Genesis 1 & 2: Is There A Contradiction?
Pastor Dave
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
Terry Cross
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
Randy ®
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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!
Unbelievers are at enmity against God (Romans 8:7). They are
therefore hostile witnesses when it comes to Scripture. They're
not trying to find the truth, they're trying to kill it so they
can be God and do what they want.
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
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.
Ike E 2009
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:03qpd5hfdfo3l5sef...@4ax.com...
>
> Many people of course, have opinions about this subject.
> But what's important is the Bible facts, amen?
That's right, and you should try paying attention to them sometime.
[snip the rest of the Preterist nonsense]
Ike
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.
In My Fathers House
[...]
> Unbelievers are at enmity against God (Romans 8:7). They are
> therefore hostile witnesses when it comes to Scripture. They're
> not trying to find the truth, they're trying to kill it so they
> can be God and do what they want.
You are a walking, talking, Zero-Tolerance Policy.
Ike E 2009
"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6r6dnWqJLIcJqkDX...@giganews.com...
> On Mon, 10/19/09, at 5:29:54PM,
> Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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!
>
>
> Unbelievers are at enmity against God (Romans 8:7). They are therefore
> hostile witnesses when it comes to Scripture. They're not trying to find
> the truth, they're trying to kill it so they can be God and do what they
> want.
And some believers do far worse because of their ignorance of scripture.
The two Genesis accounts are parallel stories, the first about the natural
creation arriving at the natural man (generic and plural), i.e. the product
of evolution, and the second about the spiritual man, Adam, as told in
spiritual symbols, who is with God before any living thing is made, and then
helps God "name" them.
And what are these things?
"Cattle, beasts of the field, and fowls of the heavens," to which is later
added the fourth element, "creeping things."
These are the same symbols God used to tell Peter to preach the Gospel to
the Gentiles.
So, in fact, God created Adam first, then brought forth all of the nations
on the Earth, and then set Adam (and Eve) in among them.
And thus the conflict began between "the tree of life" and "the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil."
And Ezekiel explained what the whole "Garden of Eden" saga was REALLY all
about--the civilization of ancient Sumer in the Mesopotamian Valley--and
that it is NOT a LITERALIST ACCOUNT, but a PROPHETIC ACCOUNT of the conflict
that is with us to this day: The "sons of God" versus "the sons of men"
(a.k.a. "Satan").
Ike
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
Randy ®
Are you disputing that Romans 8:7 is God-breathed Scripture, or
the interpretation provided? If the latter, what are you
proposing is the correct interpretation/application:
__________________________________
__________________________________
If the former, I'll add it to the list of Scripture you have to
kill before you get to be God.
Randy ®
Ike E 2009 <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Randy �"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6r6dnWqJLIcJqkDX...@giganews.com...
>> > On Mon, 10/19/09, at 5:29:54PM,
>> > Pastor Dave<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>>> >> 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!
>> >
>> >
>> > Unbelievers are at enmity against God (Romans 8:7). They are therefore
>> > hostile witnesses when it comes to Scripture. They're not trying to find
>> > the truth, they're trying to kill it so they can be God and do what they
>> > want.
> And some believers do far worse because of their ignorance of scripture.
Your two-account creation narrative theory has already been
answered line-by line on at least two or three occasions, and not
one line of it was found to be a necessary or even likely
interpretation. Each time, you went back and tacked on a new verse.
bob young
Pastor Dave wrote:
> Many people of course, have opinions about this subject.
> But what's important is the Bible facts, amen?
FACTS ! ? What a Joke
The Bible
A book that can be contradicted usually by simply quoting
another passage from the same book?
A book in which some of the laws are genuinely Barbaric?
A book that includes instructions on the proper way to sell
your daughter into slavery?
A book that instructs you to STONE TO DEATH children who do not
obey you?
A book in which the god told his followers to Kill all the
CHILDREN and MEN - but keep the VIRGIN women for themselves.
A book that has two different stories for most of its major
points.. For example - there are two different sets of
commandments - that according to the book - are IDENTICAL -
however - anyone with eyes can see they
are NOT.
A book that has lots of physical facts simply wrong?
[Acknowledgements to Thommadura]
Quite a book, but exactly what one would expect from a book
written by frightened primitives
::: Jesus is LORD :::
6r6dnWqJLIcJqkDX...@giganews.com
> On Mon, 10/19/09, at 5:29:54PM,
> Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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!
>
>
> Unbelievers are at enmity against God (Romans 8:7). They are
> therefore hostile witnesses when it comes to Scripture. They're
> not trying to find the truth, they're trying to kill it so they
> can be God and do what they want.
Correct.
In My Fathers House
>
> > On Oct 19, 9:07 pm, Randy ®<pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Unbelievers are at enmity against God (Romans 8:7). They are
> >> therefore hostile witnesses when it comes to Scripture. They're
> >> not trying to find the truth, they're trying to kill it so they
> >> can be God and do what they want.
>
> > You are a walking, talking, Zero-Tolerance Policy.
>
> Are you disputing that Romans 8:7 is God-breathed Scripture, or
> the interpretation provided?
Both. If it is God-breathed then we are all screwed anyway since that
would make God bad.
> If the latter, what are you
> proposing is the correct interpretation/application:
>
> __________________________________
>
First of all learn the difference between hostile and hostile witness.
Cannot submit to God's law =/= They're not trying to find the truth,
they're trying to kill it so they can be God and do what they want.
> __________________________________
>
> If the former, I'll add it to the list of Scripture you have to
> kill before you get to be God.
I'm never going to get to be God. I wouldn't want to. Try not to be
stupid. Please try.
Randy ®
In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 4:30 am, Randy �<pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10/19/09, at 11:46:06PM,
>> In My Fathers House<hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 19, 9:07 pm, Randy �<pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Unbelievers are at enmity against God (Romans 8:7). They are
>>>> therefore hostile witnesses when it comes to Scripture. They're
>>>> not trying to find the truth, they're trying to kill it so they
>>>> can be God and do what they want.
