Why The Holy Bible Lies #71 - 80
Budikka666
Saul's death: Do we need an inquiry?
1 Sam 28:6 "And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him
not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets."
1 Chr. 10:13-14 "So Saul...enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew
him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse."
One of these is a lie.
#72.
Not a lie, but...
2 Sam. 6:6-7 "And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put
forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen
shook it...And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and
God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of
God.
1 Chr. 13:9-10 "And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon,
Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And
the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him,
because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God."
This seems like a lie because in the one it is Nachon's threshingfloor
and the other, it is Chidon's, but the two are actually one and the
same.
However, we must ask ourselves how divinely inspired is a book which
actively creates confusion. Isn't sowing confusion the Devil's
work?! The real lie here is that this god is a loving, longsuffering
or in any way reasonable god.
All that Uzza(h) was doing was protecting God's ark from damage or
destruction, yet God's reward for this was instant death. How loving
is that? Does anyone in their right mind want a personal relationship
with a paranoid and vindictive serial killer?
This god hated anyone even viewing the ark:
1 Sam. 6:19 "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had
looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty
thousand and threescore and ten men..."
On the other hand, the penalty for actually stealing the ark is much
lighter:
1 Sam. 5:8-9 "They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the
Philistines unto them, and said, What shall we do with the ark of the
God of Israel? And they answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be
carried about unto Gath. And it was so, that, after they had carried
it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great
destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great,
and they had emerods in their secret parts."
So try to protect the ark and you get struck dead. Take a look inside
it and 50,000 innocents die. But go ahead and actually *steal* it,
and all you get is hemorrhoids!
Interesting psychology this god indulges himself in, isn't it?
#73.
Michal rode the brute 'til sore:
2 Sam. 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto
the day of her death."
But 15 chapters later:
2 Sam. 21:8 "...and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul..."
In one interpretation this latter quote suggests that these might be
the children of Michal's sister. If this is true, then this is not a
contradiction, but it is at best, very misleading. Why couldn't the
name of Michal's sister be used? How can we trust anything in a book
that is so excessively obscure and badly written?
#74.
By the way - this is the same Michal that David bought for 200
foreskins! Did he get a tip that she was available if he could make
ends meet? This story alone is enough to trash the Bible completely:
1 Sam. 18:27 "David...and his men...slew of the Philistines two
hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in
full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And
Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife."
200 foreskins, full tale! Whichever way you slice it, they ought to
have been a bit more circumspect...but problems arose:
1 Sam. 19:12 "So Michal let David down through a window: and he went,
and fled, and escaped."
This is King David to be, supposed slayer of Goliath, Chosen One of
God, the Shining Star of Jesus' lineage, running like a scared chicken
because he has no faith in God's ability to protect him. So David
escaped by the skin of his...well, never mind - back to the story:
2 Sam. 3:14 "And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul's son,
saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an
hundred foreskins of the Philistines."
So now it's only 100 foreskins. Obviously the bride was cut-price.
or did David stiff Saul with the tip?
And a word about Ish-Bosheth: he was one of Saul's sons, and was
originally named Ish-Baal, or Son of the Lord. Later, when the name
'Baal' came to be associated not with the Lord God, but with pagan
gods, the scribes didn't dare write these foul pagan names, so they
removed 'Baal' and substituted 'Bosheth' which means 'shame'. To use
Asimov's example: in the tradition of newspapers substituting
asterisks for unprintable words, IshBaal became Ish****. This proves
that the Pentateuch could not have been a contemporary account of the
things it records.
Ish(shame), by the way, who, at David's request, forcibly took Michal
from her new husband and sent her to David, was later assassinated so
David could rule his lands. This is the kind of person that the
father of the Jesus lineage was.
#75.
2 Sam. 8:4 "And David took from [Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of
Zobah] a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty
thousand footmen..."
1 Chr. 18:4 "And David took from [Hadarezer king of Zobah] a thousand
chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen..."
This is an error in transcription, both in the number of horsemen and
in the name of the king. However, no one, in all the time since, has
sought to correct it - not the god who inspired it, not the original
writers by proof-reading it, not the copyists who perpetuated the lie,
not any Bible sacholar or rabbi in the entire time since it was first
put on paper.
