that if one book says A>B and the other says A<B then
that is a pretty stark technical contradiction. IMHO it misses the
big picture of nice vs. vengeful.
Terry Cross
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Only a fool would consider "ancient myths irrelevant to modern life."
> > The greatest humans of every age have always cared deeply for the
> > archetypes in ancient myths. Such stories have informed the poetry,
> > music, drama, and art on which humanity is nourished.
>
> > Even fools feed on those myths in their DVDs and video games, created
> > by humans who were not fools.
>
> And those who are not fools are able to tell the difference between fiction
> and reality.
>
> Religious mythology is fiction, pure and simple. Reality is what we see,
> day to day.
Do you see germs, day to day? Have you ever seen a "black hole," day
to day? What about your own lungs - do you see them day to day, too?
Your formula for reality is badly flawed, and you haven't the sense to
realize it.
TCross
Terry Cross
I don't know, Mr. Bones. Why would that be?
> Since these are also all people of faith why would they lie about their
> beliefs?
Are they? Is this information from the recent census conducted with
soul-xraying machines?
> But as you said, read the words.
I didn't say that.
> The words say one thing and you claim
> something else.
I make no claims except that the person who originally brought up the
subject missed the meaning of verse 5 in the KJV.
> >> They do so based on "(1) the convergence of
> >> several different lines of evidence; (2) the linguistic evidence
> >> (that the stages of the biblical Hebrew of the sources enables us to
> >> identify when the sources were written); and (3) the narrative flow
> >> of the text (we can separate whole stories that each flow without a
> >> break, like the two flood stories, when read independently)
>
> >>>> Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
> >>>> Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
> >>>> What you'll find, is that God made man.
>
> >> As you said, read the text. In Chapter one god creates the animals
> >> and then, unless you believe that god created a hermaphrodite in
> >> Chapter one he created
> >> man and woman.
> >> that
> >> 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
> >> created he him; male and female created he them.
> >> and told them to reproduce.
>
> >> In Chapter two he creates man then the animals and then, because it
> >> was not smart enough, woman.
>
> > MCP hormones at work, Mike?
>
> Read the words. Why didn't god figure out that a llama would probably not be
> a good helpmeet for Adam?
I would recommend you get a better translation. Most of the better
versions do not contain the word, "llama."
> >>>> To reiterate in a bit more detail...
>
> >>>> If we examine the text carefully, we see that Genesis 1
> >>>> is an overview of the entire Creation.
>
> >> Something nobody from any major school of theology has believed in
> >> well over 100 years.
>
> > Again, who cares? One "major school of theology" opined that the sun
> > rotated around the earth. And -- who cares? The major school of
> > theology that wrote the Talmud insisted that pi is equal to three.
> > And -- who cares?
>
> > TCross
>
> You seem to care as you continue to defend what educated people have known
> to be false for at least 100 years.
Now there is a shameless appeal to authority. And I would remind you
that most of the people in Israel and the banking/investment industry
in New York would be quite offended if you told them they were
worshiping a false god. You can follow your conscience in that
matter, but keep an eye out for some place to run when you do it.
Indonesia is a possibility.
> But which Talmud "major school of theology" are you talking about?
> It would seem that your idea of a shool of theology is rather different from
> most.
You can go with either the Hillel or the Shammai school -- take your
pick.
> Your inane pi idea shows that you are truely ignorant of the book you seem
> to worship.
You say I worship the book because I correct some fool's reading of
the text? You don't put much weight in the word, do you.
> 9.6 cubits gives a circumference of 30.16 and rouded give 10 and 30.
Once you start "rouding" numbers, you can any answer you choose.
TCross
Taemon
> Opinion: This is why Eve was fooled and not Adam.
> Adam saw God create. Eve didn't.
Not fooled? Adam did eat that fruit, didn't he?
T.
Uncle Vic
> On Oct 19, 9:20 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Only a fool would consider "ancient myths irrelevant to modern
>> > life." The greatest humans of every age have always cared deeply
>> > for the archetypes in ancient myths. Such stories have informed the
>> > poetry, music, drama, and art on which humanity is nourished.
>>
>> > Even fools feed on those myths in their DVDs and video games,
>> > created by humans who were not fools.
>>
>> And those who are not fools are able to tell the difference between
>> fiction and reality.
>>
>> Religious mythology is fiction, pure and simple. Reality is what we
>> see, day to day.
>
>
> Do you see germs, day to day?
You've never looked into a microscope? There are people who see germs
day to day - it's their job.
> Have you ever seen a "black hole," day
> to day?
Light cannot escape a black hole. But we have other means by which we
know they exist.
> What about your own lungs - do you see them day to day, too?
Oh, come on. They keep me alive, I know they exist. Do you see oxygen?
No. But we see the result of its existence. This is a very tired old
argument.
Can you prove any gods exist by any means other than personal incredulity
or other "must be" arguments?
>
> Your formula for reality is badly flawed, and you haven't the sense to
> realize it.
>
No.
Hannele
Yeah, but only because she MADE him do it <snigger>
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Taemon
So she got punished for his lack of responsibility. That sounds familiar,
somehow.
T.
Terry Cross
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 9:20 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Only a fool would consider "ancient myths irrelevant to modern
> >> > life." The greatest humans of every age have always cared deeply
> >> > for the archetypes in ancient myths. Such stories have informed the
> >> > poetry, music, drama, and art on which humanity is nourished.
>
> >> > Even fools feed on those myths in their DVDs and video games,
> >> > created by humans who were not fools.
>
> >> And those who are not fools are able to tell the difference between
> >> fiction and reality.
>
> >> Religious mythology is fiction, pure and simple. Reality is what we
> >> see, day to day.
>
> > Do you see germs, day to day?
>
> You've never looked into a microscope? There are people who see germs
> day to day - it's their job.
Now you are changing the subject. You wrote: "Reality is what WE see,
day to day." (emphasis added)
> > Have you ever seen a "black hole," day
> > to day?
>
> Light cannot escape a black hole. But we have other means by which we
> know they exist.
You wrote: "Reality is what WE see, day to day." (emphasis added)
> > What about your own lungs - do you see them day to day, too?
>
> Oh, come on. They keep me alive, I know they exist. Do you see oxygen?
> No. But we see the result of its existence. This is a very tired old
> argument.
You wrote: "Reality is what WE see, day to day." (emphasis added)
> Can you prove any gods exist by any means other than personal incredulity
> or other "must be" arguments?
Now you change again to exclude anything but proof. When you have
stabilized on a subject for this discourse, please let me know.
TCross
trag
> On another note, I read an historical analysis of the New Testament
> gospels and the author, a historian, did a pretty good job convincing
> me they were actually _quite_ coherent with each other, if considered
> as historical records of the same events written at different times by
> different people. He managed to kind of tease out what seemed to be
> little author "embellishments" by comparing the different versions
> contents to each other.
>
> I think it may have been "Jesus", by Michael Smith, who usually does
> Roman & Ancient history. He never did say if he was a believer or
> not, something quite refreshing. Can look it up.
Michael *Valentine* Smith? <blink, blink>?
Hannele
He was in a hurry to blame her: "But... but... but... she made me eat it!".
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Robert Carnegie
I think I misremembered, she ate some first? Wouldn't the rest of us
be in trouble right then? Assuming it wasn't grounds for divorce and
we'd all be descended from Adam's /next/ wife. Or, I dunno,
chimpanzees.
Don Martin
Though strangely enough, his new knowledge of good and evil apres snack did not
allow him to see the evil of blaming others for what one has done oneself.
Perhaps it was really an apple of the tree of "knowledge of the male mindset."
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Ryan McCoskrie
> One fine day in alt.atheism, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
>> observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
>> good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
>
> Lots of times I've seen this fruit represented by an apple. But apples
> are
> available in grocery stores all the time. Yet christian morons still go
> to
> grocery stores. And they buy apples.