>>
>>> You are a walking, talking, Zero-Tolerance Policy.
>>
>> Are you disputing that Romans 8:7 is God-breathed Scripture, or
>> the interpretation provided?
>
> Both. If it is God-breathed then we are all screwed anyway since that
> would make God bad.
Says who? "Reality" by House?
>> If the latter, what are you
>> proposing is the correct interpretation/application:
>>
>> __________________________________
>>
>
> First of all learn the difference between hostile and hostile witness.
You witness about Scripture every day, such as above. Almost
every time, it is to promote doubt it is God's word. You are
apparently a natural man (1 Cor. 6:9ff.). Adding condescension
and arrogance to your dogmatic assertions doesn't help.
<snip>
In My Fathers House
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 4:30 am, Randy ®<pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10/19/09, at 11:46:06PM,
> >> In My Fathers House<hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 19, 9:07 pm, Randy ®<pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>> Unbelievers are at enmity against God (Romans 8:7). They are
> >>>> therefore hostile witnesses when it comes to Scripture. They're
> >>>> not trying to find the truth, they're trying to kill it so they
> >>>> can be God and do what they want.
>
> >>> You are a walking, talking, Zero-Tolerance Policy.
>
> >> Are you disputing that Romans 8:7 is God-breathed Scripture, or
> >> the interpretation provided?
>
> > Both. If it is God-breathed then we are all screwed anyway since that
> > would make God bad.
>
> Says who? "Reality" by House?
Nope, your work of fiction "Reality by House" has nothing to do with
anything. Logic tells us that if God is an evil tyrant with the
maturity of a young child then we are screwed. If God created us so
that we cannot be on his side then we are just ducks in his shooting
gallery.
> >> If the latter, what are you
> >> proposing is the correct interpretation/application:
>
> >> __________________________________
>
> > First of all learn the difference between hostile and hostile witness.
>
> You witness about Scripture every day, such as above.
Learn what hostile witness means. It's not my fault you abuse these
terms.
> Almost
> every time, it is to promote doubt it is God's word.
Why don't you demonstrate that it is? Let me guess - you will provide
a test nobody can take (remember Romans 8:7) and you will claim it is
objective even though we cannot verify the results that anybody else
gets from a test they cannot take.
[...]
Randy ®
In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > You witness about Scripture every day, such as above.
[]
>> > Almost
>> > every time, it is to promote doubt it is God's word.
> Why don't you demonstrate that it is?
What kind of delusional liar is going to say our Bibles mean God
is bad if it's really God's word, then deny he's trying to
undermine our Bibles? Oh yeah...you.
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.
Ike E 2009
You have yet to address what the Word says about the creation accounts.
First, you have to go through Ezekiel, who EXPLAINED what the whole "Garden
of Eden" saga was REALLY about, and it weren't 'bout no "snake" in a literal
"garden."
Then you have to go through God, who used the same symbols found in the
second Genesis account to tell Peter to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.
Even Jesus had to recognize the convention in the "dog" story, i.e. His
encounter with the Gentile woman.
> Each time, you went back and tacked on a new verse.
Guess that's a new concept for you--studying what the Bible actually says
about something instead of making up your own story (as you are doing to
Revelation, where you don't explain one lick of what's in the book while
expounding your OWN flawed interpretations).
Ike
Ike E 2009
" ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:7k5trpF...@mid.individual.net...
> Randy � pulpi...@gmail.com wrote in
> 6r6dnWqJLIcJqkDX...@giganews.com
>> On Mon, 10/19/09, at 5:29:54PM,
>> Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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!
>>
>>
>> Unbelievers are at enmity against God (Romans 8:7). They are
>> therefore hostile witnesses when it comes to Scripture. They're
>> not trying to find the truth, they're trying to kill it so they
>> can be God and do what they want.
>
> Correct.
And some of those claiming to be "believers" (wink, wink) do far more damage
than any unbeliever could ever do...
Ike
duke
>Remember that man made the chapter divisions much,
>much later.
And remember that Gen 1-11 was written after 2Kings and is not a scientific
accounting of God's creation of the universe and all in it, but instead Israel's
faith statement regarding same.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
In My Fathers House
>
>
>
> >> > You witness about Scripture every day, such as above.
> []
> >> > Almost
> >> > every time, it is to promote doubt it is God's word.
> > Why don't you demonstrate that it is?
>
> What kind of delusional liar is going to say our Bibles mean God
> is bad if it's really God's word, then deny he's trying to
> undermine our Bibles? Oh yeah...you.
Randy, I didn't write the Bible. I didn't make it say what it says.
Don't blame me if the Bible undermines what you wish to believe about
the Bible. But what you wish to believe about the Bible is not the
Bible itself and it is not my "trying" that has anything to do with
the Bible undermining your beliefs. That I won't join you in your
game of Pretend isn't me trying to undermine anything either.
Let me guess - you do not understand.
If a man were to make clay disks with the intention of using them as
target practice then those disks are made in such a way that they
cannot reconcile with their creator. Their purpose is destruction.
If that is similar to our relationship to our creator then we are
doomed anyway. I would rather believe God is good.
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.
Ike E 2009
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:afurd516968ophec2...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:29:54 -0400, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Remember that man made the chapter divisions much,
>>much later.
>
> And remember that Gen 1-11 was written after 2Kings and is not a
> scientific
> accounting of God's creation of the universe and all in it, but instead
> Israel's
> faith statement regarding same.
Ah, no.
The two accounts were written by two different authors, the "E" author
first, and the "J" author second (and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find
out that the "J" author was Ezekiel, since he's the one who explains what
the "Garden of Eden" saga was REALLY about).