#76.
A horse, my foot! A kingdom for a chariot!
2 Sam. 10:18 "...David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the
Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen..."
1 Chr. 19:18 "...David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which
fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen..."
Not only is this an error of magnitude with the chariots, we cannot be
sure from the original texts if the scribe meant horsemen or footmen,
or if there was any perceived difference between the two! If we can
catch the Bible writers and copyists out in lies like these which are
relatively simple to discern (although impossible to correct,
evidently), what hope is there of ever trusting the portions of the
Bible involving interactions with angels and eities, where is is no
means whatsoever of fact-checking?
Clearly the Bible is not to be trusted.
#77.
The sins of the fathers:
2 Sam. 12:14-18 "Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great
occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that
is born unto thee shall surely die...And the LORD struck the child
that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David
therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in,
and lay all night upon the earth...And it came to pass on the seventh
day, that the child died."
...And God rested from his tormenting. But:
Mat. 7:7 "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find;
knock, and it shall be opened unto you:"
God lies - David's entreating and prayer go unanswered. Worse than
this, the God of Love, who wants you to spend eternity under his rule,
torments and murders a baby because of the sin of one of the Bible's
greatest heroes.
#78.
God's number is up!
2 Sam. 24:1 "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against
Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and
Judah."
Or
1 Chr. 21:1 "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to
number Israel."
So who is responsible? Let's look at this in a little more detail:
2 Sam. 24:9 "And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto
the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men
that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand
men."
So we have here 1.3 million men. There is no indication as to how
many women or children, and remember that this covers only Israel and
Judah. However, we can be very conservative, and say there were as
many women as men, and as many children as men, and as many in the
rest of the world as men, so we multiply 1.3 million by four and get
us a world population of 5.2 million absolute bare minimum.
David lived 3,000 years ago. The flood of Noah was some 4,300 years
ago. Can anyone tell me how those eight survivors of the flood
multiplied to significantly over five million in barely more than one
thousand years, given the mortality rate and the incessant fighting
described in the Bible? You're right - it cannot be done. The Bible
lied about a global flood.
#79.
Can it get worse? Look at this clear lie in the Holy Word of God:
1 Chr. 21:5 "And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto
David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred
thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore
and ten thousand men that drew sword."
Or did he? Just a few chapters later:
1 Chr. 27:24 "Joab the son of Zeruiah began to number, but he finished
not, because there fell wrath for it against Israel; neither was the
number put in the account of the chronicles of king David."
So in the very book of Chronicles where it specifically states that
the census was not finished and no number was put into the Chronicles
of David, appears the finished number of the census in the Chronicles
of David!
What's more, the number in the Chronicles differs from the number in
Samuel! And about those men of Israel that drew sword - were there
really over a thousand thousand? I don't think so! Do these
thoroughly incompetent morons truly expect us to accept their
scribbled garbage as divine?
#80.
All that glisters...
2 Sam. 24:24 "And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely
buy it...So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty
shekels of silver."
1 Chr. 21:24-25 "...So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred
shekels of gold by weight.
Araunah and Ornan are the same person, so no contradiction there, but
there is no way to explain the difference between 50 and 600 as a
simple error, or gold and silver as a simple error. This one section
right here calls into question all of the stories of the wealth and
power of David and Solomon.
There is a second issue here. The reason David bought this property
was to have space for a sacrificial altar. I have to ask: what kind
of god is it that can be bought for a burned animal or two, yet cannot
be won over by a real change of heart within a person, which God ought
to be able to see?
Budikka
duke
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
and of mankind."
Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
*****
http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
So Pius XII suggests to exegetes a daring synthesis with respect to a
hermeneutic of Genesis ch. 1- 11: the first eleven chapters of the book of
Genesis employ simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of an
uncultured people to express those truths of history fundamental to our
salvation. In short, there is a solid core of history, as it were, buried under
the language and popular mentality of the ancient Hebrew.
What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical Biblical
Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been withdrawn in
any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that the
literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
doubted in regard to":
1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
2.) the special creation of man
3.) the formation of the first woman from the first man
4.) the unity of the human race
5.) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice,
integrity, and immortality
6.) the command given by God to man to test his obedience
7.) the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil
under the form of a serpent
8.) the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence
9.) the promise of a future redeemer.