>
> Go figure...
>
Leonardo da Vinci painted Mary as an European noble women.
The Bible never specified what kind of fruit it was.
Kilmir
Wouldn't that be Lilith?
Hannele
wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:21:10 +0200, Hannele <han...@lycos.nl> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:41:30 +0200, Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Hannele wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:49:09 +0200, Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 19, 3:29 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Opinion: This is why Eve was fooled and not Adam.
>>>>>> Adam saw God create. Eve didn't.
>>>>> Not fooled? Adam did eat that fruit, didn't he?
>>>> Yeah, but only because she MADE him do it <snigger>
>>>
>>> So she got punished for his lack of responsibility. That sounds
>>> familiar,
>>> somehow.
>>
>> He was in a hurry to blame her: "But... but... but... she made me eat
>> it!".
>
> Though strangely enough, his new knowledge of good and evil apres snack
> did not
> allow him to see the evil of blaming others for what one has done
> oneself.
>
> Perhaps it was really an apple of the tree of "knowledge of the male
> mindset."
>
I don't mind that story so much, although even when I was a child it irked
me that Adam placed the blame solely on Eve. What does get my goat is that
even in this day and age there are theists that will use this myth to
"prove" women are to blame for the fall from grace and that men are the
innocent victims.
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I think she was the previous one, and "only" in Jewish tradition(!)
And I think she's living with a fitness instructor named Gretchen, so
not much hope there.
I've said before, I think the point of the Fall story is to try to
account for a God who supposedly loves us - or at least loves his
chosen people - but somehow neglected to plant worldwide orchards for
us to live in ease, or to pay much attention to the design of
childbirth. Or exclusion of venomous animals. If I was retelling the
story I might say something about weather - I'm British. Some people
believe it never rained before Noah's flood. Anyway, the point is the
story says God /did/ make a nice world for us to be in, and then we
pissed in the pool and it got ugly.
Now, the advantage if we /were/ descended from a woman who hadn't been
cursed by God to have a hideous and often fatal time in childbirth is
obvious. Adam and Eve should have fostered.
PV
>believe it never rained before Noah's flood. Anyway, the point is the
>story says God /did/ make a nice world for us to be in, and then we
>pissed in the pool and it got ugly.
So, to you, disregarding a capricious and arbitrary rule, made under false
pretenses, is "pissing in the pool"? *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Terry Cross
> One fine day in alt.atheism, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
> > observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
> > good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
>
> Lots of times I've seen this fruit represented by an apple. But apples are
> available in grocery stores all the time. Yet christian morons still go to
> grocery stores. And they buy apples.
>
> Go figure...
So who cares if apples can be found in grocery stores. This is
another straw man argument about somebody's conjecture about the Bible
as though it were Bible text. Orthodox Jews eat apples, too. You go
figure.
An apple grows on an apple tree, not a "tree of knowledge of good and
evil".
If you want to find something wrong with the Bible, consider that both
the Jewish and Christian definitions of "evil" is disobedience to
God's law and commandments.
Until they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve did not have such knowledge, so
could not in justice be held responsible for obedience to God.
Yet when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were punished and all their
descendants were cursed with mortality for acquiring the knowledge
they would need to obey God.
In essence, Adam and Eve were required to color inside the lines with
their eyes closed. They could only open their eyes if they colored
outside the lines, but then they would also be punished. Is that a
fair test?
The entire meaning of the allegory collapses on the orthodox
definitions of Good and Evil.
TCross
VSim
>
> If you want to find something wrong with the Bible, consider that both
> the Jewish and Christian definitions of "evil" is disobedience to
> God's law and commandments.
>
> Until they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve did not have such knowledge, so
> could not in justice be held responsible for obedience to God.
>
> Yet when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were punished and all their
> descendants were cursed with mortality for acquiring the knowledge
> they would need to obey God.
Rubbish. They disobeyed a direct order from God, thus they were
punished. End of story.
The fruit of knowledge meant they instantly learned *everything* about
good and evil, which for some reason God did not want. He wanted them
to follow His commands one step at the time.
The truly interesting questions:
If God didn't want it, why did He place the tree in the middle of the
garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why the hell does He
tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder if maybe it was Him who sent the
serpent too.
What would have happened if Adam had first eaten from the tree of
immortality (which he had no interdiction to) and then from that of
knowledge ?
Anyway, about the contradiction of Genesis 1 & 2, IMHO (and I'm
definitely no expert so I might be wrong) there is none. The story of
Creation is in Genesis 1. The short reference in Genesis 2 is rather
vague and with no explicit temporal sequence. It says that Adam was in
the garden, then it says that God created all the animals and brought
them to Adam to name them. It doesn't say explicitly that the animals
were created after Adam was put in the garden. Normally one would
infer it from the sequence of narration, but in the context of Genesis
1 (which of course comes first) I don't think it's the case. Rather,
it's probably just a figure of style, to point out that even though
God created the animals, He gave up the right to name them Himself and
empowered man to do this. (And not woman, BTW. ;-) )
VSim
<rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> I've said before, I think the point of the Fall story is to try to
> account for a God who supposedly loves us - or at least loves his
> chosen people - but somehow neglected to plant worldwide orchards for
> us to live in ease, or to pay much attention to the design of
> childbirth. Or exclusion of venomous animals. If I was retelling the
> story I might say something about weather - I'm British. Some people
> believe it never rained before Noah's flood. Anyway, the point is the
> story says God /did/ make a nice world for us to be in, and then we
> pissed in the pool and it got ugly.
In other words, even though God loves us, He still punishes us for our
sins. OK, next obvious questions - why don't people suffer according
to everyone's individual sins ? Why global punishment ?
IMO the point is that humans only learn it the hard way, never the
soft way.
Also, maybe that God doesn't want us to be over-zealous and overdo it.
If we do, things tend to get ugly. (Which might explain the current
state of the world - atomic bombs, 6 billion people and counting,
global warming etc. You think you solve the problem and you just
create more.)
Terry Cross
> Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > If you want to find something wrong with the Bible, consider that both
> > the Jewish and Christian definitions of "evil" is disobedience to
> > God's law and commandments.
>
> > Until they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve did not have such knowledge, so
> > could not in justice be held responsible for obedience to God.
>
> > Yet when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were punished and all their
> > descendants were cursed with mortality for acquiring the knowledge
> > they would need to obey God.
>
> Rubbish. They disobeyed a direct order from God, thus they were
> punished. End of story.
What is the knowledge of good and evil?
> The fruit of knowledge meant they instantly learned *everything* about
> good and evil, which for some reason God did not want. He wanted them
> to follow His commands one step at the time.
The only additional knowledge acquired by Adam and Eve was the depth
of misery through the curse. Supposedly, as a Son of Adam
("Adamite"), you have all Adam's knowledge, and if you claim to have
"all" knowledge of good and evil now, you are ahead of the rest of
us.
> The truly interesting questions:
> If God didn't want it,
What is "it"?
> why did He place the tree in the middle of the
> garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why the hell does He
> tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder if maybe it was Him who sent the
> serpent too.
I see that as a less compelling question. It leaves open the
possibility that someone will find an explanation that the presence of
the tree was necessary.
> What would have happened if Adam had first eaten from the tree of
> immortality (which he had no interdiction to) and then from that of
> knowledge ?
