>Where else in mixed company can a man get up and brag about having been laid >more times by more different women than the rest of the men present? - >Raleigh
>Religions infected by great sinners are not easy to believe. A famous >preacher, whose name rhymes with *braggert* continued spending widows mites >on "working women" even after apologizing on TV for getting caught ("I have >sinned!"). Worse, he never confessed being an inveterate liar. - Pigmy
The man you speak of was a con artist. In his heyday Jimmy Swaggart was making close to US$140 million a year. The money, which was meant for their ministry, went to maintain their extravagant lifestyles. Swaggart bought himself a US$ 1.5 million mansion. In his show of fatherly affection, he bought another mansion, worth US$700,000 for his son, Donnie. G
The Bible, in my opinion, is nothing more than heresay. - Grouch
The Bible, whether Jewish or Christian hearsay (or heresy), is a superb variety of texts to use for religious discussion, as is Shakespeare. Quality of discussion depends on with what mood and capacity those at the table come. Credulous literalists are as poorly equipped to discuss the one as the other. - Pigmy
I would not classify Jeff Shirton in the same category as Mr. Swaggart. After all, we know positively what Mr. Swaggart is. We only know of Jeff from his posts on ARM. - Raleigh
True, but Jeff has posted himself "chief of sinners," so any denial he's at least in Swaggert's league implies Jeff is a liar. - Pigmy
In article <20030412201124.24286.00000...@mb-cs.aol.com>, grouc...@aol.com
(grouch) writes: >Good respone, Raleigh, makes sense. G
We humans are all alike. My operating system is strictly Microsoft.
Raleigh "Who is going to say anything? The international community? The hell with the international community! Who listens to them?" --Iraqi General ordering gassing of 250 Kurdish villages Tape on 20/20, 03/28/03
>The Bible, in my opinion, is nothing more than heresay. - Grouch
>The Bible, whether Jewish or Christian hearsay (or heresy), is a superb >variety of texts to use for religious discussion, as is Shakespeare. Quality >of discussion depends on with what mood and capacity those at the table >come. Credulous literalists are as poorly equipped to discuss the one as the >other. - Pigmy
> > The Bible as truth is postulated to be a coherent snip
> I've never see anything about Yahweh "murdering" people. > In order to substantiate such a charge, you would have > to demonstrate that God unlawfully killed innocent people.
OH! Gosh! Only guilty people can be murdered! Now I get it.
snip
> You are *never* going to convince me of your preconceived > views simply by repeating them over and over, especially since > God has told me that the Bible *is* complete. Further, if > *YOU* have to "appeal to human morals" to understand why > polygamy is wrong, that's *YOUR* problem. As for me, > the *BIBLE* teaches that polygamy is an abomination to > God, and so no amount of gainsaying on your part is going > to change that.
> > And that is the crux of the matter here. You have presented > > to me a "Biblical God" who is in fact one of the personnae of > > Satan, who quite often resorts to quoting scripture to prove > > his point, even when it is obviously wrong.
> <sigh> More emotionally-loaded rhetoric.
> *Jesus* "resorted to quoting scripture". > Are you claiming He's a personna of Satan?
> *Paul* "resorted to quoting scripture". > Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
> *Matthew* "resorted to quoting scripture". > Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
> *John* "resorted to quoting scripture". > Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
> *Simon* *Peter* "resorted to quoting scripture". > Are you claiming he's a personna of Satan?
> >> The Bible as truth is postulated to be a coherent whole that is not > >> self-contradictory. However, thorough study of it will show that > >> to avoid contradiction, we must suppose that the earlier authors > >> knew much less about the subject than the later ones. This plays > >> into the hands of evil men, because Pope Sixtus can say that in > >> his enlightened age, he knows a hell of a lot more about salvation > >> than St. Paul. However, to say that there was no evolution in > >> thought from page one to page 1237, we are back to the internal > >> contradictions.
> >I disagree with your rhetoric and emotionalism. > >I believe the Bible to be the word of God. > >You obviously do not. > >Simply announcing your utter contempt for it and > >rationalizations for not believing it isn't going > >to change my view.
> >We obviously come from drastically different methodologies > >to come up with our respective concepts of God's truth. > >I turn to the Bible, God's revealed word to mankind, and > >you apparently rely on emotionalism and humanism.
> Just thought I would insert some of God's truth to help you out Jeff. It shows > God's love for humanity.
> Numbers 15:32 > 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man > that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
> Numbers 15:33 > 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, > and unto all the congregation.
> Numbers 15:34 > 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done > to him.
> Numbers 15:35 > 35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the > congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
> Numbers 15:36 > 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with > stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
> G
Well, Mr. Grouch, it was okay, because the guy was guilty. It's all right for God to murder guilty people.
> > Let's see now, are you suggesting that you > > are the example of Christianity? G
> Didn't say that at all, did I? > Quite the contrary, I've admitted *countless* times > that I am the chief of sinners, and I stand beside Paul > to that effect, to my humility and shame.
>> >> The Bible as truth is postulated to be a coherent whole that is not >> >> self-contradictory. However, thorough study of it will show that >> >> to avoid contradiction, we must suppose that the earlier authors >> >> knew much less about the subject than the later ones. This plays >> >> into the hands of evil men, because Pope Sixtus can say that in >> >> his enlightened age, he knows a hell of a lot more about salvation >> >> than St. Paul. However, to say that there was no evolution in >> >> thought from page one to page 1237, we are back to the internal >> >> contradictions.
>> >I disagree with your rhetoric and emotionalism. >> >I believe the Bible to be the word of God. >> >You obviously do not. >> >Simply announcing your utter contempt for it and >> >rationalizations for not believing it isn't going >> >to change my view.
>> >We obviously come from drastically different methodologies >> >to come up with our respective concepts of God's truth. >> >I turn to the Bible, God's revealed word to mankind, and >> >you apparently rely on emotionalism and humanism.