Ike
Hannele
Yeah, but only because she MADE him do it <snigger>
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Jude Smart-Alex-ander
Even if Genesis 2 was a reiteration of Genesis 1, the order of things should
parallel each other.
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
Ike E 2009
"Jude Smart-Alex-ander" <ashm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hbl6mf$e3h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Actually, they do, but from different perspectives.
The first recounts the natural creation (evolution), while the second
recounts the supernatural creation (Adam) starting "before any other living
things," and then God and Adam begin dealing with the "other" man, i.e. the
natural man, a.k.a. the Gentiles.
Note that the second Genesis account uses the same symbolic words that God
used to tell Peter to go and preach the Gospel to the Gentiles--"cattle,
creeping things, beast of the field, and fowls of the air" (except "creeping
things" don't enter the story in Genesis until Satan comes along).
Ike
trag
> On another note, I read an historical analysis of the New Testament
> gospels and the author, a historian, did a pretty good job convincing
> me they were actually _quite_ coherent with each other, if considered
> as historical records of the same events written at different times by
> different people. He managed to kind of tease out what seemed to be
> little author "embellishments" by comparing the different versions
> contents to each other.
>
> I think it may have been "Jesus", by Michael Smith, who usually does
> Roman & Ancient history. He never did say if he was a believer or
> not, something quite refreshing. Can look it up.
Michael *Valentine* Smith? <blink, blink>?
Jude Smart-Alex-ander
"Ike E 2009" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hbl7um$qco$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Can you read?
Hannele
He was in a hurry to blame her: "But... but... but... she made me eat it!".
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Ike E 2009
Absolutely.
I can read where Ezekiel compared Egypt as contemporary to him to the
ancient proto-Assyro-Babylonian religion of the Mesopotamian Valley.
I can read where Jesus had to observe the sons of men (Gentiles)/sons of God
(Israelites) convention.
I can read the prophetic symbolisms which God used to tell Peter to preach
the Gospel to the Gentiles.
And the order of things DO "parallel each other."
The second prophecy fits into the first prophecy at about the third "day"
(not literal), after the earth was formed but before any other living thing
was created, and there was only the primordial mist covering the earth. Good
a time as any to set that 'ole evolution thing in motion.
Ike
I
>> Can you read?
>
> Absolutely.
You have demonstrated no ability to comprehend the most basic of texts.
> And the order of things DO "parallel each other."
Genesis 1 and 2 CONTRADICT each other and CONTRADICT science.
That you cannot comprehend the contradiction speaks more about yourself than
anything else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/gen001.htm &
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/gen002.htm (Jewish Publication
Society)
1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 Now the earth was
unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the
spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
*[HOW can there be water when the earth is not yet created?????? HOW can the
Earth be created BEFORE the sun and stars.]
3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the
light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was
evening and there was morning, one day.
*[HOW there be light without the sun or any stars? HOW can there be night
and day without a Sun and an Earth that rotates to cause the day and night?
The sun is not created until verse 14]
6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and
let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were
above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven.
And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
*[ How can Heaven be created AFTER water is created????]
9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto
one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called
the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas;
and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth
grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind,
wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the
earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree
bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that
it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
*[ HOW can vegetation exist without sunlight which is not created until the
next verse???? HOW does pollination happen without bees which are not
created yet?????
GENESIS 2 states 5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb
of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain
upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; 6 but there went
up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 Then
the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
- Yet the waters ARE there in GENESIS 1:6 and in 1:9 the oceans are formed!
Man is not made until Genesis 1:26.
Furthermore, vegetation is created AFTER man is formed in Genesis 2: 9 And
out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to
the sight, and good for food;]
14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons,
and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of
the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the
two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to
rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the
heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over
the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it
was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
*[The moon is not a "light" but reflects the light of the sun. How can stars
be formed AFTER vegetation on Earth????? It wrongly asserts a geo-centric
universe!]
20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and
let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God
created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth,
wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after
its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be
fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl
multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a
fifth day.
*[ Birds are created BEFORE land animals yet science states that land
animals came BEFORE birds.]
24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its
kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.'
And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and
the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground
after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said: 'Let us make
man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him;
male and female created He them.
*[In Genesis 2 man is NOT created by a word and divine fiat but fashioned
from the ground out of soil in the same manner as one would form a clay
idol - 7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul.]
28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that
creepeth upon the earth.' 29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every
herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree,
in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed-to you it shall be for food;
30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I
have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so. 31 And God saw every
thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening
and there was morning, the sixth day.
*[ EVERY plan is "food" - which means all POISONOUS plants must also be
food.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
Visit No Answers in Genesis! http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
--
"All things are probable. Try to believe. Really! Try to believe even if
it's bloody stupid and irrational. Why? Because I said so, that's why!
Don't ask questions. Just believe." - Mark 17: 1- 3 (MTV)
Ike E 2009
"I" <me@home000000000000420> wrote in message
news:4ade9e3b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Ike E 2009" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wroteth:
>
>>> Can you read?
>>
>> Absolutely.
>
> You have demonstrated no ability to comprehend the most basic of texts.
LOL
Does that mean I have to give back my diplomas and credits?
>> And the order of things DO "parallel each other."
>
>
> Genesis 1 and 2 CONTRADICT each other and CONTRADICT science.
Nonsense.
The first account is about the natural world (evolution) and the second
account is about the supernatural world and its interaction with the natural
world, given in prophetic symbolism.
See, THIS is something that would totally boil Mark T's potatoes, i.e. that
there might actually be a right interpretation of Genesis that MAKES SENSE.
<chuckle>
God forbid, right Mark?
Then you would be proven totally wrong...again.
> That you cannot comprehend the contradiction speaks more about yourself
> than anything else.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> from http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/gen001.htm &
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/gen002.htm (Jewish Publication
> Society)
>
> 1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
First thing is, this is an earth-centric prophetic account.