Adam was already immortal. The tree was "the tree of knowledge of
good and evil," not immorality. Immortality was the fruit of the
"tree of life" mentioned in Genesis 3:22.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
> Anyway, about the contradiction of Genesis 1 & 2, IMHO (and I'm
> definitely no expert so I might be wrong) there is none. The story of
> Creation is in Genesis 1. The short reference in Genesis 2 is rather
> vague and with no explicit temporal sequence. It says that Adam was in
> the garden, then it says that God created all the animals and brought
> them to Adam to name them. It doesn't say explicitly that the animals
> were created after Adam was put in the garden. Normally one would
> infer it from the sequence of narration, but in the context of Genesis
> 1 (which of course comes first) I don't think it's the case. Rather,
> it's probably just a figure of style, to point out that even though
> God created the animals, He gave up the right to name them Himself and
> empowered man to do this. (And not woman, BTW. ;-) )
TCross
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Robert_Carnegie=3A_Fnord=3A_cc_talk=2Dorigins=40moderators=2Eisc=2E?=
> >believe it never rained before Noah's flood. Anyway, the point is the
> >story says God /did/ make a nice world for us to be in, and then we
> >pissed in the pool and it got ugly.
>
> So, to you, disregarding a capricious and arbitrary rule, made under false
> pretenses, is "pissing in the pool"?
I was treating the story on its own terms.
Online I don't seem to find a particular straight quote from _The
Restaurant at the End of the Universe_ - book edition - which I
suppose may mean that Zombie Douglas Adams is hunting them down and
removing them. But I did find a version (so Zombie Adams may come to
visit me, oops) that describes God as "someone who puts bricks under
hats, so that people will stub their toe when they kick them." In
other words - it was secretly meant to happen.
Mike Painter
> Terry Cross wrote:
<snip>
>
> Anyway, about the contradiction of Genesis 1 & 2, IMHO (and I'm
> definitely no expert so I might be wrong) there is none. The story of
> Creation is in Genesis 1. The short reference in Genesis 2 is rather
> vague and with no explicit temporal sequence. It says that Adam was in
> the garden, then it says that God created all the animals and brought
> them to Adam to name them. It doesn't say explicitly that the animals
> were created after Adam was put in the garden.
For a good over view of what the experts have believed for well over 100
years read "Who Wrote The Bible" by Friedman.
As to your idea that the reference is vague read Gen 2:19 which is done
*after* god creates man. Gen 2:20 explains why god created woman after the
animals, something in direct contradiction with Gen 1. where man and woman
were created after the animals.
Two stories from two sources written at different times and places. "the
Uncle Vic
Therefore you have to make up your own religion so you can be saved, eh?
I find it a lot more palatable to accept death for what it is... the end
of life.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
James A. Donald
> The truly interesting questions: If God didn't want
> it, why did He place the tree in the middle of the
> garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why
> the hell does He tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder
> if maybe it was Him who sent the serpent too.
Job reprises this issue.
In the first version of Genesis, God commands man to
fill the earth and subdue it, and take dominion over it.
In the second version, he commands to dig the soil and
to give birth in sorrow.
(Which would explain an very incompetently designed
birth canal. An alternative explanation is that the
birth canal was designed by a government committee. A
third explanation is that it was adapted from a birth
canal designed for a quadruped with a small head.)
Zev
??????:6ec4f5da-
e841-41d1-83f...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Terry Cross wrote:
> The truly interesting questions:
> If God didn't want it, why did He place the tree in the middle of the
> garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why the hell does He
> tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder if maybe it was Him who sent the
> serpent too.
Assuming no argument over the historicity of the story,
it has to do with the challenge of choosing good.
Without it, mankind is not complete.
We're here to meet it, and "prove our mettle".
Unfortunately, it carries with it the possibility of choosing wrong.
polymer
> "VSim" <inte...@yahoo.com> ???
> ??????:6ec4f5da-
> e841-41d1-83f...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> Terry Cross wrote:
>
>> The truly interesting questions:
>> If God didn't want it, why did He place the tree in the middle of the
>> garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why the hell does He
>> tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder if maybe it was Him who sent the
>> serpent too.
>
> Assuming no argument over the historicity of the story,
ROFL
> it has to do
> with the challenge of choosing good. Without it, mankind is not
> complete.
El Grande Crappo de Bullo.
That is a story invented by alpha liars to explain
away the obvious stupidity of the story.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Oct 22, 3:29 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What would have happened if Adam had first eaten from the tree of
> > immortality (which he had no interdiction to) and then from that of
> > knowledge ?
>
> Adam was already immortal. The tree was "the tree of knowledge of
> good and evil," not immorality.
Wow, good job he didn't find /that/ one, God would be so mad :-)
> Immortality was the fruit of the
> "tree of life" mentioned in Genesis 3:22.
>
> And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
> good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
> the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Let's suppose that if you eat tree-of-life every day you'll live
forever. Then death is caused, effectively, by excluding Adam and Eve
from the garden.
Eve says that God told them not to /touch/ the tree, presumably in an
unrecorded conversation of the kind you have with a five year old.
"But can I /lick/ the TV, as long as I don't switch it on?" "No! You
can't draw on it, you can't lick it - look, just don't touch it at
all. Okay?" This also fills the gap that could apply where God did
not tell Eve not to eat from the tree, although you could consider
that while God was telling Adam, Eve was one of Adam's buttcheeks at
the time, so she was included.
I don't really want to defend the story. I do care about people who
took it seriously all their lives.
And why does God not want to have people around who have knowledge of
good and evil? When it was someone who didn't have knowledge of good
and evil who stole his fruit?
It doesn't make sense. It's like one of those superhero stories that
"fixes" one flaw in material written like to a hundred years ago but
itself doesn't work. And probably for the same reason: it isn't, as a
good story is, the point of itself.
Michael Stemper
>On Oct 23, 12:35=A0am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
>> good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
>> the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
>
>Let's suppose that if you eat tree-of-life every day you'll live
>forever.
Unless, of course, all of your descendants die. Then, you'll lose
interest in eating and need to invade an unfashionable western
spiral arm of the galaxy.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If it's "tourist season", where do I get my license?
Syd M.
Yeah, but some people are just so afraid of dying that such fairy
tales make them feel good.
And feeling good is better then any old facts any day.
PDW
Syd M.
wrote:
> In article <4d2a6b9e-82fc-46c6-a823-500a8159a...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Robert_Carnegie=3A_Fnord=3A_cc_talk=2Dorigins=40moderators=2Eisc=2E?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?or=ADg?= <rja.carne...@excite.com> writes:
>
> >On Oct 23, 12:35=A0am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
> >> good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
> >> the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
>
> >Let's suppose that if you eat tree-of-life every day you'll live
> >forever.
>
> Unless, of course, all of your descendants die. Then, you'll lose
> interest in eating and need to invade an unfashionable western
> spiral arm of the galaxy.
>
Speaking of which, I got a copy of "And another thing" from the
library. Only peeked at a the opening page, but it is styled
differently from DNA, but the humour seems there. We'll see after I
get finished.
PDW
Terry Cross
> "VSim" <intel...@yahoo.com> ???
> ??????:6ec4f5da-
> e841-41d1-83fd-0f68b18b1...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
And they must choose without knowledge of "good and evil" that eating
the fruit would bring. It is a paradox of terrible proportions.
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:13:21 -0700, Zev wrote:
> > ??????:6ec4f5da-
> > e841-41d1-83fd-0f68b18b1...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> The truly interesting questions:
> >> If God didn't want it, why did He place the tree in the middle of the
> >> garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why the hell does He
> >> tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder if maybe it was Him who sent the
> >> serpent too.
>
> > Assuming no argument over the historicity of the story,
>
> ROFL
>
> > it has to do
> > with the challenge of choosing good. Without it, mankind is not
> > complete.
>
> El Grande Crappo de Bullo.
> That is a story invented by alpha liars to explain
> away the obvious stupidity of the story.
It is no more ridiculous than Evolution. The prophets needed to
"explain" certain things about human existence, and many here would
tell us the purpose of science is to "explain".
Evolution wanders into endless speculation with the same freedom of
tongue exhibited by the old prophets. Dawkins babbles about the gene
molecules trying to survive and gathering around themselves the flesh
of bodies to make survival possible. Dawkins knows nothing about the
truth of the matter, but he speculates freely and calls it "science".