>> Just thought I would insert some of God's truth to help you out Jeff. It >shows >> God's love for humanity.
>> Numbers 15:32 >> 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a >man >> that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
>> Numbers 15:33 >> 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and >Aaron, >> and unto all the congregation.
>> Numbers 15:34 >> 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be >done >> to him.
>> Numbers 15:35 >> 35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: >all the >> congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
>> Numbers 15:36 >> 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him >with >> stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
>> G
>Well, Mr. Grouch, it was okay, because the guy was guilty. It's all right >for God to murder guilty people.
>-- >Regards, >Lee, The James, uM & GW
Not to mentiion all those guilty little babies God has a hankering to kill now and then. G
>> > Let's see now, are you suggesting that you >> > are the example of Christianity? G
>> Didn't say that at all, did I? >> Quite the contrary, I've admitted *countless* times >> that I am the chief of sinners, and I stand beside Paul >> to that effect, to my humility and shame.
>How humble, equating himself with Paul.
>-- >Regards, >Lee, The James, uM & GW
Lucky Mr. Humble wasn't killed as baby like some of the other guilty babies killed by God. G
> Adultery is prohibited in the Bible. Polygamy is not.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress:
According to the Bible, "polygamy" = "adultery".
> In order to make polygamy forbidden, you must > arbitrarily declare it to be adultery.
Nothing "arbitrary" about it. Rom. 7:3.
> Raleigh
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> "[T]he gospel is not that man can become God, but that God became a man." -- James White
>> >Not at all. >> >Polygamy is adultery, which is prohibited in the Bible.
>> Adultery is prohibited in the Bible. Polygamy is not.
>Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be > married to another man, she shall be called > an adulteress:
>According to the Bible, "polygamy" = "adultery".
There are several kinds of polygamy, Jeff. (Remember, I am an antipolygamist, but I have to say this, simply because you are wrong). Polyandry is the practice of a woman having more than one husband. Polygyny is the practice of a man having more than one wife. Polygyny is *not* condemned in the Bible. I have noted that a bishop cannot be a polygynist, but that is not a condemnation of the practice.
Strict adherence to what the Bible says, means that I will be an adulterer by the end of the summer, because I am going to be remarried. You notice that the Mosaic Law permits divorce and remarriage, so the Bible is at war with itself, if everything in the Bible is "God-breathed." The Mosaic Law only prohibited a woman from remarrying her first husband after being divorced from her second. I assume this was to prevent wife-swapping, who knows?
>> In order to make polygamy forbidden, you must >> arbitrarily declare it to be adultery.
>Nothing "arbitrary" about it. >Rom. 7:3.
Quite arbitrary, actually. That is the hallmark of cultism, Jeff, to take a single verse of the Bible and build a doctrine around it while ignoring whatever else the Bible says about it.
You are convinced, unlike me, that the Bible is sufficient for doctrine, and you, like me are convinced that polygamy is wrong. Thus, you must twist the Bible into a blanket condemnation of it--otherwise the Bible is an insufficient guide.
Genesis 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Genesis 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
Onan married his brother's wife (and this was necessary under Mosaic Law as well, whether the groom was already married or not). God killed Onan, not for being married to Tamar, but instead killed him for practicing birth control. The whole idea of him marrying Tamar was to get the lady pregnant, and Onan was enjoying polygamous sex without paying the freight.
Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
(No exception provided her for the already married brother-in-law.)
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Matthew 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Matthew 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deuteronomy 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Deuteronomy 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Deuteronomy 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
Deuteronomy 25:6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
No provision here to exempt the married brother from committing adultery by marrying his brother's widow to obey this law.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
With fair consideration of all these verses, the Bible becomes not a book that can be understood by the plowman in the field (as Tyndale claimed), but a law book that requires Popes and doctors of the law to make sense of.
The only escape from the legalism of this is to suppose one of two things:
1) the same laws do not apply to everybody, as suggested by Matthew 19. (This interpretation would suit the LDS and the daughter denominations of practicing polygamists (rather than speculative polygamists as in the LDS church itself).
or
2) The Hebrew Bible was already corrupted in Jesus day by scribes trying to rewrite the Mosaic Law and expand upon it to fit the perceived needs of a royal kingdom instead of a bunch of wandering nomads, and Jesus was trying rather gently to lead the people along into gradual understanding of this. (This interpretation would fit the Community of Christ with its rejection of Biblical absolutes in favor of doing further, but uncanonized, rewrites of Biblical instruction to suit the needs of a decaying republic.)
Jeff the Bible is a very complicated compilation of materials with varying degree of accuracy, and varying degree of inspiration. To simply toss out a verse, as a Muslim might with the Koran, to prove all in all simply does not work.
Tossing out Romans 7:3 to "prove" your point is rather childlike, Jeff, especially since John 3:16 says that God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son to die for it, contrary to your claim that God loves the world, but hates 90% of the people who live in it.
Raleigh
"Cogito ergo scum." (The heretic's motto.)
"Who is going to say anything? The international community? The hell with the international community! Who listens to them?" --Iraqi General ordering gassing of 250 Kurdish villages Tape on 20/20, 03/28/03
>> >Not at all. >> >Polygamy is adultery, which is prohibited in the Bible.
>> Adultery is prohibited in the Bible. Polygamy is not.
>Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be > married to another man, she shall be called > an adulteress:
>According to the Bible, "polygamy" = "adultery".
There are several kinds of polygamy, Jeff. (Remember, I am an antipolygamist, but I have to say this, simply because you are wrong). Polyandry is the practice of a woman having more than one husband. Polygyny is the practice of a man having more than one wife. Polygyny is *not* condemned in the Bible. I have noted that a bishop cannot be a polygynist, but that is not a condemnation of the practice.