With respect to any other dimension of Genesis 1-3, the literal sense must be
examined more fully by exegetes. So 1 - 9 form the historical core of truths
fundamental to our faith expressed in Genesis ch. 1- 3, the truths around which
the ancient Hebraic authors either elaborated a story or collected a popular
tradition or recorded a primitive pre-history.
*****
http://books.google.com/books?id=WPt7NB9GFu0C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=
prehistory+of+genesis+%221+11%22&source=web&ots=k965YPQn2A&sig=
T1YPXZ12c_rpgMLBR6EjvD6TiFk#PPA63,M1
"Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
history."
*****
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
..
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6mj7039gqh5pqcj8d...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Mar 2007 15:08:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome
> Edition,
> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
>
> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the
> very
> beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters
> 1-11
> are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life.
> They
> are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the
> universe
> and of mankind."
What is a "faith statement?"
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:6mj7039gqh5pqcj8d...@4ax.com...
>> On 22 Mar 2007 15:08:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome
>> Edition,
>> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
>>
>> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the
>> very
>> beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters
>> 1-11
>> are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life.
>> They
>> are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the
>> universe
>> and of mankind."
>What is a "faith statement?"
read on down to the bottom
..
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:23:04 -0500, ".." <durondae_@_hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:6mj7039gqh5pqcj8d...@4ax.com...
>>> On 22 Mar 2007 15:08:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome
>>> Edition,
>>> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
>>>
>>> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to
>>> the
>>> very
>>> beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that
>>> Chapters
>>> 1-11
>>> are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of
>>> life.
>>> They
>>> are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the
>>> universe
>>> and of mankind."
>
>>What is a "faith statement?"
>
> read on down to the bottom
There is no explanation of what a "faith statement" means.
Budikka666
> On 22 Mar 2007 15:08:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
Funny that you try to address this in a completely different thread
from where I repeatedly corrected your lies and stupidity. What are
you afraid of? That someone will see what I *actually* said (not what
you delete and lie about) and realise what a pathetic little puffball
you are?
This thread has nothing to do with your stupidity and lies, but with
Bible lies. Address those, chickenshit.
No one cares what your Bible *commentary* says because it is
contradicted by other commentaries, which are as at least as
authoritative as yours.
Let's look at what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the
global flood shall we?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
"...the Masoretic text assigns it to the year 1656 after the creation,
the Samaritan to 1307, the Septuagint to 2242, Flavius Josephus to
2256. Again, the Masoretic text places it in B. C. 2350 (Klaproth) or
2253 (Lüken), the Samaritan in 2903, the Septuagint in 3134. According
to the ancient traditions (Lüken), the Assyrians placed the Deluge in
2234 B. C. or 2316, the Greeks in 2300, the Egyptians in 2600, the
Phoenicians in 2700, the Mexicans in 2900, the Indians in 3100, the
Chinese in 2297, while the Armenians assigned the building of the
Tower of Babel to about 2200 B. C...."
In short, all of these dates shown in the CATHOLIC encyclopedia agree
(near as damnit is to swearing) with the very date I've been using -
the date I took directly from Biblical genealogies!
YOU LOSE, LOSER.
What else does the Catholic Encyclopedia have to say on the flood?
---***---
* First, no such geological traces can be found as ought to have
been left by a universal Deluge; for the catastrophe connected with
the beginning of the ice-age, or the geological deluge, must not be
connected with the Biblical.
* Secondly, the amount of water required by a universal Deluge, as
described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the data furnished
in the Biblical account. If the surface of the earth, in round
numbers, amounts to 510,000,000 square kilometres, and if the
elevation of the highest mountains reaches about 9000 metres, the
water required by the Biblical Flood, if it be universal, amounts to
about 4,600,000,000 cubic kilometres. Now, a forty days' rain, ten
times more copious than the most violent rainfall known to us, will
raise the level of the sea only about 800 metres; since the height to
be attained is about 9000 metres, there is still a gap to be filled by
unknown sources amounting to a height of more than 8000 metres, in
order to raise the water to the level of the greatest mountains.
* Thirdly, if the Biblical Deluge was geographically universal,
the sea water and the fresh water would mix to such an extent that
neither the marine animals nor the fresh-water animals could have
lived in the mixture without a miracle.