> 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of
> the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
"Earth" and "waters" here are used for concepts that a rather primitive man
wouldn't be able to perceive, i.e. elements, space, astrophysics, etc, since
there was no science available yet to go along with his observations.
> *[HOW can there be water when the earth is not yet created?????? HOW can
> the Earth be created BEFORE the sun and stars.]
[yawn]
> 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw
> the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And
> there was evening and there was morning, one day.
>
> *[HOW there be light without the sun or any stars?
Ah, the big bang, which flooded the universe with light as it started to
expand, and that within nanoseconds.
> HOW can there be night and day without a Sun and an Earth that rotates to
> cause the day and night? The sun is not created until verse 14]
[yawn]
The prophet was simply observing the beginning of pockets of light, and
pockets of darkness as the universe expanded.
> 6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and
> let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament,
> and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters
> which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the
> firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second
> day.
>
> *[ How can Heaven be created AFTER water is created????]
Ah, Mark, playing the fool.
There are three contexts of the word "heaven" in the Bible.
1) The atmosphere of the earth.
2) The cosmos (i.e. "space").
3) The eternal realm.
Thanks, Mark: You're actually demonstrating how much you DON'T know about
the Bible.
> 9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto
> one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so.
Beginning of plate tectonics.
> 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the
> waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said: 'Let
> the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing
> fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it
> was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its
> kind, and tree
> bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw
> that
> it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
>
> *[ HOW can vegetation exist without sunlight which is not created until
> the next verse???? HOW does pollination happen without bees which are not
> created yet?????
Ah, once more for the fool. The big bang flooded the universe with light,
which eventually settle into separation as the solar system formed.
In case you haven't heard, there are other suns in the cosmos than our one,
and they were originally MUCH closer together in the beginning.
> GENESIS 2 states 5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb
> of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain
> upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; 6 but there
> went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7
> Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
>
> - Yet the waters ARE there in GENESIS 1:6 and in 1:9 the oceans are
> formed! Man is not made until Genesis 1:26.
Once more for the fool: Genesis 1:1-2:3 are one prophecy, Genesis 2:4+ is
another prophecy.
The second prophecy backs up to about the third "day," and starts to explain
the OTHER creation, i.e. the supernatural (or, "angelic" man), and then on
to the rest.
> Furthermore, vegetation is created AFTER man is formed in Genesis 2: 9 And
> out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to
> the sight, and good for food;]
One more time for the moron.
The first prophecy refers to the natural man, generic and plural, i.e. the
Gentiles. They came at the END of the natural sequence, i.e. evolution.
The second prophecy starts with the supernatural man, Adam, who helps God
"Name" (a form of existentialism) the rest of the living things.
So, we have the product of evolution at the END of the natural chain, and
Adam BEFORE the living things are created.
Two different stories, but they intersect.
> 14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
> divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons,
> and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of
> the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made
> the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser
> light to
> rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the
> heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over
> the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it
> was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
>
> *[The moon is not a "light" but reflects the light of the sun. How can
> stars
> be formed AFTER vegetation on Earth????? It wrongly asserts a geo-centric
> universe!]
No, it's based on an EARTH-CENTRIC universe, as the prophets only concern is
the EARTH. So the prophet is simply describing what he SEES from the
perspective of what would be THE EARTH.
He has no interest in the rest of the cosmology.
Why bother? It has nothing to do with the rest of the story.
Oh, and by the way, in the whole "day/night" thing, God is establishing the
inside (microcosmic) and outside (macrocosmic) meaning of the concept of
"days" and "weeks."
A "week" = 7 days.
A "week" = 7 x 7 + 1 weeks of days to make a year (Sabbath rules and feasts
not withstanding).
A "week" = 7 years, i.e. a Sabbatical.
A "week" = 7 x 7 + 1 Sabbaticals to make a Jubilee.
A "week" = 7 "thousand year" days.
A "week" = 7 creation "days" (whatever the measure of that is).
A "day" can encompass all things.
[yawn and snip]
Ike
I
>>>> Can you read?
>>> Absolutely.
>> You have demonstrated no ability to comprehend the most basic of texts.
...
> Does that mean I have to give back my diplomas and credits?
They dobn't appear to mean much. Wghuich Diploma Muill did you get them
from.
My degrees are from accredited Australian Universities.
>>> And the order of things DO "parallel each other."
>> Genesis 1 and 2 CONTRADICT each other and CONTRADICT science.
>
> Nonsense.
No, FACT.
> The first account is about the natural world (evolution) and the second
> account is about the supernatural world and its interaction with the
> natural world, given in prophetic symbolism.
UTTER AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
960 BC GENESIS 2
- The YAHWIST editor began in Jerusalem. He calls God YHWH and describes God
in humanlike terms. The Yahwist editor wrote Genesis 2 ( Genesis 1 had not
yet been written.). Bible heroes are not whitewashed - Abraham is called a
liar (Gen 20), Noah's drunken state is described (Gen 9) and Lot's incest is
told (Gen 19). The monarchy and priesthood in Jeruslem are important. This
editor wrote the first version of the 10 Commandments in Exodus 34 which
contains no reference to resting on the Sabbath.
596 BC GENESIS 1
- The PRIESTLY editors began after the city of Jerusalem fell to
Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. Many of the Psalms were
written in this time (including Psalm 137). The priests edited and rewrote
massive parts of the sacred story. They emphasised circumcision, dietary
laws and Sabbath day observance and were responsible for writing Genesis 1
to provide a reason for observing the Sabbath and it was one of the last
parts of the Old Testament to be written. At the same time synagogues were
built to indoctrinate the people. As a result the details of worship, the
rules of worship, the observance of worship became important and resulted in
much of Exodus, almost all of Leviticus and major portions of Numbers. All
the chronologies were written by the priestly editors. The incompleted
harmonisation of the Yahwist and Elohist editors produce most of the
contradictions in the Old Testament.