Strict adherence to what the Bible says, means that I will be an adulterer by the end of the summer, because I am going to be remarried. You notice that the Mosaic Law permits divorce and remarriage, so the Bible is at war with itself, if everything in the Bible is "God-breathed." The Mosaic Law only prohibited a woman from remarrying her first husband after being divorced from her second. I assume this was to prevent wife-swapping, who knows?
>> In order to make polygamy forbidden, you must >> arbitrarily declare it to be adultery.
>Nothing "arbitrary" about it. >Rom. 7:3.
Quite arbitrary, actually. That is the hallmark of cultism, Jeff, to take a single verse of the Bible and build a doctrine around it while ignoring whatever else the Bible says about it.
You are convinced, unlike me, that the Bible is sufficient for doctrine, and you, like me are convinced that polygamy is wrong. Thus, you must twist the Bible into a blanket condemnation of it--otherwise the Bible is an insufficient guide.
Genesis 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Genesis 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
Onan married his brother's wife (and this was necessary under Mosaic Law as well, whether the groom was already married or not). God killed Onan, not for being married to Tamar, but instead killed him for practicing birth control. The whole idea of him marrying Tamar was to get the lady pregnant, and Onan was enjoying polygamous sex without paying the freight.
Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
(No exception provided her for the already married brother-in-law.)
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Matthew 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Matthew 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deuteronomy 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Deuteronomy 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Deuteronomy 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
Deuteronomy 25:6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
No provision here to exempt the married brother from committing adultery by marrying his brother's widow to obey this law.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
With fair consideration of all these verses, the Bible becomes not a book that can be understood by the plowman in the field (as Tyndale claimed), but a law book that requires Popes and doctors of the law to make sense of.
The only escape from the legalism of this is to suppose one of two things:
1) the same laws do not apply to everybody, as suggested by Matthew 19. (This interpretation would suit the LDS and the daughter denominations of practicing polygamists (rather than speculative polygamists as in the LDS church itself).
or
2) The Hebrew Bible was already corrupted in Jesus day by scribes trying to rewrite the Mosaic Law and expand upon it to fit the perceived needs of a royal kingdom instead of a bunch of wandering nomads, and Jesus was trying rather gently to lead the people along into gradual understanding of this. (This interpretation would fit the Community of Christ with its rejection of Biblical absolutes in favor of doing further, but uncanonized, rewrites of Biblical instruction to suit the needs of a decaying republic.)
Jeff the Bible is a very complicated compilation of materials with varying degree of accuracy, and varying degree of inspiration. To simply toss out a verse, as a Muslim might with the Koran, to prove all in all simply does not work.
Tossing out Romans 7:3 to "prove" your point is rather childlike, Jeff, especially since John 3:16 says that God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son to die for it, contrary to your claim that God loves the world, but hates 90% of the people who live in it.
Raleigh
"Cogito ergo scum." (The heretic's motto.)
"Who is going to say anything? The international community? The hell with the international community! Who listens to them?" --Iraqi General ordering gassing of 250 Kurdish villages Tape on 20/20, 03/28/03
> >My words are not directly inspired by God, as "Scripture", > >in contrast to those of the authors of the Bible, which are. > Polygamists support their beliefs with scripture,
They say they do. But nowhere does the Bible say that polygamy is a command of God. Quite the contrary, in fact (Rom. 7:3, etc.)
> as do Arians,
Jehovah's Witnesses, a good example of Arians, are quite good at ignoring the Scriptures which teach the deity of Christ. They do this in two ways:
1) attacking the translation when it teaches the deity of Christ, even so much as to "rewrite" (without manuscript support) the Bible to remove this belief (cf. John 1:1, Col. 1:16-18, etc.)
2) trying to deny Scripture with unsound "logic", by claiming that since Christ is "Son of God" (which Trinitarians agree), He cannot also be "God" (I note in passing that we are all both "man" and "Son of man", no contradiction).
> and just about everyone else. The difference is merely in > which scriptures they choose to emphasize and which they ignore.
Right. And Trinitarians emphasize *all* Scripture, and ignore *no* Scripture. This is clearly seen in that Trinitarians are right in the middle between Unitarians (who ignore the distinction between the persons of the Godhead) and Mormons (who ignore the monotheism taught in the Bible). Each side ignores the other side's Scriptures, while Trinitarians accept both.
> The Trinitarians who claim that there are three persons in > the "Godhead" claim that there is one called "Father" (being > the father of Jesus, "Son" (Jesus), and "Holy Spirit."
That is what the Bible teaches.
> To do so, they have to ignore the inspired, God-breathed > writings of the Disciple St. Matthew,
That's simply not true.
I see that you wish to turn this into an attack on the Trinity. That's perfectly okay, I have no problem defending the faith against those such as yourself (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15)
> who wrote: "This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His > mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they > came to live together, she was found to be with child > through the Holy Spirit." Matt 1:18 Jerusalem Bible
I don't know *ANY* Trinitarian who "ignores", or otherwise disbelieves Matt. 1:18. Not even Arians such as JW's bring it up as a "proof-text" against the Trinity, for they recognize that the verse doesn't trouble the Trinity in any way.
> Some Trinitarians ridicule Arianists when pointing > out that "the bible says" Thomas spoke "My Lord and my GOD" > to Jesus.
"Ridicule"?! Aren't you being a little bit melodramatic here? I've never seen John 20:28 used to "ridicule" Arians.
> They are as dismissive of the verse I quoted above in relation > to the Trinity as Witnesses of Jehovah are of John 20:28.
If that is actually the case that they are "dismissive" (because I have never seen it personally), then all that means is that the Trinitarians you were discussing it with were "bamboozled" by your double-talk, and didn't realize that the verse poses exactly no problems for Trinitarians.
> I point out with no sarcasm that if the Holy Spirit and > Mary produced Jesus, then of whom is the "Father" the father of?
The Father is the Father of Jesus. The Father impregnated Mary through the Holy Spirit.