* Fourthly, there are serious difficulties connected with the
animals in the ark, if the Flood was geographically universal: How
were they brought to Noe from the remote regions of the earth in which
they lived? How could eight persons take care of such an array of
beasts? Where did they obtain the food necessary for all the animals?
How could the arctic animals live with those of the torrid zone for a
whole year and under the same roof? "
---***---
QED.
So now you've put yourself in the inescapable position that the Bible
lies, which is, ironically, precisely what *this* series is about.
Thanks for admitting that the Bible lies and that the genealogies in
Luke, Matthew, and Genesis are complete fiction.
If the Bible lies about the generations, then why imagine for a minute
that it tells the truth about the flood?
If the Bible doesn't lie about the flood, then why imagine that it
lies about the genealogy and accompanying time periods expressed in
definite numbers of years?
Either way, YOU LOSE, LOSER.
No surprises there.
[Rest of horseshit flushed where it belongs]
Budikka
Uncle Vic
with this:
> What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical
> Biblical Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has
> never been withdrawn in any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the
> official document states that the literal historical meaning of the
> first three chapters of Genesis could not be doubted in regard to":
So a bunch of bible believers got together and voted that the bible is true
history because that's what they believe?
And you can't see how moronic that is?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
Uncle Vic
with this:
>>>What is a "faith statement?"
>>
>> read on down to the bottom
>
> There is no explanation of what a "faith statement" means.
Yeah, but he got you to read it.
..
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98FCC827...@66.250.146.128...
> One fine day in alt.atheism, ".." <durondae_@_hotpop.com> bloodied us up
> with this:
>
>>>>What is a "faith statement?"
>>>
>>> read on down to the bottom
>>
>> There is no explanation of what a "faith statement" means.
>
> Yeah, but he got you to read it.
And it was all bullsh*t.......
Budikka666
> One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> bloodied us up
Duckshit is too stupid to grasp this fact about the Pontifical
Biblical Commission, which is that it asserted that "All the books
which the Church received as sacred and canonical were written wholly
and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy
Ghost. It is impossible, therefore, that any error can co-exist with
divine inspiration."
In short, the Bible was dictated and is inerrant. Even Duckshit
admits that the Bible lies, so now he finds himself i nthe absurd
position of extolling the virtues of this commission on the one hand,
and thoroughly contradicting it on the other! LoL!
You don't actually have to tackle Duckshit. All by himself, he
excavates huge inescapable holes for himself with no effort required
on our part!
Budikka
duke
>> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
>> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
>Funny that you try to address this in a completely different thread
>from where I repeatedly corrected your lies and stupidity.
I've corrected you all over the place on this, bubba dud. You run away and hide
behind your kill filter.
Everybody else sees your embarrassment.
Here it is again for you:
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
duke
>One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckg...@cox.net> bloodied us up
>with this:
>
>> What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical
>> Biblical Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has
>> never been withdrawn in any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the
>> official document states that the literal historical meaning of the
>> first three chapters of Genesis could not be doubted in regard to":
>
>So a bunch of bible believers got together and voted that the bible is true
>history because that's what they believe?
>And you can't see how moronic that is?
And if you had read it, you'd see how moronic you and bud the dud are.
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
and of mankind."
Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
*****
http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
So Pius XII suggests to exegetes a daring synthesis with respect to a
hermeneutic of Genesis ch. 1- 11: the first eleven chapters of the book of
Genesis employ simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of an
uncultured people to express those truths of history fundamental to our
salvation. In short, there is a solid core of history, as it were, buried under
the language and popular mentality of the ancient Hebrew.
What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical Biblical
Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been withdrawn in
any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that the
literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
doubted in regard to":
duke
>Duckshit is too stupid to grasp this fact about the Pontifical
>Biblical Commission, which is that it asserted that "All the books
>which the Church received as sacred and canonical were written wholly
>and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy
>Ghost. It is impossible, therefore, that any error can co-exist with
>divine inspiration."
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
and of mankind."
Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
*****
http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
So Pius XII suggests to exegetes a daring synthesis with respect to a
hermeneutic of Genesis ch. 1- 11: the first eleven chapters of the book of
Genesis employ simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of an
uncultured people to express those truths of history fundamental to our
salvation. In short, there is a solid core of history, as it were, buried under
the language and popular mentality of the ancient Hebrew.