Refer to http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/
> Then you would be proven totally wrong...again.
YOU have been proven totally wrong again.
Your ahistorical nonsense is not part of contemporary biblical scholrship.
>> That you cannot comprehend the contradiction speaks more about yourself
>> than anything else.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> from http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/gen001.htm &
>> http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/gen002.htm (Jewish Publication
>> Society)
>>
>> 1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
>
> First thing is, this is an earth-centric prophetic account.
First thing is this is a MYTH written 596 BC by the PRIESTLY EDITORS.
>> 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of
>> the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
>
> "Earth" and "waters" here are used for concepts that a rather primitive
> man wouldn't be able to perceive, i.e. elements, space, astrophysics, etc,
> since there was no science available yet to go along with his
> observations.
The WHOLE of Genesis 1 & 2 is MYTH and NOT time / sopace history or science.
>> *[HOW can there be water when the earth is not yet created?????? HOW can
>> the Earth be created BEFORE the sun and stars.]
>
> [yawn]
WAKE UP, IKE!
You haven't answered the question.
>> 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw
>> the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
>> 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And
>> there was evening and there was morning, one day.
>>
>> *[HOW there be light without the sun or any stars?
>
> Ah, the big bang, which flooded the universe with light as it started to
> expand, and that within nanoseconds.
There was NO Earth OR water (see verse 2) before the Big Bang!
LEARN SCIENCE!!!!!
>> HOW can there be night and day without a Sun and an Earth that rotates
>> to cause the day and night? The sun is not created until verse 14]
>
> [yawn]
>
> The prophet was simply observing the beginning of pockets of light, and >
> pockets of darkness as the universe expanded.
NONSENSE!
In verse 2 the EARTH and water have been formed. In verse 3 the SUN has
been created. Are yiou saying that the WHOLE of the universe was created
AFTER the EARTH and SUN??????????
UNTTER UNSCIENTIFIC RATBAGGERY!!!!
>> 6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and
>> let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament,
>> and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters
>> which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the
>> firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second
>> day.
>>
>> *[ How can Heaven be created AFTER water is created????]
>
> Ah
Ah, you HAVEN'T answered the question!
>> 9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
>> unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so.
>
> Beginning of plate tectonics.
UTTER UNSCIENTIFIC NONSENSE!
>> 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the
>> waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said:
>> 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree
>> bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the
>> earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb
>> yielding seed after its kind, and tree
>> bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw
>> that
>> it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
>>
>> *[ HOW can vegetation exist without sunlight which is not created until
>> the next verse???? HOW does pollination happen without bees which are not
>> created yet?????
>
> Ah
Ah, once more you CANNOT answer the question!
>> GENESIS 2 states 5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no
>> herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it
>> to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; 6 but
>> there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the
>> ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
>>
>> - Yet the waters ARE there in GENESIS 1:6 and in 1:9 the oceans are
>> formed! Man is not made until Genesis 1:26.
>
> Once more for the fool: Genesis 1:1-2:3 are one prophecy, Genesis 2:4+ is
> another prophecy.
UTTER FUNDAMENTALIST AHISTORICAL NONSENSE.
960 BC GENESIS 2 written by the YAHWIST editor
596 BC GENESIS 1 written by the PRIESTLY editors
Refer to http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/
>> Furthermore, vegetation is created AFTER man is formed in Genesis 2: 9
>> And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
>> pleasant to the sight, and good for food;]
>
> One more time
ONE MORE TIME FOR THE IGNORANT FUNDAMENTALIST RATBAG
960 BC GENESIS 2 written by the YAHWIST editor
596 BC GENESIS 1 written by the PRIESTLY editors
Refer to http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/
>> 14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
>> divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for
>> seasons,
>> and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of
>> the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made
>> the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser
>> light to
>> rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of
>> the
>> heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over
>> the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it
>> was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
>>
>> *[The moon is not a "light" but reflects the light of the sun. How can
>> stars
>> be formed AFTER vegetation on Earth????? It wrongly asserts a
>> geo-centric universe!]
>
> No, it's based on an EARTH-CENTRIC universe
WHICH GOES AGAINST ALL KNOWN SCIENCE!
> Oh, and by the way, in the whole "day/night" thing, God is establishing
> the inside (microcosmic) and outside (macrocosmic) meaning of the concept
> of "days" and "weeks."
>
> A "week" = 7 days.
> A "week" = 7 x 7 + 1 weeks of days to make a year (Sabbath rules and
> feasts not withstanding).
> A "week" = 7 years, i.e. a Sabbatical.
> A "week" = 7 x 7 + 1 Sabbaticals to make a Jubilee.
> A "week" = 7 "thousand year" days.
> A "week" = 7 creation "days" (whatever the measure of that is).
> A "day" can encompass all things.
YAWN
BORING AHISTORICAL & UNSCIENTIFIC NONSENSE NOT BACKED UP BY ANY CONTEMPORARY
BIBLICAL SCHOLAR
You again prove absolutely true ...
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very stong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from it
of any sort of error;
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
Ike E 2009
"I" <me@home000000000000422> wrote in message
news:4adecfcb$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Ike E 2009" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Can you read?
>>>> Absolutely.
>>> You have demonstrated no ability to comprehend the most basic of texts.
> ...
>> Does that mean I have to give back my diplomas and credits?
>
> They dobn't appear to mean much. Wghuich Diploma Muill did you get them
> from.
>
> My degrees are from accredited Australian Universities.
Aw, gee, I don't know. My work was at "pathetic" little schools like The US
Armed Forces School of Music, the Marine Corp Institute, George Washington
University, Indiana University, Indiana State University, VanderCook.
You know: Little "shit hole" schools like that.
[asshole]
>>>> And the order of things DO "parallel each other."