Just so did the early prophets struggle with the problems of
mortality, human joy and misery, good and evil, sex and death. They
speculated freely -- just as Dawkins does -- and these are their
stories.
TCross
Terry Cross
And what are you, Vic? What is thought? What is purpose?
Can you explain all the mysteries of existence by pretending they
don't exist?
TCross
VSim
> On Oct 22, 3:29 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The fruit of knowledge meant they instantly learned *everything* about
> > good and evil, which for some reason God did not want. He wanted them
> > to follow His commands one step at the time.
>
> The only additional knowledge acquired by Adam and Eve was the depth
> of misery through the curse.
They did find out that they were naked. Besides, if it's the fruit of
knowledge of good and evil, this is what it's supposed to do, isn't
it ? To give you all knowledge of good and evil.
> Supposedly, as a Son of Adam
> ("Adamite"), you have all Adam's knowledge,
Where exactly does the Bible say this ?
> > What would have happened if Adam had first eaten from the tree of
> > immortality (which he had no interdiction to) and then from that of
> > knowledge ?
>
> Adam was already immortal.
Again, where exactly does the Bible say this ?
Anyway, this is just a minor point.
> The tree was "the tree of knowledge of
> good and evil," not immorality.
I said immortality, not immorality.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
The story said Adam was kicked out of Eden before he ate the Tree of
Life.
Terry Cross
> Terry Cross wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 3:29 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The fruit of knowledge meant they instantly learned *everything* about
> > > good and evil, which for some reason God did not want. He wanted them
> > > to follow His commands one step at the time.
>
> > The only additional knowledge acquired by Adam and Eve was the depth
> > of misery through the curse.
>
> They did find out that they were naked.
In Judaism, that is "evil." Sigmund Freud psychoanalyzed the
Jewishness from multiple rabbinical ancestors. Where did you think he
got all that garbage?
> Besides, if it's the fruit of
> knowledge of good and evil, this is what it's supposed to do, isn't
> it ? To give you all knowledge of good and evil.
Exactly.
> > Supposedly, as a Son of Adam
> > ("Adamite"), you have all Adam's knowledge,
>
> Where exactly does the Bible say this ?
The curse of Adam is attributed to every man that he shall till the
earth by the seat of his brow, and curse of Eve to every woman that
she shall "bring forth children in pain."
> > > What would have happened if Adam had first eaten from the tree of
> > > immortality (which he had no interdiction to) and then from that of
> > > knowledge ?
>
> > Adam was already immortal.
>
> Again, where exactly does the Bible say this ?
> Anyway, this is just a minor point.
Don't know. Wasn't Randy saying that death did not enter the Garden
until the Fall? Maybe I misunderstood.
> > The tree was "the tree of knowledge of
> > good and evil," not immorality.
>
> I said immortality, not immorality.
Thanks for the correction. ;-)
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:39:46 -0700 (PDT), VSim <intel...@yahoo.com>
I think this thread is stumbling over a typo. Death did not enter the
Garden until Adam/Eve ate of the fruit, but they were not yet immortal
because they had not yet eaten of the Tree of Life, which had not been
previously mentioned. The story is somewhat ambiguous on this point.
They did not eat of the Tree of Microsoft Windows until much later.
And a good thing, too.
TCross
VSim
The discussion has gotten somewhat too confusing for my taste.
Coming back to what you said, looks like not having eaten the fruit is
not an excuse for disobeying God. And obviously not all descendants of
Adam inherited his knowledge, more precisely none of them did (except
maybe for the prophets), since Adam, after eating the fruit, knew
everything about good and evil and supposedly never did any other bad
thing afterwards, which is definitely not true also for his
descendants.
The idea is, God could have made Adam perfect (by means of the fruit
or by just wishing it) and did not. Why ? Don't ask me. But since Adam
was not perfect, his wrong deeds deserved punishment. That's just how
it is.
You could argue just as well that since Adam was a creation of God, he
didn't deserve punishment for anything he did but God deserved it. But
that's not how it is. You have to obey God without eating any fruit.
VSim
>
> You have to obey God without eating any fruit.
Of good and evil, that is.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Well, it's Catch-22. Wait. I can't figure out precisely how it's
Catch-22. But I'm pretty sure that it is.
Obviously it isn't that the fruit confers moral culpability, because
then the beings that ate the fruit didn't have moral culpability, but
God still throws the book at them.
If it's that the fruit confers a sense of right and wrong, then God
made the mistake in the first place of creating beings without a sense
of right and wrong and then expecting them to follow rules.
As I have said, I think the whole story is just an attempt to provide
an explanation of why God hasn't made the world a nice easy place for
his chosen people to live in (granted all the other planets known to
science are unbelievably worse), other than that he doesn't exist.
Whilst also making God able to do anything he thinks of and having no
needs that humans can fulfil. Well... pleasure. The bible describes
many things that humans can do to please God. None of it gets us off
the hook, though, does it?
Are we basically God's pleasure slaves? Is that what religion says?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
No it doesn't.
> I think this thread is stumbling over a typo. Death did not enter the
> Garden until Adam/Eve ate of the fruit, but they were not yet immortal
> because they had not yet eaten of the Tree of Life, which had not been
> previously mentioned. The story is somewhat ambiguous on this point.
Try my version. The Tree of Life makes you immortal for one day.
Adam and Eve ate one every day.
Alternatively, why do we really die? Because the physical mechanisms
of our bodies break down. Mutations in cell DNA build up.
"Housekeeping" functions fail. Pollution accumulates in the brain.
Calcium compounds leach out of bones. Muscles deteriorate, and that
includes the heart. And blood vessels clog with fat. And that's
without accounting for infectious disease, microorganisms that seize
our bodies and abuse them - and of course physical accident.
If we suppose that the Garden of Eden was disease-free and accident-
free, there's still a lot of repair to be done on the human body.
Now... the bible proposes that early generations of humans lived for
many hundreds of years. Really, though, we can't see how that could
be so.
So in fact it's all hokum, isn't it?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Oct 23, 2:39 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Terry Cross wrote:
> > > Supposedly, as a Son of Adam
> > > ("Adamite"), you have all Adam's knowledge,
> >
> > Where exactly does the Bible say this ?
>
> The curse of Adam is attributed to every man that he shall till the
> earth by the seat of his brow, and curse of Eve to every woman that
> she shall "bring forth children in pain."
Well, I shop at supermarkets. And I don't have children.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Richard Dawkins knows plenty. If a pattern of atoms /accidentally/
occurs that can duplicate itself and multiply, that pattern of atoms
will veery soon be seen all around. A molecule called RNA does this,
I think, in the presence of the right ingredients: a copy of the RNA
molecule naturally forms alongside the first molecule. It isn't firm
science to say that this is definitely how living things came into
existence, but RNA also is used by our bodies as a copy of DNA - or
perhaps DNA is used by RNA as a way to copy itself more faithfully.
Although language of intentions and deliberate acts isn't really
appropriate for molecules.
Justin Jenkins
Think it over, and then tell me what's wrong with that statement.
> Alternatively, why do we really die? Because the physical mechanisms
> of our bodies break down. Mutations in cell DNA build up.
> "Housekeeping" functions fail. Pollution accumulates in the brain.
> Calcium compounds leach out of bones. Muscles deteriorate, and that
> includes the heart. And blood vessels clog with fat. And that's
> without accounting for infectious disease, microorganisms that seize
> our bodies and abuse them - and of course physical accident.
>
Those are the symptoms of aging and dying, not the causes.
> If we suppose that the Garden of Eden was disease-free and accident-
> free, there's still a lot of repair to be done on the human body.
> Now... the bible proposes that early generations of humans lived for
> many hundreds of years. Really, though, we can't see how that could
> be so.