What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical Biblical
Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been withdrawn in
any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that the
literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
doubted in regard to":
Anthony Wilson
Why does anyone need a redeemer today? The Bible says: "The father shall not
pay for the sins of the son, nor the son pay for the sins of the father."
Why is the human race suffering for the sins of 2 people, whom I don't even
believe in anyway?? Thank you.
Budikka666
commentaries state. Address the material or admit that you cannot.
It, like you, really is that simple.
But since you now openly admit that Genesis 1 - 11 is fiction -
including the flood story - that pretty much serves my purpose in this
particular thread. Thank you for your frank admission of something
I've been stating all along.
Budikka
Budikka666
> On 23 Mar 2007 14:30:31 -0700, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
> >> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
> >Funny that you try to address this in a completely different thread
> >from where I repeatedly corrected your lies and stupidity.
>
> I've corrected you all over the place on this, bubba dud. You run away and hide
> behind your kill filter.
This isn't hiding, It's in your face telling you that you're a
coward, a liar, and a hypocrite.
I have many times hit you in your slack, drooling jaw with the
genealogy taken *directly* from the Bible itself, not from any
commentary. You have yet to find the guts to actually, directly,
address those specific names and ages taken directly fro your own Word
of God - a word that was not inspired, but was actually dictated by
the Holy Spirit according to your own Catholic scholars.
The Holy Bible itself makes **NO DISTINCTION** between one period and
another, nor between one name and another. It tells one story. It
directly lists EVERY SINGLE GENERATION starting at the creation and
running unbroken from Adam to Jesus, thereby dating the Earth to some
6K years and the flood to having taken place some 4,300 years ago.
It gives the NAMES AND AGES from Adam to Abram, unbroken, one after
another, without any mention of history or prehistory. I don't care
what commentaries you try desperately to dredge up in order to hide
the **FACT** that the Bible states names and ages in an unbroken
genealogy. I'm addressing the Bible itself - the Word of God, not
some apologetic waffle.
When you can find the honesty and guts to face that genealogy directly
then I'll give you the time of day. When you can demonstrate using
rationale and/or evidence why one arbitrary portion of this unbroken
genealogy is so hugely different from another that it can be labeled
"prehistory" whilst the remaining portion is labeled "historical" when
it is a continuous unbroken list of names and ages, then I will give
you the time of day.
Until then you will not be killfiled. But you will be completely
ignored. I know you're so pathologically needy of my attention that
you have to salve your conscience by making up pathetic, transparent,
and patently juvenile lies. That's fine. Go ahead and do whatever
you need to do to live with yourself.
But until you *actually directly address* the material that I posted,
you're not worth any more electrons.
Got that, Puke?
Budikka
duke
>On Mar 24, 7:08 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2007 14:30:31 -0700, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
>> >> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
>> >Funny that you try to address this in a completely different thread
>> >from where I repeatedly corrected your lies and stupidity.
>>
>> I've corrected you all over the place on this, bubba dud. You run away and hide
>> behind your kill filter.
>
>This isn't hiding, It's in your face telling you that you're a
>coward, a liar, and a hypocrite.
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
Uncle Vic
with this:
>
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98FCC827...@66.250.146.128...
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, ".." <durondae_@_hotpop.com> bloodied us up
>> with this:
>>
>>>>>What is a "faith statement?"
>>>>
>>>> read on down to the bottom
>>>
>>> There is no explanation of what a "faith statement" means.
>>
>> Yeah, but he got you to read it.
>
> And it was all bullsh*t.......
Of course. It's duke.
Enkidu
news:v3sa03t4gc3ssg2ce...@4ax.com:
> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St.
> Jerome Edition, the bible clearly states the following in the
> introduction to Genesis:
>
> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to
> the very beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however,
> that Chapters 1-11 are not a scientific account of the beginnings of
> the universe or of life. They are Israel's faith statement of God's
> activity in the origins of the universe and of mankind."
So, your point is that Gen 1-11 are not true, but rather "faith
statements"? So faith and truth are not the same thing, and can
contradict? Mighty big concession to reality, there, dook.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man's
notion that he is less savage than the other savages.