>>> Genesis 1 and 2 CONTRADICT each other and CONTRADICT science.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> No, FACT.
>
>> The first account is about the natural world (evolution) and the second
>> account is about the supernatural world and its interaction with the
>> natural world, given in prophetic symbolism.
>
> UTTER AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
LOL
Basic fact, oh, clueless one.
[snip the redundancy]
>> Then you would be proven totally wrong...again.
>
> YOU have been proven totally wrong again.
Nope.
What we have proven here is that you hate the Bible, Christianity, and
anything connecting the two together, therefore, if there is any possibility
that any portions of the Bible and sound doctrines ARE actually reconcilable
(because the problem was never the Bible, but the readers) then you're going
to ATTACK IT, because YOU DON'T WANT THEM "RECONCILED."
[snip the rest of the lunatic's hate-raving diatribe]
The problem with you and Genesis is the same problem you have with
scripture: Instead of seeing the generalities recorded by a prophet (using
an earth-centric view] who barely had the language to describe what he was
seeing, but did a pretty damn good job, YOU try to treat the text like it's
a college level earth science textbook.
So instead of seeing how Genesis PARALLELS what we now know about the
creation of the universe, you have to bog the argument down in irrelevant
details.
It's a real simple outline confirmed by science:
1) The big bang from the proto-atom, which contained all of the elements and
physics of the universe in a microform, exploding outward in a blaze of
light, and then began to coalesce into the various solar systems.
2) The formation of the earth itself (as that is what the author is
concerned with, NOT astrophysics), coalescing into "land" and "sea," and
plant evolution (separate from animal evolution) begins (which explains why
plant life is so distinctive from animal life).
3) The chaos of the cosmos settles down, and the various celestial objects,
previously masked, begin to emerge from the chaos. Note that in this
section, God distinguishes the microcosmic definition of "days" and "weeks"
from the macrocosmic definition, which sets up the layers of "sevens" used
throughout the Bible.
4) Sea life emerges, including "flying fish," which are predecessors to
flying dinosaurs, then modern birds.
5) The substantial animal life emerges from the evolutionary process.
6) God brings forth the NATURAL man, i.e. the biological man, generic and
plural (which has little to do with the SUPERNATURAL man, Adam, in the next
account).
7) God rests.
However, as John notes in Revelation, God is STILL CREATING, which means we
are only in the sixth "day" of the macroform, and no one has entered "the
Lord's rest" yet.
So, as usual, you're WOUND UP TIGHT AS A RAGING LUNATIC, and refuse to see
THE GENERALITIES of the first Genesis account, and its amazing SIMILARITIES
to scientific theory.
Then the second Genesis account slips into the first account sideways,
somewhere around the third "day" of the first account, after the earth is
formed but BEFORE any other living things are formed, and Adam (and later
Eve) are created as God's angelic companions.
You demonstrate the difference between Christians and the antichristian
"higher critics:" A Christian believes everything in the Bible is basically
true, but can deal with a certain level of "fuzzy logic" and
well-intentioned errors, whereas the antichristian "higher critics" and
their ilk are looking for every opportunity to dismantle the Word, pervert
the faith, and undo sound doctrine because it gets in the way of their
PRIVATE WORLDLY AGENDAS, like political correctness, the false peace of
universalism, and their private brands of lawlessness.
Here endeth the reading: Let the abominable one do as he may.
Ike
Randy ®
Ike E 2009 <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What we have proven here is that you hate the Bible, Christianity, and
> anything connecting the two together, therefore, if there is any possibility
> that any portions of the Bible and sound doctrines ARE actually reconcilable
> (because the problem was never the Bible, but the readers) then you're going
> to ATTACK IT, because YOU DON'T WANT THEM "RECONCILED."
On Sat, 10/03/09, at 6:08:47PM,
In Group: alt.christnet.christianlife
Article: <4ac7d97f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
I <me@home000000000000124> wrote:
*****************************************************************
You can't know for sure what is NOT an error in the bible.
*****************************************************************
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:58:04 +1100
In Group: alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Article: <4ad38a4c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
Subject: Re: And again: Jesus is NOT God! PROOF
"I" <me@home000000000000309> wrote:
*****************************************************************
[]
Jesus is NOT the infinite One God Yahweh and "You will have no
gods other
than me (the infinite One God Yahweh)".
[]
JESUS baptised for the forgiveness of his SINS
[]
it is an embarrassment to have Jesus as "god" being baptised for
his sins
[]
Jesus himself is not the proper object of faith.
[]
Jesus pointed to God's domain, something he did not create,
something he
did not control.
[]
- God is not human. Man is not God.
[]
- To worship Jesus as God is to violate the commandment that "You
shall have
no other gods before Me."
*****************************************************************
Jude Smart-Alex-ander
>
> "Jude Smart-Alex-ander" <ashm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:hblau6$nuc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Ike E 2009" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hbl7um$qco$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Jude Smart-Alex-ander" <ashm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hbl6mf$e3h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:03qpd5hfdfo3l5sef...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Even if Genesis 2 was a reiteration of Genesis 1, the order of things
>>>> should parallel each other.
>>>
>>> Actually, they do, but from different perspectives.
>>>
>>> The first recounts the natural creation (evolution), while the second
>>> recounts the supernatural creation (Adam) starting "before any other
>>> living things," and then God and Adam begin dealing with the "other"
>>> man, i.e. the natural man, a.k.a. the Gentiles.
>>>
>>> Note that the second Genesis account uses the same symbolic words that
>>> God used to tell Peter to go and preach the Gospel to the
>>> Gentiles--"cattle, creeping things, beast of the field, and fowls of the
>>> air" (except "creeping things" don't enter the story in Genesis until
>>> Satan comes along).
>>
>> Can you read?
>
> Absolutely.
Nah. You have this perverse brain filter through which all that you read
has to strain leaving you deaf, blind and stoopid
There are contradictions. ANYBODY, without prejudice, can see that.