You are trying to artificially create a false dichotomy here. It's not that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary "in contrast to the Father", but *BECAUSE* of the Father.
> Far from having your "dipswitches" set by the Bible, Jeff, > I suspect that (no blame or praise here) you are no different > from the rest of us.
You can "suspect" all you want, you are simply wrong, and you are simply trying to invent reasons for my beliefs weak enough that you can reject them in your mind.
> Whenever a Biblical contradiction to your CMOS setting > pops up, the phrase "Illegal operation--file not found--program > will be shut down" and that is the end of it.
There *are* no "Biblical contradictions".
Years ago, I spent probably over a hundred posts (do a Google search of "contradiction" and "Shirton" if you want), and addressed many, many, many alleged "contradictions". It's a very sad state of affairs, most Bible bashers who claim "contradictions" prefer quantity over quality, and no matter how many *ridiculous* claims they came up with and I demolished, they would continue with others, and others, and others, ignoring the fact that their "standards" were rock-bottom. Even worse, most of their "lists" of alleged "contradictions" come from volumes of texts were these alleged problems are in fact *explained*, yet they always seem to ignore those parts, and hope their opponents aren't familiar with them.
I have a standard as far as "contradictions" goes. Because such Bible-bashers (such as yourself, apparently) don't care about the meagre quality of their claims, and depend instead on quality, I always say, "give me your best shot". Give me just *ONE* contradiction, the one you think is the biggest, the best, the hardest to "explain", and if I can explain that one, then none of the rest in your bag are any better. If you'd like to give it a shot, Raleigh, I'm certainly game. (And it will be humourous if I can address it simply by citing a past post I've made to the newsgroups.)
> Raleigh
-- Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> "[T]he gospel is not that man can become God, but that God became a man." -- James White
>> >My words are not directly inspired by God, as "Scripture", >> >in contrast to those of the authors of the Bible, which are.
>> Polygamists support their beliefs with scripture,
>They say they do. >But nowhere does the Bible say that polygamy is a command >of God. Quite the contrary, in fact (Rom. 7:3, etc.)
There are a lot of etc's in the Bible. Many of them present polygamy as being of no consequence to Jehovah, or tacitly being permitted by him. The Bible has examples of a few polygamists, such as Gideon, who were called to serve him, despite the fact that the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy as an abomination. This is one of the factors that indicates the BoM as unhistorical--the Old Testament Jehovah called polygamists to serve him, but never sodomites--the Old Testament calls sodomy the same kind of abomination that the BoM calls polygamy.
>> as do Arians,
>Jehovah's Witnesses, a good example of Arians, are quite >good at ignoring the Scriptures which teach the deity of >Christ. They do this in two ways:
>1) attacking the translation when it teaches the deity of > Christ, even so much as to "rewrite" (without manuscript > support) the Bible to remove this belief (cf. John 1:1, > Col. 1:16-18, etc.)
The Supreme Court publishes a minority opinion. Even the losers have their say. The Witnesses of Jehovah prefer minority translations of passages such as John 1:1; however I may accept these minority translations as acceptable, in the main, the Bible still disagrees with Watchtower doctrine.
>2) trying to deny Scripture with unsound "logic", by claiming > that since Christ is "Son of God" (which Trinitarians agree), > He cannot also be "God" (I note in passing that we are all > both "man" and "Son of man", no contradiction).
Never heard that one, but it is as specious as claiming one owes no taxes because the constitution does not authorize the printing of paper money ('coin money'), thus one has no income.
>> and just about everyone else. The difference is merely in >> which scriptures they choose to emphasize and which they ignore.
>Right. >And Trinitarians emphasize *all* Scripture, and ignore *no* Scripture.
Actually, Trinitarians ignore scripture that offends them. Unlike the Watchtower, however, they are not embarrassed at this ignorance, and do not try to retranslate the passage they ignore. It is Matthew 1:18. Mary was found to be with child "of the Holy Ghost." If the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary, then he/it (pick one) is the father of Jesus Christ. That leaves us to wonder just who the Father is the father of.
>This is clearly seen in that Trinitarians are right in the middle between >Unitarians (who ignore the distinction between the persons of the >Godhead) and Mormons (who ignore the monotheism taught in the >Bible). Each side ignores the other side's Scriptures, while Trinitarians >accept both.
Nope. As you see from the example above, Trinitarians accept Matthew 1:18 as scripture, they just omit consideration of it when discussing the "Godhead." In fact, the term "Godhead" had to be manufactured to explain the apparent polytheism of the Trinity in a sect claiming to be monotheistic.
>> The Trinitarians who claim that there are three persons in >> the "Godhead" claim that there is one called "Father" (being >> the father of Jesus, "Son" (Jesus), and "Holy Spirit."
>That is what the Bible teaches.
>> To do so, they have to ignore the inspired, God-breathed >> writings of the Disciple St. Matthew,
>That's simply not true.
>I see that you wish to turn this into an attack on the Trinity. >That's perfectly okay, I have no problem defending the >faith against those such as yourself (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15)
You have no problem accepting the fact that you must jump into the crusade. However, you definitely have a problem mounting an effective defense, due to Matthew 1:18, if nothing else.
>> who wrote: "This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His >> mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they >> came to live together, she was found to be with child >> through the Holy Spirit." Matt 1:18 Jerusalem Bible
>I don't know *ANY* Trinitarian who "ignores", or otherwise >disbelieves Matt. 1:18. Not even Arians such as JW's >bring it up as a "proof-text" against the Trinity, for they >recognize that the verse doesn't trouble the Trinity in any way.
No. Most arians today are recruits from Trintarian denominations, thus they fail to realize the implications of Matthew 1:18. It is called not thinking for ones self.
>> Some Trinitarians ridicule Arianists when pointing >> out that "the bible says" Thomas spoke "My Lord and my GOD" >> to Jesus.