-Mark Twain
Uncle Vic
with this:
>
>>Duckshit is too stupid to grasp this fact about the Pontifical
>>Biblical Commission, which is that it asserted that "All the books
>>which the Church received as sacred and canonical were written wholly
>>and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy
>>Ghost. It is impossible, therefore, that any error can co-exist with
>>divine inspiration."
>
> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St.
> Jerome Edition, the bible clearly states the following in the
> introduction to Genesis:
>
> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to
> the very beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however,
> that Chapters 1-11 are not a scientific account of the beginnings of
> the universe or of life. They are Israel's faith statement of God's
> activity in the origins of the universe and of mankind."
>
> Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
The bible doesn't prove itself correct. To do that you need exterior
references that back up what appears to be nonsense to any intelligent
observer.
Uncle Vic
with this:
>>So a bunch of bible believers got together and voted that the bible is
>>true history because that's what they believe?
>
>>And you can't see how moronic that is?
>
> And if you had read it, you'd see how moronic you and bud the dud are.
It's biased. To a believer, it's proof of the validity of Genesis. To
anyone else it's nonsense.
duke
>> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to
>> the very beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however,
>> that Chapters 1-11 are not a scientific account of the beginnings of
>> the universe or of life. They are Israel's faith statement of God's
>> activity in the origins of the universe and of mankind."
>So, your point is that Gen 1-11 are not true, but rather "faith
>statements"?
As far as I can tell, there wasn't anyone around at the time of the writing of
Genesis that had actually lived during in the previous 4.5 billion years.
>. So faith and truth are not the same thing, and can
>contradict?
Main Entry: faith
archaic : BELIEVE, TRUST
Main Entry: truth
archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY
> Mighty big concession to reality, there, dook.
Faith and truth in operation.
duke
wrote:
>Why does anyone need a redeemer today? The Bible says: "The father shall not
>pay for the sins of the son, nor the son pay for the sins of the father."
>Why is the human race suffering for the sins of 2 people, whom I don't even
>believe in anyway?? Thank you.
You're following in their footsteps. Guaranteed.
duke
>> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to
>> the very beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however,
>> that Chapters 1-11 are not a scientific account of the beginnings of
>> the universe or of life. They are Israel's faith statement of God's
>> activity in the origins of the universe and of mankind."
>> Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
>The bible doesn't prove itself correct. To do that you need exterior
>references that back up what appears to be nonsense to any intelligent
>observer.
Well, that leaves you out.
Uncle Vic
with this:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:26:35 -0500, "Anthony Wilson"
> <tw19...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Why does anyone need a redeemer today? The Bible says: "The father
>>shall not pay for the sins of the son, nor the son pay for the sins of
>>the father." Why is the human race suffering for the sins of 2 people,
>>whom I don't even believe in anyway?? Thank you.
>
> You're following in their footsteps. Guaranteed.
>
Guaranteed how? Please explain.
..
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:26:35 -0500, "Anthony Wilson"
> <tw19...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Why does anyone need a redeemer today? The Bible says: "The father shall
>>not
>>pay for the sins of the son, nor the son pay for the sins of the father."
>>Why is the human race suffering for the sins of 2 people, whom I don't
>>even
>>believe in anyway?? Thank you.
>
> You're following in their footsteps. Guaranteed.
You didn't answer the question regarding the contradiction.
duke
>>>Why does anyone need a redeemer today? The Bible says: "The father
>>>shall not pay for the sins of the son, nor the son pay for the sins of
>>>the father." Why is the human race suffering for the sins of 2 people,
>>>whom I don't even believe in anyway?? Thank you.
>> You're following in their footsteps. Guaranteed.
>Guaranteed how? Please explain.
Sinning.
duke
>> And if you had read it, you'd see how moronic you and bud the dud are.
>It's biased. To a believer, it's proof of the validity of Genesis. To
>anyone else it's nonsense.
Take it up with God.
Budikka666
> On 24 Mar 2007 21:17:57 GMT, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
> >> And if you had read it, you'd see how moronic you and bud the dud are.
> >It's biased. To a believer, it's proof of the validity of Genesis. To
> >anyone else it's nonsense.
>
> Take it up with God.