>
Many scholars believe those numbers represent how long that person's
lineage (sons, grandsons, etc.) survived until a certain date, or time
in early Jewish history.
> So in fact it's all hokum, isn't it?
>
You can believe that if you want to.
The question is: Can you prove it's all hokum?
Mike Painter
> Immortal for one day.
> Think it over, and then tell me what's wrong with that statement.
>
It's probably a recursive thing.
A day is as a thousand years.
A thousand years is 365,000 days
Each day is as a thousand years...
Justin Jenkins
But you'd still not be "immortal", even after a thousand years.
James A. Donald
Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> Richard Dawkins knows plenty. If a pattern of atoms
> /accidentally/ occurs that can duplicate itself and
> multiply, that pattern of atoms will veery soon be
> seen all around. A molecule called RNA does this, I
> think, in the presence of the right ingredients: a
> copy of the RNA molecule naturally forms alongside the
> first molecule. It isn't firm science to say that
> this is definitely how living things came into
> existence, but RNA also is used by our bodies as a
> copy of DNA - or perhaps DNA is used by RNA as a way
> to copy itself more faithfully. Although language of
> intentions and deliberate acts isn't really
> appropriate for molecules.
The general principle is correct - that self replicating
molecules may not necessarily be impossibly hard to
arise by accident under the right conditions, but RNA
cannot occur under natural abiotic conditions of the early
earth.
It is a lot harder for life to originate than you
suggest.
My own wild speculation is that on a large comet or
radically non earthlike planet with an active liquid
vapor solid cycle, conditions did occur, producing non
rna life, which gave rise to rna life, which gave rise
to rna/protein life, which gave rise to dna/rna/protein
life. Meteors or comet fragments then carried
lithotropic bacteria to earth after the hadean period.
Eukaryotes, and eventually tardigrades may have evolved
in situ, or arrived in the same manner. (The original
planet is no longer in our solar system, never was in
our solar system, or it was too small to retain its
atmosphere, thereby conveniently destroying the
evidence.)
Another possibility is that for life to spontaneously
arise is indeed astronomically unlikely, but in an
infinite universe, the astronomically unlikely is in
fact certain, in which case we will find an empty
universe awaiting the touch of life.
Mike Painter
I can't prove it but I suspect that my concept is indeed infinite. It is
certainly as large as you want it to be and may be aleph 1 on length.
Before the end of the first second in that thousand year day over four days
will have passed. Each of those four days is 1000 years long.
You may never get to the end of the first second.
And you have to factor in the idea that Swift was right. Struldbrug is the
name of those humans in the nation of Luggnagg who are born seemingly
normal, but are in fact immortal. However, although struldbrugs do not die,
they do nonetheless continue aging.
And remember as was pointed out by Jaamie Cullum
Methuselah lived 900 years
Methuselah lived 900 years
who calls that livin' when no gal will give in
to no man who's 900 years
Terry Cross
That is the paradox. If good/evil equals obedience/disobedience as we
are told, then without knowledge of good.evil as the fruit would give,
we have no knowledge of obedience/disobedience.
TCross
Terry Cross
Oh, yes, but not good poetry either.
TCross
Don Martin
wrote:
Written by Ira Greshwin, though.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Suzanne
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:41:30 +0200, Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > Hannele wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:49:09 +0200, Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 19, 3:29 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Opinion: This is why Eve was fooled and not Adam.
> >>>> Adam saw God create. Eve didn't.
> >>> Not fooled? Adam did eat that fruit, didn't he?
> >> Yeah, but only because she MADE him do it <snigger>
>
> > So she got punished for his lack of responsibility. That sounds familiar,
> > somehow.
>
> He was in a hurry to blame her: "But... but... but... she made me eat it!".
>
There's something else in there, too. Adam said to God, "The woman
which THOU gavest me, gave it to me and I did eat." Sounds like he was
ultimately blaming God.
>
Suzanne
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
It isn't whether you win or lose; it's how you place the blame.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
William December Starr
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> It isn't whether you win or lose; it's how you place the blame.
"Did we win?"
"No, but if we think fast we might live to lie about it."
-- wds
Suzanne
> > On Oct 19, 3:29 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> two different stories about the Creation and that they
> >> have things being created in a different order and then
> >> of course, creeps in the story of "Lilith" and people
> >> assume that this was Adam's first wife and that she
> >> was created in Genesis 1 and that Eve was created
> >> in Genesis 2.
>
> >> But does this make sense? Let's examine it and see,
> >> because opinions do not equate to automatic fact. :)
>
> It does not have to make sense because both works are fiction.
>
>
>
> >> Knowing how to read, means looking at ALL of the words. :)
>
> >> Remember that man made the chapter divisions much,
> >> much later. There were no chapter divisions in the
> >> original text. No verse divisions either. While
> >> unbelievers like to claim that chapter 2 was inserted
> >> later, they forget that it was actually one continuous
> >> text. We must also ask ourselves, is any writer
> >> stupid enough to write Genesis 1 and then directly
> >> contradict himself like this? Hello??? :)
>
> Irrelevant as scholars do NOT make the distinction between the stories based
> on an English translation. They do so based on "(1) the convergence of
> several different lines of evidence; (2) the linguistic evidence (that the
> stages of the biblical Hebrew of the sources enables us to identify when the
> sources were written); and (3) the narrative flow of the text (we can
> separate whole stories that each flow without a break, like the two flood
> stories, when read independently)
>
> >>
>
> >> Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
> >> Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
> >> What you'll find, is that God made man.
>
> As you said, read the text. In Chapter one god creates the animals and then,
> unless you believe that god created a hermaphrodite in Chapter one he
> created
> man and woman.
> that
> 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
> him; male and female created he them.
> and told them to reproduce.
>
> In Chapter two he creates man then the animals and then, because it was not
> smart enough, woman.
>
> >> To reiterate in a bit more detail...
>
> >> If we examine the text carefully, we see that Genesis 1
> >> is an overview of the entire Creation.
>
> Something nobody from any major school of theology has believed in well over
> 100 years.
>
The major seminaries of the Southern Baptist Convention, which
includes major seminaries,
teach that Genesis, chapter 1 is indeed an
overview of Creation. Genesis, chapter 2 is
a continuation of Gen. chapter 1, and then
in Genesis, chapter 6, it confirms that Adam
and Eve were themselves created during the
Creation time in chapter 1 when man was
created, and it names them as Adam and
Mrs. Adam.
>
Genesis 2 continues still on day 6. Still during
that day, Eve is created because in Gen. chapter
6 it says "in the day in which man was created,
they were called Adam" and it says that he
created "them," male and female. So, Adam and
Eve were Mr. and Mrs. Adam.
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
> On Oct 20, 9:08 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 5:57 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 19, 3:29 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> Most people believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are
>
> > > >> two different stories about the Creation and that they
> > > >> have things being created in a different order and then
> > > >> of course, creeps in the story of "Lilith" and people
> > > >> assume that this was Adam's first wife and that she
> > > >> was created in Genesis 1 and that Eve was created
> > > >> in Genesis 2.
>
> > > >> But does this make sense? Let's examine it and see,
> > > >> because opinions do not equate to automatic fact. :)
>
> > > It does not have to make sense because both works are fiction.
>
> > > >> Knowing how to read, means looking at ALL of the words. :)
>
> > > >> Remember that man made the chapter divisions much,
> > > >> much later. There were no chapter divisions in the
> > > >> original text. No verse divisions either. While
> > > >> unbelievers like to claim that chapter 2 was inserted
> > > >> later, they forget that it was actually one continuous
> > > >> text. We must also ask ourselves, is any writer
> > > >> stupid enough to write Genesis 1 and then directly
> > > >> contradict himself like this? Hello??? :)
>
> > > Irrelevant as scholars do NOT make the distinction between the stories based
> > > on an English translation.