Ike E 2009
Nope.
The second account fits into the first account somewhere around the third
"day" of the first account, after God formed the Earth, but before God
created any living thing.
God creates Adam, who names the "living things," but the prophetic TERMS
used are the same ones the prophets used for various divisions of the
Gentiles, and which God used to tell Peter to preach the Gospel to the
Gentiles.
Like I said, Ezekiel (who probably WROTE the second account) explains that
the whole "Garden of Eden" saga is a metaphor for the
proto-Assyro-Babylonian civilization that are among the Gentiles...
Eze 31:3-9
Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with
a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick
boughs.
The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers
running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the
trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of
the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long
because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his
branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under
his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in
the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were
not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor
any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the
trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.
DING, DING, DING: The "Garden of Eden" story is mostly a METAPHOR for the
DAWN OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION in the MESOPOTAMIAN VALLEY.
First prophecy: The Gentiles (generic and plural), the "beast" man, arises
at the END of the evolutionary sequence.
Second prophecy: God created ADAM (specific and singular) BEFORE any
"natural" persons, and then Adam names them as God creates them.
And the terms are consistent throughout prophecy: "Cattle, creeping things,
beasts of the field, and fowls of the air" = THE GENTILES.
So the problem all along wasn't science OR the Bible. The problem was THE
READERS.
Ike
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.
Jude Smart-Alex-ander
Jon R
Jon: For once we agree, at least in part. Gen 2 however is telling us
about the special garden he created for man. He name animals God
craeted earlier and yet none was a good helper for him, so God created
another of his kind.
> 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
Ike E 2009
> DING DING DING DUH DUH DUH
Notice how the self-absorbed anti-christian beast can't formulate a response
to plain facts, so he has to cut and run...
...gee, that's the same thing Mark T has to do when he hasn't been trained
by his masters on how to deal with a new realization.
Just goes to show that the best weapon against antichristians is to know how
things fit things together.
Ike
I
>>> Does that mean I have to give back my diplomas and credits?
>> They don't appear to mean much. Which Diploma Mill did you get >> them
>> from?
...
> Aw, gee, I don't know. My work was at "pathetic" little schools
You also stated "Go to the Indiana Dept. of Ed website and type in my name."
I did. Results ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://doego.doe.in.gov/search?site=ideanet&client=ideanet&proxystylesheet=ideanet&output=xml_no_dtd&q=Ike+Eickleberry&searchtype=doe
Your search - Ike Eickleberry - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "Ike Eickleberry".
http://doego.doe.in.gov/search?q=Herman+Eickleberry&btnG=Google+Search&client=ideanet&proxystylesheet=ideanet&output=xml_no_dtd&site=ideanet&searchtype=doe
Your search - Herman Eickleberry - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "Herman Eickleberry".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<HUGE CHUCKLE ... ROTFLMAO!!!! >
<snippeth creationist pseudo-science rant discredited in the Dover trial>
"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
Visit No Answers in Genesis! http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
--
I
>>> Can you read?
>> Absolutely.
>
> Nah. You have this perverse brain filter through which all that you read
> > has to strain leaving you deaf, blind and stoopid
>
> There are contradictions. ANYBODY, without prejudice, can see that.
Ike has to be one of the most ignorant people I've ever met.
He has a million assumptions that aare all linked together in his tiny
little brain but none of the assumptions has any validity.
He also stated "Go to the Indiana Dept. of Ed website and type in my name."
I did. Results ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://doego.doe.in.gov/search?site=ideanet&client=ideanet&proxystylesheet=ideanet&output=xml_no_dtd&q=Ike+Eickleberry&searchtype=doe
Your search - Ike Eickleberry - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "Ike Eickleberry".
http://doego.doe.in.gov/search?q=Herman+Eickleberry&btnG=Google+Search&client=ideanet&proxystylesheet=ideanet&output=xml_no_dtd&site=ideanet&searchtype=doe
Your search - Herman Eickleberry - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "Herman Eickleberry".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<HUGE CHUCKLE ... ROTFLMAO!!!! >
He states that he has "diplomas and certicates" which are less than degrees.
Jude Smart-Alex-ander
Aren't you a sweet thing? :)
It's obvious you need to believe that my refusal to take you serious is that
I'm running from your superior intellect and wisdom. :) Go for it. It
obviously brings you much joy. Try clicking your heels. THAT will probably
feel good as well. :)
I'm waiting to see you answer Mark why he can't find your superior self @
Indiana Dept. of Ed.... :)
Terry Cross
> "Ike E 2009" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wroteth:
>
>
>
> >>> Does that mean I have to give back my diplomas and credits?
> >> They don't appear to mean much. Which Diploma Mill did you get >> them
> >> from?
> ...
> > Aw, gee, I don't know. My work was at "pathetic" little schools
>
> You also stated "Go to the Indiana Dept. of Ed website and type in my name."
>
> I did. Results ....
>
>
> Your search - Ike Eickleberry - did not match any documents.
> No pages were found containing "Ike Eickleberry".
>
> Your search - Herman Eickleberry - did not match any documents.
> No pages were found containing "Herman Eickleberry".
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> <HUGE CHUCKLE ... ROTFLMAO!!!! >
>
> <snippeth creationist pseudo-science rant discredited in the Dover trial>
>
> "Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution
Well. you got something right. But why do all the Evolution websites
present Creationism as the only alternative to Evolution.
"If Creationism did not exist, Evolution would have to create it."
-- Terry Cross, 2009
Ike E 2009
"I" <me@home000000000000424> wrote in message
news:4adf7cf0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Ike E 2009" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wroteth:
>
>>>> Does that mean I have to give back my diplomas and credits?
>>> They don't appear to mean much. Which Diploma Mill did you get >> them
>>> from?
> ...