>"Ridicule"?! Aren't you being a little bit melodramatic here? >I've never seen John 20:28 used to "ridicule" Arians.
Yes, it has been used, at least the NWT version of the passage. Thomas falls down before Jesus, saying, "My Lord" and then is expected to have turned his eyes up to heaven where the throne God the Holy Spirit/Father is and exclaimed "My God!" The arians offer no explanation for Thomas taking liberties with taking the divine name in vain. The net effect of the passage in modern dynamics would be "Oh Shit! It's Jesus!"
>> They are as dismissive of the verse I quoted above in relation >> to the Trinity as Witnesses of Jehovah are of John 20:28.
>If that is actually the case that they are "dismissive" (because >I have never seen it personally), then all that means is that the >Trinitarians you were discussing it with were "bamboozled" >by your double-talk, and didn't realize that the verse poses >exactly no problems for Trinitarians.
Actually, since Trinitarians learn the trinity from the doctrinal materials of their church and their Sunday School teacher, very seldom have they ever read the Bible itself with much comprehension. I can't get polygamy out of the Book of Mormon, either, but LDS who have spent any time in LDS educational institutions are convinced it's in there.
>> I point out with no sarcasm that if the Holy Spirit and >> Mary produced Jesus, then of whom is the "Father" the father of?
>The Father is the Father of Jesus. >The Father impregnated Mary through the Holy Spirit.
You mean, the Father is the father of Jesus by proxy, having dispatched someone else to get the job done, whether spiritually or in the carnal sense.
>You are trying to artificially create a false dichotomy here. >It's not that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary "in contrast >to the Father", but *BECAUSE* of the Father.
There is no false dichotomy at all. If the Spirit is a person separate from the Father, it doesn't matter if the Spirit impregnated Mary on his own, or if the Father (specious title, that) commanded him to do it--either way, the idea that the "Father" actually is the father is as nonsensical to me as the Adam God doctrine.
>> Far from having your "dipswitches" set by the Bible, Jeff, >> I suspect that (no blame or praise here) you are no different >> from the rest of us.
>You can "suspect" all you want, you are simply wrong, >and you are simply trying to invent reasons for my beliefs >weak enough that you can reject them in your mind.
No, Jeff. You, of course, may believe as you please. But religious beliefs, if based upon actual fact drawn from scripture, could be fine-tuned, and could be changed, even if slightly, were they actually based upon scripture. Since such beliefs are not changeable in the slightest, it appears that they are more based upon prejudices inculcated by extrabiblical teachings rather than from study of the bible itself. That would include my own beliefs as well. I didn't bring this up to suggest you were brainwashed.
>> Whenever a Biblical contradiction to your CMOS setting >> pops up, the phrase "Illegal operation--file not found--program >> will be shut down" and that is the end of it.
>There *are* no "Biblical contradictions".
>Years ago, I spent probably over a hundred posts (do a Google >search of "contradiction" and "Shirton" if you want), and >addressed many, many, many alleged "contradictions". It's >a very sad state of affairs, most Bible bashers who claim >"contradictions" prefer quantity over quality, and no matter >how many *ridiculous* claims they came up with and I >demolished, they would continue with others, and others, >and others, ignoring the fact that their "standards" were >rock-bottom. Even worse, most of their "lists" of alleged >"contradictions" come from volumes of texts were these >alleged problems are in fact *explained*, yet they always >seem to ignore those parts, and hope their opponents aren't >familiar with them.
The Bible is shot through and through with contradictions, beginning with Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. Genesis 1 says that God made mankind on the sixth day, and that he made the plants on the third day. Genesis 2 says that Jehovah God made man before making the plants, which would place this creation somewhere on the third day, if it is to be fitted into the Chapter 1 framework. This is where the "spiritual creation" doctrine came about in the Inspired Version--to explain away this contradiction. In fact, my grandfather, who was never Mormon, explained it the same way--just because God made the plants on the third day didn't mean that he had stuck them in the ground, yet. He could have made them anywhere.
>I have a standard as far as "contradictions" goes. Because >such Bible-bashers (such as yourself, apparently) don't >care about the meagre quality of their claims, and depend >instead on quality, I always say, "give me your best shot". >Give me just *ONE*
>> >My words are not directly inspired by God, as "Scripture", >> >in contrast to those of the authors of the Bible, which are.
>> Polygamists support their beliefs with scripture,
>They say they do. >But nowhere does the Bible say that polygamy is a command >of God. Quite the contrary, in fact (Rom. 7:3, etc.)
There are a lot of etc's in the Bible. Many of them present polygamy as being of no consequence to Jehovah, or tacitly being permitted by him. The Bible has examples of a few polygamists, such as Gideon, who were called to serve him, despite the fact that the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy as an abomination. This is one of the factors that indicates the BoM as unhistorical--the Old Testament Jehovah called polygamists to serve him, but never sodomites--the Old Testament calls sodomy the same kind of abomination that the BoM calls polygamy.
>> as do Arians,
>Jehovah's Witnesses, a good example of Arians, are quite >good at ignoring the Scriptures which teach the deity of >Christ. They do this in two ways:
>1) attacking the translation when it teaches the deity of > Christ, even so much as to "rewrite" (without manuscript > support) the Bible to remove this belief (cf. John 1:1, > Col. 1:16-18, etc.)
The Supreme Court publishes a minority opinion. Even the losers have their say. The Witnesses of Jehovah prefer minority translations of passages such as John 1:1; however I may accept these minority translations as acceptable, in the main, the Bible still disagrees with Watchtower doctrine.
>2) trying to deny Scripture with unsound "logic", by claiming > that since Christ is "Son of God" (which Trinitarians agree), > He cannot also be "God" (I note in passing that we are all > both "man" and "Son of man", no contradiction).
Never heard that one, but it is as specious as claiming one owes no taxes because the constitution does not authorize the printing of paper money ('coin money'), thus one has no income.