>
> > agree with scholars of previous ages, and scholars of the future will
> > not agree with those of today.
>
> > You quote them like they are demigods, when in fact they are mostly
> > rich kids who thought teaching would be better than working for a
> > living.
>
> > > They do so based on "(1) the convergence of
> > > several different lines of evidence; (2) the linguistic evidence (that the
> > > stages of the biblical Hebrew of the sources enables us to identify when the
> > > sources were written); and (3) the narrative flow of the text (we can
> > > separate whole stories that each flow without a break, like the two flood
> > > stories, when read independently)
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
> > > >> Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
> > > >> What you'll find, is that God made man.
>
> > > As you said, read the text. In Chapter one god creates the animals and then,
> > > unless you believe that god created a hermaphrodite in Chapter one he
> > > created
> > > man and woman.
> > > that
> > > 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
> > > him; male and female created he them.
> > > and told them to reproduce.
>
> > > In Chapter two he creates man then the animals and then, because it was not
> > > smart enough, woman.
>
>
> > > >> To reiterate in a bit more detail...
>
> > > >> If we examine the text carefully, we see that Genesis 1
> > > >> is an overview of the entire Creation.
>
> > > Something nobody from any major school of theology has believed in well over
> > > 100 years.
>
> > rotated around the earth. And -- who cares? The major school of
> > theology that wrote the Talmud insisted that pi is equal to three.
> > And -- who cares?
>
> > TCross
>
> Yes you don't care.
> But at the same time, why should you care about ancient myths which
> are irrelevant to your modern life?
> And those stories were supposed to con the Jews only.- Hide quoted text -
>
Terry was responding to what he said, and he said something that he
thought was the truth, which is not
like anything I've heard from seminary students at the major
seminaries that I know of. If the theological
institutions that he was referring to are telling something
really wrong, I think Terry was trying to show him to think for
himself in spite of what they might say that is
wrong.
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> One fine day in alt.atheism, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
> > observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
> > good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
>
> Lots of times I've seen this fruit represented by an apple. But apples are
> grocery stores. And they buy apples.
>
> Go figure...
>
event was told as being real,
and we do have in the genealogies of Jesus, the
real Adam listed. Adam is also listed in the N.T.
and spoken of as being a real person.
>
Adam and Eve were closed off from the Garden
of Eden after that, and the reason is given so
that they would not eat of the Tree of Life. That
was not a denial for later heaven, but for the fact
that if they ate of it in the fallen state, they would
be doomed to be, forever in a fallen, and therefore
lost state. They put their trust in the promised
Messiah, there called the Seed of the Woman, that
would be born in the future. That they allowed God
to clothe them with clothes that he, himself sewed
for them shows that they put on his righteousness,
which is to say they trusted in his plan of salvation,
which meant they trusted the Seed/Redeeemr to be their Lord and
Savior. We know that their children,
Cain and Abel knew to bring a sacrifice of an animal,
and that always represented the type of the one that
would follow, which is the Messiah who would take
away their sins.
>
Suzanne
>
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Where do you get this stuff from, may I ask?
The fact Cain did /not/ bring an appropriate sacrifice, if I correctly
recall who did what, was the basis of trouble. And Abel brought a
sacrifice that pleased God and then was murdered by his brother.
Pleasing God and finding a dollar gives you the price of a Starbucks
plastic teaspoon, apparently.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
You realise this means Adam has to try and reject every animal in the
world as a potential companion, plus think up names, plus undergo
liposuction, all on day six?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:53:43 -0700, "Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >And remember as was pointed out by Jaamie Cullum
> >Methuselah lived 900 years
> >Methuselah lived 900 years
> >who calls that livin' when no gal will give in
> >to no man who's 900 years
> >
>
> Written by Ira Greshwin, though.
That ain't necessarily so.
(I assume that Mr. Cullum mentioned that possibility in relation to
the premises he was discussing, too.)
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
DNA, telomeres, mutations, yadda yadda. What causes mutations? They
just happen, all the time. Also, the swine flu virus: a cause, not a
symptom.
> > If we suppose that the Garden of Eden was disease-free and accident-
> > free, there's still a lot of repair to be done on the human body.
> > Now... the bible proposes that early generations of humans lived for
> > many hundreds of years. Really, though, we can't see how that could
> > be so.
> >
>
> Many scholars believe those numbers represent how long that person's
> lineage (sons, grandsons, etc.) survived until a certain date, or time
> in early Jewish history.
Oh really.
> > So in fact it's all hokum, isn't it?
> >
>
> You can believe that if you want to.
> The question is: Can you prove it's all hokum?
"I know you are but what am I?"
Suzanne
> Why look at trivial sequence issues for biblical contradictions? *
>
> What about "Turn the other cheek" vs. "eye for an eye"?
>
> Basically, you have a fire and brimstone Old Testament, with the New
> Testament preaching something entirely different. Vengeful old school
> deity vs. nice new age deity (except for those pesky Temple sales
>
Interesting post, well written.
>
> dudes). Nothing subtle or allegorical.
>
> That dichotomy is something Christians understand quite well,
> apparently, as an impressive amount are fans of the death penalty even
> while they preach peace and love. To put it differently, 80+% of
> Americans believe in God, and the death penalty is generally deeply
> disliked in less religious Western countries. Yup, bet Jesus would
> feel right at home in Texas.
>
> The reason I am not religious is personal lack of belief. Something I
> regret, as a belief in afterlife would be nicely comforting. The
> reason I wonder about Christians is because few of them seem to have
> internalized Christ's teachings and many are all about Hell instead.
> I deeply respect "nice" Christians, but the rest amuse me.
>
Real Christianity is simply someone's putting their trust in Jesus
Christ and him alone for salvation. None of us can be perfect, so
there is no need in trying to be perfect, because that won't earn
salvation. "Believing,"
is not a matter of trying to conjure up an image that
you believe, so much as it is a decision that one makes
to put their trust in Christ to be the payment for all of their sins.
With that decision to trust in what Christ did
on the cross to take our place to pay the penalty for our sins, we
decide to turn to the Lord to lead our lives.
That turning is called "repentance," and is not the straight-jacket of
trying to be good in order to earn
salvation, but it simply means that you turn to God in faith to lead
you in your life. The word "repentance," simply means that you
redirect your pathway in life to
allow the Lord to govern your life and to lead you. It is not a
"feeling" it is an action and decision to trust, and as best you can
do, to accept his lead and do what he leads you to do. As a person
follows, his faith will grow
stronger. He will know what is the right thing by reading the Bible,
and also by the inward influence of the Holy Spirit who has come to
live inside of him. Salvation is just that simple. You plug into "I
can't be good enough to earn my way into Heaven, so I'm going to place
my trust in Jesus who already paid for my ticket to get there, if I
receive it." and then turning to him for guidance, instruction,
comfort, and intervention in your life. When one makes this decision,
he is not going to tell you to now go climb Mt. Everest. He will say
simple things to you daily as the day unfolds, such as "write your
Grandmother. Do the dishes. Go to work. Milk the cows, gather the
eggs, invite people over, read 30 minutes in the Bible" and as you do
these things, he will give you peace. Sometimes things can seem hard,
like if you lose your job or something like that, but he calls you to
trust him through that, and when you get to the other side of it and
get a new job, you will have stretched your faith and grown
spiritually to where you will trust him more and more. It's just
simple faith, one event after another, that we will follow as a
Christian.
>
Some of those things above that I described, you do already because
your own inner conscience tells you to do them, but after you have put
your trust in Christ for salvation, when you do those things, you do
them with a new motivation, and that makes them easier to do.
You get a sort of "mechanical advantage," from the fact that your life
has changed gears, just like you change gears when riding on a 10
speed bicycle, when you are climbing a hill. Faith is not going by
feelings, it's trusting.