>> Aw, gee, I don't know. My work was at "pathetic" little schools
>
> You also stated "Go to the Indiana Dept. of Ed website and type in my
> name."
>
> I did. Results ....
You're as incompetent at using a computer as you are at discussing the
Bible.
http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2bBVvKhDdpepa1aHyQ%3d%3d
[snip]
Ike E 2009
"I" <me@home000000000000424> wrote in message
[snip]
> He also stated "Go to the Indiana Dept. of Ed website and type in my
> name."
>
> I did. Results ....
No, results...
http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2bBVvKhDdpepa1aHyQ%3d%3d
It's apparent you can't run a computer any better than you can discuss the
Bible.
Ike
Ike E 2009
Because he's an idiot who doesn't know any more about operating a computer
than he does examining the Bible...
http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2bBVvKhDdpepa1aHyQ%3d%3d
Ike
Ike E 2009
"Terry Cross" <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec7a3377-9cd1-4a38...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 21, 2:28 pm, "I" <me@home000000000000424> wrote:
[snip]
> "Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution
No alternative is required: They were BOTH true. It's just the idiots at
both extremes never got it.
Ike
I
> Screw the "contemporary scholars."
Ignorant Ike this proves absolutely true....
I
I
> Screw the "contemporary scholars."
Ignorant Ike this proves absolutely true....
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> 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?
It is quite funny you say the above, and the below:
> The problem here, is that these people misread the text,
Then you go on to say:
> Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly [snip]
> read Genesis 2:1-6 as a continuation of Genesis 1 [snip]
So, you say its the facts that are important, and then proceed to
reorder the bible to make things match your belief. Marvellous!
Ike E 2009
"I" <me@home000000000000429> wrote in message
news:4adfe31a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Ignorant "Ike E 2009" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wroteth:
>
>> Screw the "contemporary scholars."
>
>
> Ignorant Ike this proves absolutely true....
...that Mark T's arguments sound an awful lot like the same arguments the
Pharisees used against Jesus, i.e. "who maketh this man to learn letters,"
just because Jesus didn't go to THEIR "schools" and get THEIR "degrees."
If He had, He would have been as useless as they were, and as Mark T's ilk
are.
Ike
I
<whatever>
Ignorant Ike has NO scholarly basis for his claims.
It is Ike's IGNORANT opinion versus the whole of contemporary biblical
scholarship.
I vote for contemporary biblical scholars over ignorant Ike.
Ignorant Ike this proves absolutely true....
Ike E 2009
"I" <me@home000000000000436> wrote in message
news:4adfea86$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Ignorant "Ike E 2009" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wroteth:
>
> <whatever>
>
> Ignorant Ike has NO scholarly basis for his claims.
D'ja ever notice that the weak of mind look for a position that fits their
previously-conceived notions, and then they support the notions provided
outside of all bounds of common sense?
I mean, which is easier to believe? That four guys who had a documented
history together--Mark, Luke, Paul, and Peter--were contemporaries and knew
each other, or that it was all a hoax, and we're just now "noticing" it
2,000 years later?
Ike
I
<whatever>
Ignorant Ike has NO scholarly basis for his claims.
It is Ike's IGNORANT opinion versus the whole of contemporary biblical
Ike E 2009
"I" <me@home000000000000439> wrote in message
news:4adfef40$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Ignorant "Ike E 2009" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wroteth:
>
> <whatever>
>
> Ignorant Ike has NO scholarly basis for his claims.
SURE I do: Ezekiel, Jesus, Paul, and John. They all referenced aspects of
the "two-tree" analogy that starts in Genesis one way or another.
THESE are REAL "scholars."
Ike
I
>> Ignorant Ike has NO scholarly basis for his claims.
<whatever>
Comparison between human, monkey and fundamentalist like Ike at
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/2009/04/monkey-human-fundamentalist.html
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?
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
Ron Dean
We are programed by our DNA to age and die. But
can we be _re-programed_ not to do so? Eventually
if research is permitted, the answer may very well be
yes! But during the two terms of
President George W. Bush research in this area
progressed very little. Scientist were not allowed
to "play God" there was little or no financing and a
virtual moratorium of stem cell research was in effect.
With the Obama administration, research could
gain finances and most of the restrictions lifted.
We and all other multicellular organisms have two basic
kinds of cells: germ cells and somatic cells. However,
scientist have known for decades that each of of us
has immortal germ cells within our bodies. These
immortal cells are our germ cells; cells we pass on to our
offspring. This doesn't mean that death cannot happen, to
these germ cells. They can be killed, perhaps we have
no offspring. When this happens, our _ individual_ germ
cells die with our soma cells. The scientific definition
of immortal means that certain cells are _not _programed_
to age and die. Richard Dawking's book "The Selfish
Gene" recognizes the immortal nature of our germ cells
Our earliest ancestors, were single cell organisms, which
by definition were immortal. Unicellular organisms increase
by means of fission, dividing into two separate and distinct
organisms. They are the same structure and size. They
do not age and die. But immortality was forfeited hundreds
of millions of years ago when unicellular organisms evolved
into with multicellular beings. IOW our ancestors traded
immortality for complexity. And we as a result inherited
death.
The German naturalist, August Weismann was the first to
realize that life must have begun as an immortal single cell
organism. It was he who coined the term "immortality" for
these cells, he gave two example: one an organism that is
made up of some 8 or 16 cells that stuck together because
of to some survival benefit. It's called Pandorina morum.
The second example, called Volvox minor, is made up of
cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of
the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells
divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the
outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells
which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which
made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells
were programed to age and die, having been used
merely to obtain food and transportation and to
facilitate reproduction. The original unaltered cells
Weismann called "germ cells".
More to come!
>
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.
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?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
@newsfe06.iad:
>
> We are programed by our DNA to age and die.
Then by all means, carry on. Quickly.
Stupid fucking spamtards.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
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.