We did, there was nobody there. LoL!
But any time you can find actual evidence for this fiction of yours
(as opposed to blind-ass, juvenile, gullible, unsupported,
hypocritical, idiotic, braindead, lying-through-your-gums opinion,
which is all we've seen from you so far), we'll be happy to take it
into consideration before we show you how useless it is.
Budikka
Uncle Vic
this:
> On 25 Mar 2007 23:36:55 GMT, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Why does anyone need a redeemer today? The Bible says: "The father
>>>>shall not pay for the sins of the son, nor the son pay for the sins of
>>>>the father." Why is the human race suffering for the sins of 2 people,
>>>>whom I don't even believe in anyway?? Thank you.
>
>>> You're following in their footsteps. Guaranteed.
>
>>Guaranteed how? Please explain.
>
> Sinning.
Sin doesn't exist to non members of your religion. Therefore it is not
guaranteed that we will follow in the footsteps of two imaginary humans.
duke
duke
>>>> You're following in their footsteps. Guaranteed.
>>>Guaranteed how? Please explain.
>> Sinning.
>Sin doesn't exist to non members of your religion. Therefore it is not
>guaranteed that we will follow in the footsteps of two imaginary humans.
Sin is telling God "no", and applies to you just as importantly as it applies to
those that do believe in him.
It's your funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
Budikka666
flood? Well, it pitches in on why there was no global flood:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
"...the Masoretic text assigns it to the year 1656 after the creation,
the Samaritan to 1307, the Septuagint to 2242, Flavius Josephus to
2256. Again, the Masoretic text places it in B. C. 2350 (Klaproth) or
2253 (Lüken), the Samaritan in 2903, the Septuagint in 3134. According
to the ancient traditions (Lüken), the Assyrians placed the Deluge in
2234 B. C. or 2316, the Greeks in 2300, the Egyptians in 2600, the
Phoenicians in 2700, the Mexicans in 2900, the Indians in 3100, the
Chinese in 2297, while the Armenians assigned the building of the
Tower of Babel to about 2200 B. C...."
In short, all of these dates shown in the CATHOLIC encyclopedia agree
(near as dammit is to swearing) with the very date I've been using -
the date I took directly from Biblical genealogies!
What else does it have to say?
" * First, no such geological traces can be found as ought to have
been left by a universal Deluge; for the catastrophe connected with
the beginning of the ice-age, or the geological deluge, must not be
connected with the Biblical.
* Secondly, the amount of water required by a universal Deluge, as
described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the data furnished
in the Biblical account. If the surface of the earth, in round
numbers, amounts to 510,000,000 square kilometres, and if the
elevation of the highest mountains reaches about 9000 metres, the
water required by the Biblical Flood, if it be universal, amounts to
about 4,600,000,000 cubic kilometres. Now, a forty days' rain, ten
times more copious than the most violent rainfall known to us, will
raise the level of the sea only about 800 metres; since the height to
be attained is about 9000 metres, there is still a gap to be filled by
unknown sources amounting to a height of more than 8000 metres, in
order to raise the water to the level of the greatest mountains.
* Thirdly, if the Biblical Deluge was geographically universal,
the sea water and the fresh water would mix to such an extent that
neither the marine animals nor the fresh-water animals could have
lived in the mixture without a miracle.
* Fourthly, there are serious difficulties connected with the
animals in the ark, if the Flood was geographically universal: How
were they brought to Noe from the remote regions of the earth in which
they lived? How could eight persons take care of such an array of
beasts? Where did they obtain the food necessary for all the animals?
How could the arctic animals live with those of the torrid zone for a
whole year and under the same roof? "
QED.
Budikka
Budikka666
Seth at 105 begat
Enosh at 90 begat
Kenan at 70 begat
Mahalalel at 65 begat
Jared at 162 begat
Enoch at 65 begat
Methuselah at 187 begat
Lamech at 182 begat
Noah at 500 begat
Shem at 100 begat
Arpachshad at 35 begat
Shelah at 30 begat
Eber at 34 begat
Peleg at 30 begat
Reu at 32 begat
Serug at 30 begat
Nahor at 29 begat
Terah at 70 begat
Abram
No prehistory here - only a list of fathers and sons with the ages in
between, adding up to LESS THAN 2000 YEARS BETWEEN ADAM AND ABRAM WITH
THE FLOOD RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.