>
> On another note, I read an historical analysis of the New Testament
> gospels and the author, a historian, did a pretty good job convincing
> me they were actually _quite_ coherent with each other, if considered
> as historical records of the same events written at different times by
> different people. He managed to kind of tease out what seemed to be
> little author "embellishments" by comparing the different versions
> contents to each other.
>
> I think it may have been "Jesus", by Michael Smith, who usually does
> Roman & Ancient history. He never did say if he was a believer or
> not, something quite refreshing. Can look it up.
>
> * I understand that if one book says A>B and the other says A<B then
> that is a pretty stark technical contradiction. IMHO it misses the
> big picture of nice vs. vengeful.
>
I'm not sure if you are talking about the contrast of the Old
Testament to that of the New Testament here, since you mention
vengeance vs. nice, but the nice does show up in the lives of the
patriarchs in the O.T. when they put their trust in the Lord to be
their Savior.
They trusted in the promised Messiah looking forward to the cross,
while today we trust Him, looking back at the cross. For example, when
Jacob wrestled with the
"angel," he was troubled about facing Esau again, and his sin from
having tricked Esau out to the birthright and blessing troubled him.
It doesn't say there what transaction was made exactly, but later in
Jacob's
life, he referred back to that time as being the time
when all of his iniquity was taken away. That means
that his sins were taken away, as in his having put his trust in the
Lord to be his Savior. Jacob's name had
been changed by the Lord to be "Israel." Even though the Bible
continues to call him Jacob for identity purposes, the phrase "the
Holy One of Israel" doesn't refer to all the Israelite people, but to
the one whom
Jacob put his trust in, that being the pre-incarnate Word of God which
John 1:1-3 tells about who was made flesh and dwelt on earth, which is
Christ. By the time that Jacob continued on his journey, he was amazed
to find that the Lord had changed his brother's heart and that he was
gladly received by him.
>
Suzanne
>
Yap
Why did you assume the following:
1)> That There was a god?
2)> That it created anything?
3)> That Adam and Eve were his creation?
4)> That a tree was created?
5)> That the fruits were anything but forbidden?
Doesn't this illustrate the stupid of your god?
Yap
What are these nonsense?
Human was thought of created and left to forbid eating fruits?
A god of no sense to teach and guide, just to command?
Do our present parents do that?
No....it defies all possible logics.
Mankind survived a very long history, without resorting to the mythic
way of ancient stories.
And this world does not belong to the whites and Jews.
Many people of other races, in fact, majority of world population have
nothing to do with your god but prospered, without even heard of JC.
Yap
Why would one human created with dust while the other from rib?
You have no common sense to refute the stupidity of the story.
>
>
>
>
>
> Suzanne
Yap
Who had the right to re-write the OT into a NT?
This shows however ridiculous, the theists could not defend this act
in re-writing of the original "god's word".
The changes was necessary in order to rid of the barbaric teaching and
evilness of the word of god.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> Why would one human created with dust while the other from rib?
If you have meat available, why use dust? Did Frankenstein start with
dust?
Anyway God used up the dust making animals...
Also the Jewish scholars thought it was hugely significant that Adam
and Eve, man and woman, are clones. The dirty old devils. No, not
clones exactly, but "one flesh".
Maybe when God made each animal it was a pretty random process. To
get something close enough to human to love, you have to derive it
from existing human material.
Deleted bible verses:
57 And Adam said, All the animals are fine, but where is someone who
will give me a blow job?
58 And Adam looked at God.
59 And God looked at Adam.
60 And Adam looked at God.
61 And God said, Let me try something new here.
Suzanne
>
Why do you assume not?
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Oct 25, 10:33 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 23, 5:21 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > VSim wrote:
>
> > > > You have to obey God without eating any fruit.
>
> > > Of good and evil, that is.
>
> > That is the paradox. If good/evil equals obedience/disobedience as we
> > are told, then without knowledge of good.evil as the fruit would give,
> > we have no knowledge of obedience/disobedience.
>
> > TCross
>
> What are these nonsense?
>
in concise words that are loaded with meaning. Those words are not
nonsense.
>
> Human was thought of created and left to forbid eating fruits?
> A god of no sense to teach and guide, just to command?
> Do our present parents do that?
> No....it defies all possible logics.
>
Isaiah 55:8:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
saith the LORD."
>
> Mankind survived a very long history, without resorting to the mythic
> way of ancient stories.
>
>
> And this world does not belong to the whites and Jews.
> Many people of other races, in fact, majority of world population have
> nothing to do with your god but prospered, without even heard of JC.
>
that, so I'll let you off the hook. It's been said, by the way, that
the gospel of Jesus has been preached in every country.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
being formed out of the rib of Adam,
for example. The Bible tells that when God did this, it says he
"closed up the flesh thereof," of the rib. The way the Hebrew is
written, "the flesh there of," modifies "rib," rather than the entry
wound into Abel's
side. There is a membrane that covers a rib that is called the
peristeum. It is fleshy, more so that the membrane on most other
bones. Come to find out in modern times, if a doctor repairs someone
and needs some bone for a graft, often they will take of the rib bone
if needed badly enough, because they have discovered that if they sew
the peristeum back up, it contains osteoblasts that are bone forming
cells that will replenish the bone tha that is missing provided that a
piece of the rib bone is still in place. This has not been known in
modern times but for a few years. Yet
there it is in the Bible from long, long, long ago.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
The New Testament is not a re-write of the Old Testament. It is formed
by the testimony of Jesus'
followers as he set it forth from his prayer in the
Garden of Gethsemane that people should be sanctified by God's word
(the Old Testament) plus
the testimony of his followers (the New Testament).
Here, I'll show you:
John 17:17; 19:
17. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
19. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
believe on me through their word."
The latter verse applies to those of us that hear the word after the
time of the early followers of Christ, as well as those that heard the
followers' testimonies in that time.
Then the New Testament goes on to say that the word increased as the
testimony of the followers was spread:
Acts 6:7:
"And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples
multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests
were obedient to the faith."
Suzanne
Mike Painter
Self referential schools which mandate a belief in the bible contrary to all
evidence are hardly schools where real scholarship exist.
" .The freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary is
limited by the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of
the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists."
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp
That is not scholarship, that is bookworship.
"There are many people who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to
scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical archeology,
and literary and historical skills to work on the problem, and who meet
discuss and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through
scholarly journals, conferences, etc."
Richard Elliott Friedman "Who wrote the bible."
Suzanne
orig...@moderators.isc.org <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 7:53 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why would one human created with dust while the other from rib?
>
> If you have meat available, why use dust? Did Frankenstein start with
> dust?
>
> Anyway God used up the dust making animals...
>
don't know. The Bible tells that animals were made of their own dust,
too.
Psalm 104:26-30:
26 There go the ships: there is that LEVIATHAN, whom thou hast made
to play therein.
27 These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in
due season.
28 That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they
are filled with good.
29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their
breath, they die, and return to THEIR DUST.
30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest
the face of the earth.
>
> Also the Jewish scholars thought it was hugely significant that Adam
>
> The dirty old devils. No, not
> clones exactly, but "one flesh".
>
dependent) upon one another
both physically as well as spiritually.
>
Suzanne
Terry Cross
> On Oct 25, 10:33 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 23, 5:21 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > VSim wrote:
>
> > > > You have to obey God without eating any fruit.
>
> > > Of good and evil, that is.
>
> > That is the paradox. If good/evil equals obedience/disobedience as we
> > are told, then without knowledge of good.evil as the fruit would give,
> > we have no knowledge of obedience/disobedience.
>
> > TCross
>
> What are these nonsense?
> Human was thought of created and left to forbid eating fruits?
> A god of no sense to teach and guide, just to command?
> Do our present parents do that?
> No....it defies all possible logics.