>> and just about everyone else. The difference is merely in >> which scriptures they choose to emphasize and which they ignore.
>Right. >And Trinitarians emphasize *all* Scripture, and ignore *no* Scripture.
Actually, Trinitarians ignore scripture that offends them. Unlike the Watchtower, however, they are not embarrassed at this ignorance, and do not try to retranslate the passage they ignore. It is Matthew 1:18. Mary was found to be with child "of the Holy Ghost." If the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary, then he/it (pick one) is the father of Jesus Christ. That leaves us to wonder just who the Father is the father of.
>This is clearly seen in that Trinitarians are right in the middle between >Unitarians (who ignore the distinction between the persons of the >Godhead) and Mormons (who ignore the monotheism taught in the >Bible). Each side ignores the other side's Scriptures, while Trinitarians >accept both.
Nope. As you see from the example above, Trinitarians accept Matthew 1:18 as scripture, they just omit consideration of it when discussing the "Godhead." In fact, the term "Godhead" had to be manufactured to explain the apparent polytheism of the Trinity in a sect claiming to be monotheistic.
>> The Trinitarians who claim that there are three persons in >> the "Godhead" claim that there is one called "Father" (being >> the father of Jesus, "Son" (Jesus), and "Holy Spirit."
>That is what the Bible teaches.
>> To do so, they have to ignore the inspired, God-breathed >> writings of the Disciple St. Matthew,
>That's simply not true.
>I see that you wish to turn this into an attack on the Trinity. >That's perfectly okay, I have no problem defending the >faith against those such as yourself (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15)
You have no problem accepting the fact that you must jump into the crusade. However, you definitely have a problem mounting an effective defense, due to Matthew 1:18, if nothing else.
>> who wrote: "This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His >> mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they >> came to live together, she was found to be with child >> through the Holy Spirit." Matt 1:18 Jerusalem Bible
>I don't know *ANY* Trinitarian who "ignores", or otherwise >disbelieves Matt. 1:18. Not even Arians such as JW's >bring it up as a "proof-text" against the Trinity, for they >recognize that the verse doesn't trouble the Trinity in any way.
No. Most arians today are recruits from Trintarian denominations, thus they fail to realize the implications of Matthew 1:18. It is called not thinking for ones self.
>> Some Trinitarians ridicule Arianists when pointing >> out that "the bible says" Thomas spoke "My Lord and my GOD" >> to Jesus.
>"Ridicule"?! Aren't you being a little bit melodramatic here? >I've never seen John 20:28 used to "ridicule" Arians.
Yes, it has been used, at least the NWT version of the passage. Thomas falls down before Jesus, saying, "My Lord" and then is expected to have turned his eyes up to heaven where the throne God the Holy Spirit/Father is and exclaimed "My God!" The arians offer no explanation for Thomas taking liberties with taking the divine name in vain. The net effect of the passage in modern dynamics would be "Oh Shit! It's Jesus!"
>> They are as dismissive of the verse I quoted above in relation >> to the Trinity as Witnesses of Jehovah are of John 20:28.
>If that is actually the case that they are "dismissive" (because >I have never seen it personally), then all that means is that the >Trinitarians you were discussing it with were "bamboozled" >by your double-talk, and didn't realize that the verse poses >exactly no problems for Trinitarians.
Actually, since Trinitarians learn the trinity from the doctrinal materials of their church and their Sunday School teacher, very seldom have they ever read the Bible itself with much comprehension. I can't get polygamy out of the Book of Mormon, either, but LDS who have spent any time in LDS educational institutions are convinced it's in there.
>> I point out with no sarcasm that if the Holy Spirit and >> Mary produced Jesus, then of whom is the "Father" the father of?
>The Father is the Father of Jesus. >The Father impregnated Mary through the Holy Spirit.
You mean, the Father is the father of Jesus by proxy, having dispatched someone else to get the job done, whether spiritually or in the carnal sense.
>You are trying to artificially create a false dichotomy here. >It's not that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary "in contrast >to the Father", but *BECAUSE* of the Father.
There is no false dichotomy at all. If the Spirit is a person separate from the Father, it doesn't matter if the Spirit impregnated Mary on his own, or if the Father (specious title, that) commanded him to do it--either way, the idea that the "Father" actually is the father is as nonsensical to me as the Adam God doctrine.
>> Far from having your "dipswitches" set by the Bible, Jeff, >> I suspect that (no blame or praise here) you are no different >> from the rest of us.
>You can "suspect" all you want, you are simply wrong, >and you are simply trying to invent reasons for my beliefs >weak enough that you can reject them in your mind.
No, Jeff. You, of course, may believe as you please. But religious beliefs, if based upon actual fact drawn from scripture, could be fine-tuned, and could be changed, even if slightly, were they actually based upon scripture. Since such beliefs are not changeable in the slightest, it appears that they are more based upon prejudices inculcated by extrabiblical teachings rather than from study of the bible itself. That would include my own beliefs as well. I didn't bring this up to suggest you were brainwashed.
>> Whenever a Biblical contradiction to your CMOS setting >> pops up, the phrase "Illegal operation--file not found--program >> will be shut down" and that is the end of it.
>There *are* no "Biblical contradictions".
>Years ago, I spent probably over a hundred posts (do a Google >search of "contradiction" and "Shirton" if you want), and >addressed many, many, many alleged "contradictions". It's >a very sad state of affairs, most Bible bashers who claim >"contradictions" prefer quantity over quality, and no matter >how many *ridiculous* claims they came up with and I >demolished, they would continue with others, and others, >and others, ignoring the fact that their "standards" were >rock-bottom. Even worse, most of their "lists" of alleged >"contradictions" come from volumes of texts were these >alleged problems are in fact *explained*, yet they always >seem to ignore those parts, and hope their opponents aren't >familiar with them.
The Bible is shot through and through with contradictions, beginning with Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. Genesis 1 says that God made mankind on the sixth day, and that he made the plants on the third day. Genesis 2 says that Jehovah God made man before making the plants, which would place this creation somewhere on the third day, if it is to be fitted into the Chapter 1 framework. This is where the "spiritual creation" doctrine came about in the Inspired Version--to explain away this contradiction. In fact, my grandfather, who was never Mormon, explained it the same way--just because God made the plants on the third day didn't mean that he had stuck them in the ground, yet. He could have made them anywhere.
>I have a standard as far as "contradictions" goes. Because >such Bible-bashers (such as yourself, apparently) don't >care about the meagre quality of their claims, and depend >instead on quality, I always say, "give me your best shot". >Give me just *ONE*
graleigh...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345) wrote in message <news:20030420140531.18755.00000148@mb-m05.news.cs.com>... > In article <Dvkoa.2263$b67.663...@read2.cgocable.net>, "Jeff Shirton" > <jshir...@unlisted.burlington.ca> writes: >The Bible is shot through and through with contradictions, beginning with > Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. Genesis 1 says that God made mankind on the sixth > day, and that he made the plants on the third day. Genesis 2 says that Jehovah > God made man before making the plants, which would place this creation > somewhere on the third day, if it is to be fitted into the Chapter 1 framework. > This is where the "spiritual creation" doctrine came about in the Inspired > Version--to explain away this contradiction. In fact, my grandfather, who was > never Mormon, explained it the same way--just because God made the plants on > the third day didn't mean that he had stuck them in the ground, yet. He could > have made them anywhere. > I just did. But I'm always good for a laugh. This newsgroup is too uptight, > lately, with all the leftist propaganda that has been crossposted by very cross > people. I have a friend from Junior High who regularly sends me a good anecdote > now and then.
> Here is the quote, Jeff.
> NRSV Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "Let > the earth put forth vegetation: plants > yielding seed, and fruit trees of every > kind on earth that bear fruit with the > seed in it." And it was so. > NRSV Genesis 1:12 The earth brought > forth vegetation: plants yielding seed > of every kind, and trees of every kind > bearing fruit with the seed in it. And > God saw that it was good. > NRSV Genesis 1:13 And there was evening > and there was morning, ***the third day.***
> NRSV Genesis 1:27 So God created > humankind in his image, in the image of > God he created them; male and female he > created them. > NRSV Genesis 1:28 God blessed them, and > God said to them, "Be fruitful and > multiply, and fill the earth and subdue > it; and have dominion over the fish of > the sea and over the birds of the air > and over every living thing that moves > upon the earth." > NRSV Genesis 1:29 God said, "See, I have > given you every plant yielding seed that > is upon the face of all the earth, and > every tree with seed in its fruit; you > shall have them for food. > NRSV Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of > the earth, and to every bird of the air, > and to everything that creeps on the > earth, everything that has the breath of > life, I have given every green plant for > food." And it was so. > NRSV Genesis 1:31 God saw everything > that he had made, and indeed, it was > very good. And there was evening and > there was morning, the ***sixth day.***
> The relevant passage from Genesis 2 is
> NRSV Genesis 2:4 These are the > generations of the heavens and the earth > when they were created. > In the day that the LORD God > made the earth and the heavens, > NRSV Genesis 2:5 when no plant 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 no one to till > the ground; > NRSV Genesis 2:6 but a stream would rise > from the earth, and water the whole face > of the ground-- > NRSV Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God > formed man from the dust of the ground, > and breathed into his nostrils the > breath of life; and the man became a > living being.
> The reason why the average reader overlooks this contradiction is:
> 1.Seldom does anyone read the bible straight through
> 2. A large number of people still use older translations such as the KJV, the > language of which effectively obscures the meaning of Genesis 2:4-7 by running > 2:4a directly into the beginning of the paragraph starting at 2:4b
> 3. The parenthetical insertion between the dashes in verse 2:5-6 interrupts > the train of thought and successfully obscures the pertinent chronology > factors, because it stops to explain why there were no plants in the earth yet, > and distracts from the stated time of "in the day." In fact, it is the sort of > "intratextual commentary" of which the Book of Mormon overflows.
Raleigh, if you don't mind, I would like to throw in here a little bit. Let me first state that some of your generalizations about Evangelicals not reading the Bible all they way through are somewhat unfounded. IMO, it's quite a paintbrush statement and is about as accurate as me saying that Mormons don't ever read the Bible.
About the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:
While the allegation that there are two conflicting accounts of creation has ramifications in a number of areas of interpretation, often in the inerrancy discussion the focus is on the supposed contradiction between Genesis 1:11-12 which records vegetation appearing on the third day and Genesis 2:5 which seems to say there was no vegetation until after Adam was created.
Two things are wrong about such a conclusion. First chapter 2 adds details to the account of creation in chapter 1, not in contradiction but in supplementation. For example, we are told that God created man (generically speaking) male and female (Gen. 1:27), but this does not mean that the first creature was a male-female combination. The details of that creation of the male Adam and the female Eve are given in Geneis 2:18-23. Likewise, Genesis 2:5 adds details about the creation of vegetation on the third day.
Second, the words use in Genesis 2:5 refer to the kinds of plants that require cultivation, not to all kinds of green plants.
Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. (Genesis 2:5)
Plants that required such cultivation either did not appear until Adam was created and could then cultivate them, or they appeared but did not grow until Adam was created.
Commentator Leupold said this:
"Verse 4b takes us back into the time of the work of creation, more particularly to the time before the work of the third day began, and draws our attention to certain details, could hardly have been inserted in chapter 1: The fact that certain forms of life, namely the kinds that require the attentive care of man in greater meausure, had not sprung up. . . When verdure covered the earth, the sprouting of these types of vegatation was retarded, so that they might appear after man was already in full possession of his domain and in a position to give them their needed care. The fact that not the whole of vegetation is meant appears from the distinctive terms employed, neither of which had as yet appeared in the account. . . From all this it appears sufficiently how absurd the claim is that in this account (2:4ff) man is made first, then vegetation (H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis [Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1942] pp. 112-3).