> Mankind survived a very long history, without resorting to the mythic
> way of ancient stories.
And what evidence have you for that? None?
TCross
Robibnikoff
"Suzanne" <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7eff53d8-54b1-4b64...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
No objective evidence god(s) exist.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Terry Cross
> "Suzanne" <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7eff53d8-54b1-4b64...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 2:34 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why did you assume the following:
> > 1)> That There was a god?
> > 2)> That it created anything?
> > 3)> That Adam and Eve were his creation?
> > 4)> That a tree was created?
> > 5)> That the fruits were anything but forbidden?
> > Doesn't this illustrate the stupid of your god?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Why do you assume not?
>
> >Suzanne
>
> No objective evidence god(s) exist.
But of course not. Objects have no knowledge of god and cannot
witness for him.
Does a raindrop speak of a cloud? Does a shadow speak of the sun?
Only to those who have prior knowledge of clouds and suns.
Does a cow-pie speak of a cow? Only to those who have prior knowledge
of cows.
You will find no footprints, no fingernail clippings, no fossilized
eggs, no tooth-marks, no fossilized bones from god.
All will appear "natural." Or if an exception is found, natural laws
will be invented to account, and all will again appear natural.
And "no objective evidence [of] god(s) [will] exist."
TCross
Free Lunch
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1ae96312-b9ca-4c6b...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
So you agree that all the religious claims about gods are completely
unfounded.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> You want common sense? I'll give you common sense. The story of Eve
> being formed out of the rib of Adam,
> for example. The Bible tells that when God did this, it says he
> "closed up the flesh thereof," of the rib. The way the Hebrew is
> written, "the flesh there of," modifies "rib," rather than the entry
> side.
A verse note attached to The NET Bible says: Traditionally translated
“rib,” the Hebrew word actually means “side.”
> There is a membrane that covers a rib that is called the
> peristeum. It is fleshy, more so that the membrane on most other
> bones. Come to find out in modern times, if a doctor repairs someone
> and needs some bone for a graft, often they will take of the rib bone
> if needed badly enough, because they have discovered that if they sew
> the peristeum back up, it contains osteoblasts that are bone forming
> cells that will replenish the bone tha that is missing provided that a
> piece of the rib bone is still in place. This has not been known in
> modern times but for a few years. Yet
> there it is in the Bible from long, long, long ago.
Does it exist in real life outside "Answers in Genesis"?
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:50:11 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
> <1ae96312-b9ca-4c6b-b2e3-c5c57fa81...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
Of course not. Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
kind of evidence, as you well know.
TCross
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> Of course not. Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
> you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
> kind of evidence, as you well know.
It is the only kind that matters in any sort of rational discussion.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Suzanne
orig...@moderators.isc.org <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> Suzanne wrote:
> > You want common sense? I'll give you common sense. The story of Eve
> > being formed out of the rib of Adam,
> > for example. The Bible tells that when God did this, it says he
> > "closed up the flesh thereof," of the rib. The way the Hebrew is
> > written, "the flesh there of," modifies "rib," rather than the entry
> > wound into (Adam's)
> > side.
>
> A verse note attached to The NET Bible says: Traditionally translated
> “rib,” the Hebrew word actually means “side.”
>
this verse, and I will show you why. When God brought Eve to Adam and
presented her to him, Adam got all excited over her, of course. And he
said something that applied to how she was formed.
Genesis 2:23
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
This makes it clear that in this case, the word "rib" is meant, just
as he replies that she is made of his bone and his flesh.
>
> > There is a membrane that covers a rib that is called the
> > peristeum. It is fleshy, more so that the membrane on most other
> > bones. Come to find out in modern times, if a doctor repairs someone
> > and needs some bone for a graft, often they will take of the rib bone
> > if needed badly enough, because they have discovered that if they sew
> > the peristeum back up, it contains osteoblasts that are bone forming
> > cells that will replenish the bone tha that is missing provided that a
> > piece of the rib bone is still in place. This has not been known in
> > modern times but for a few years. Yet
> > there it is in the Bible from long, long, long ago.
>
> Does it exist in real life outside "Answers in Genesis"?
>
what is in the Bible.
>
Suzanne
Terry Cross
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > Of course not. Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
> > you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
> > kind of evidence, as you well know.
>
> It is the only kind that matters in any sort of rational discussion.
So! In your universe, all discussion of art, aesthetics, patriotism,
purpose, emotions, loyalty, and anything else not visible on a
microscope slide -- is not "rational" ??
You must be a graduate of American public school system, with a
graduate degree in military zombie-ism. If it moves, kill it, etc.
And yet, on casual observation, you might be mistaken for a living
human being.
Your kind is a tragedy for all civilization.
TCross
David Johnston
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 26, 8:35�pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
><seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Terry Cross wrote:
>>
>> > Of course not. � Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
>> > you call "objective" evidence. �But objective evidence is not the only
>> > kind of evidence, as you well know.
>>
>> � � � � It is the only kind that matters in any sort of rational discussion.
>
>
>So! In your universe, all discussion of art, aesthetics, patriotism,
>purpose, emotions, loyalty, and anything else not visible on a
>microscope slide -- is not "rational" ??
>
What makes you think there is no objective evidence for all those
things?
The Doctor
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 26, 5:59=A0pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:50:11 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
>> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <1ae96312-b9ca-4c6b-b2e3-c5c57fa81...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 26, 3:00=A0pm, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>> >> "Suzanne" <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>.
>> >> On Oct 26, 2:34 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Why did you assume the following:
>> >> > 1)> That There was a god?
>> >> > 2)> That it created anything?
>> >> > 3)> That Adam and Eve were his creation?
>> >> > 4)> That a tree was created?
>> >> > 5)> That the fruits were anything but forbidden?
>> >> > Doesn't this illustrate the stupid of your god?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >Why do you assume not?
>>
>> >> >Suzanne
>>
>> >> No objective evidence god(s) exist.
>>
>> >witness for him.
>>
>> >Does a raindrop speak of a cloud? =A0Does a shadow speak of the sun?
>> >Only to those who have prior knowledge of clouds and suns.
>>
>> >of cows.
>>
>> >You will find no footprints, no fingernail clippings, no fossilized
>> >eggs, no tooth-marks, no fossilized bones from god.
>>
>> >will be invented to account, and all will again appear natural.
>>
>> >And "no objective evidence [of] god(s) [will] exist."
>>
>> So you agree that all the religious claims about gods are completely
>> unfounded.
>
>
>Of course not. Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
>you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
>kind of evidence, as you well know.
>
>TCross
Ever invited a Creation Scientist into the thread?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
For the latest World News go to http://www.cuttingedge.org/
Terry Cross
> In article <173de3ae-0244-489f-97d9-69916d8d8...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
I have never met one on or off the 'Net.
TCross
Taemon
> Ever invited a Creation Scientist into the thread?
What is that?
T.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Oct 26, 9:29 pm, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Suzanne wrote:
> > > You want common sense? I'll give you common sense. The story of Eve
> > > being formed out of the rib of Adam,
> > > for example. The Bible tells that when God did this, it says he
> > > "closed up the flesh thereof," of the rib. The way the Hebrew is
> > > written, "the flesh there of," modifies "rib," rather than the entry
> > > wound into (Adam's)
> > > side.
>
> > A verse note attached to The NET Bible says: Traditionally translated
> > “rib,” the Hebrew word actually means “side.”
>
> In some conditions the word can be translated as "side," but not in
> this verse, and I will show you why. When God brought Eve to Adam and
> presented her to him, Adam got all excited over her, of course. And he
> said something that applied to how she was formed.
> Genesis 2:23
> "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
> she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
> This makes it clear that in this case, the word "rib" is meant, just
> as he replies that she is made of his bone and his flesh.
Hmm. Not convinced.
Do you know that many male mammals have a bone in the penis, but
humans do not?