A contradiction and therefore an error, from where I sit, only exists for those who want it. A good exegesis of the passage shows that there is no error.
> Years ago, I spent probably over a hundred > posts (do a Google search of "contradiction" > and "Shirton" if you want), and addressed > many, many, many alleged "contradictions"....
Did search, as recommended.
Google Advanced Groups Search. Used keys as follows:
Author: Jeff Shirton
Must contain the word: contradiction
Came up with 200+ hits.
Didn't recognize what you say you posted. There were a few that addressed alleged "bible contradictions," but most were along the line, "your assertion is a direct contradiction of [proof text]."
Would appreciate a more specific reference to your years-ago posts.
The larger problems exists with the order of creation regarding man and animals.
Why not just accept the possibility that the Documentary Hypothesis has at least a grain of truth -- that Moses simply didn't write both accounts, but that the final editor of Genesis didn't give a fig about such things as inerrancy or consistency, but rather sought to preserve two distinct scriptural traditions?
Biblical inerrancy just seems, to me, to be an unprovable hypothesis, and thus of no value.
> Raleigh, if you don't mind, I would like to throw in here a little > bit. Let me first state that some of your generalizations about > Evangelicals not reading the Bible all they way through are somewhat > unfounded. IMO, it's quite a paintbrush statement and is about as > accurate as me saying that Mormons don't ever read the Bible.
> About the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:
> While the allegation that there are two conflicting accounts of > creation has ramifications in a number of areas of interpretation, > often in the inerrancy discussion the focus is on the supposed > contradiction between Genesis 1:11-12 which records vegetation > appearing on the third day and Genesis 2:5 which seems to say there > was no vegetation until after Adam was created.
> Two things are wrong about such a conclusion. First chapter 2 adds > details to the account of creation in chapter 1, not in contradiction > but in supplementation. For example, we are told that God created man > (generically speaking) male and female (Gen. 1:27), but this does not > mean that the first creature was a male-female combination. The > details of that creation of the male Adam and the female Eve are given > in Geneis 2:18-23. Likewise, Genesis 2:5 adds details about the > creation of vegetation on the third day.
> Second, the words use in Genesis 2:5 refer to the kinds of plants that > require cultivation, not to all kinds of green plants.
> Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the > field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the > earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. > (Genesis 2:5)
> Plants that required such cultivation either did not appear until Adam > was created and could then cultivate them, or they appeared but did > not grow until Adam was created.
> Commentator Leupold said this:
> "Verse 4b takes us back into the time of the work of creation, more > particularly to the time before the work of the third day began, and > draws our attention to certain details, could hardly have been > inserted in chapter 1: The fact that certain forms of life, namely > the kinds that require the attentive care of man in greater meausure, > had not sprung up. . . When verdure covered the earth, the sprouting > of these types of vegatation was retarded, so that they might appear > after man was already in full possession of his domain and in a > position to give them their needed care. The fact that not the whole > of vegetation is meant appears from the distinctive terms employed, > neither of which had as yet appeared in the account. . . From all this > it appears sufficiently how absurd the claim is that in this account > (2:4ff) man is made first, then vegetation (H.C. Leupold, Exposition > of Genesis [Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1942] pp. 112-3).
> A contradiction and therefore an error, from where I sit, only exists > for those who want it. A good exegesis of the passage shows that > there is no error.
In article <d2d9d94.0304201948.507c3...@posting.google.com>, lm...@msn.com
(John Lemings) writes: >A contradiction and therefore an error, from where I sit, only exists >for those who want it. A good exegesis of the passage shows that >there is no error.
Thank you for your exposition. It is very detailed. However, it is very legalistic in some respects, hinging upon exactitude of the description of the plants in a very primitive (or rather, simple) language with small vocabulary.
Even if I were to accept your explanation, I would still be left with a problem, because Tyndale said that in English translation, the plowman in the fields could understand the Word of God. I am pretty sure my IQ is at least 100, but as you can see, I could not "properly" understand the Word of God without an explanation.
However, if you believe that the words "of the field" refer to distinctive plants which require cultivation, you may do so. However, I note that the "beasts of the field" refer to something that is a little different. If, as I believe, "beasts of the field refers to wild animals," why are "plants of the field" horticultural wonders?
I quote Genesis 2:5 from the New Jerusalem Bible.
"At the time when Yahweh God made earth and heaven there was as yet no wild bush on the earth nor had any wild plant yet sprung up, for Yahweh God had not sent rain on the earth, nor was there any man to till the soil. However, a flood was rising from the earth and watering all the surface of the soil."
It appears that the translators of the NJB believe that the Biblical narrative is simple and easy to understand, and have translated it so. Since we are used to a language with a very rich vocabulary, that organizes and groups concepts, it is easy to suppose that the mere mention in Hebrew of the fact that primitive men were farmers in juxtaposition with the mention of plants automatically means the plants were Luther Burbank specials.
I have nothing against evangelicals. It may be that, like the children of Israel, the evangelicals have a "mixed multitude" following after them who are not really evangelicals, but so close as to be misidentified from satellite photos. The High Priest who baptized me into the now-defunct RLDS Church was a closet evangelical, and preferred the NIV to the Joseph Smith Translation.
As you can see, my interpretation of the text of Genesis as offered up by the KJV translators, and by modern Catholic scholarship (in the UK), is that the contradiction remains. That is the origin of my statement: "Man comes to believe in God because of the Bible, and after he has studied the Bible, continues to believe in God in spite of the Bible."
Regards, Raleigh
"In short, we do not recommend suicide as a way of life." --Alfred Hitchcock, 1965