QED.
Budikka
duke
>What does The Catholic Encyclopedia have to say about the global
>flood? Well, it pitches in on why there was no global flood:
Hey, bud the dud, you're back. Why am I so blessed.
>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
>"...the Masoretic text assigns it to the year 1656 after the creation
Yep, and the creation was 4.5 billion years ago.
>What else does it have to say?
>
>" * First, no such geological traces can be found as ought to have
>been left by a universal Deluge; for the catastrophe connected with
>the beginning of the ice-age, or the geological deluge, must not be
>connected with the Biblical.
Right, the biblical occurred long ago.
> * Secondly, the amount of water required by a universal Deluge, as
>described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the data furnished
>in the Biblical account.
Clearly does not address speed bumps.
But it does say this: The geographical universality of the Ddeluge may be
safely abandoned. Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical
tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to
the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.
The flood still biblically lies in time between the creation 4.5 billion years
ago and Abraham, 6000 years ago.
QED, bud the dud.
duke
Here's that QED again, bubba dud.
Kathy
> On 27 Mar 2007 14:43:11 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Here's that QED again, bubba dud.
So you're saying the bible LIED about the generations between Noah and the
flood? Do you think the church deceitfully changed the scriptures? That
seems to be what you're saying.........
Budikka666
> On 27 Mar 2007 14:41:03 -0700, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >What does The Catholic Encyclopedia have to say about the global
> >flood? Well, it pitches in on why there was no global flood:
>
> Hey, bud the dud, you're back. Why am I so blessed.
You forgot to add "stupid" to the end of that last sentence.
> >http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
> >"...the Masoretic text assigns it to the year 1656 after the creation
>
> Yep, and the creation was 4.5 billion years ago.
We only know it's 4.5 billion years old from science, not from any
divine revelation, not from prayers, not from speaking with any god,
and certainly not from reading the scriptures, because it was from
reading the scriptures that theists were absolutely convinced that the
Earth was only 6,000 years old until *science* showed them the error
of their ways. And why did they think it was only 6,000 years old?
Because of the details in the Wholly Lying Bible.
> >What else does it have to say?
>
> >" * First, no such geological traces can be found as ought to have
> >been left by a universal Deluge; for the catastrophe connected with
> >the beginning of the ice-age, or the geological deluge, must not be
> >connected with the Biblical.
>
> Right, the biblical occurred long ago.
The Biblical flood occurred less than 1,000 years before Abram,
*according to detailed Bible chronology in Genesis*. But note that
the Catholic encyclopedia quote specifically states: "no such
geological traces can be found as ought to have been left by a
universal Deluge".
> > * Secondly, the amount of water required by a universal Deluge, as
> >described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the data furnished
> >in the Biblical account.
>
> Clearly does not address speed bumps.
Clearly you don't address what the material says. Not enough water,
and Everest was not a speed bump just 4,300 years ago - which is the
time period when the Biblical explicitly places the flood by the
detailed chronology within it - just 900 or so years before Abram.
> But it does say this: The geographical universality of the Ddeluge may be
> safely abandoned. Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical
> tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to
> the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.
>
> The flood still biblically lies in time between the creation 4.5 billion years
> ago and Abraham, 6000 years ago.
Just 890 years before Abram, **ACCORDING TO THE DETAILED GENEALOGY
GIVEN IN GENESIS**.
You lose, Loser.
Budikka
Budikka666
Seth at 105 begat
Enosh at 90 begat
Kenan at 70 begat
Mahalalel at 65 begat
Jared at 162 begat
Enoch at 65 begat
Methuselah at 187 begat
Lamech at 182 begat
Noah at 500 begat
Shem at 100 begat
Arpachshad at 35 begat
Shelah at 30 begat
Eber at 34 begat
Peleg at 30 begat
Reu at 32 begat
Serug at 30 begat
Nahor at 29 begat
Terah at 70 begat
Abram
No PREHISTORY here - only an unbroken line of descent from father to
son, with the ages in between, adding up to LESS THAN 2000 YEARS
BETWEEN ADAM AND ABRAM WITH THE FLOOD RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE just 4,300
or so years before the present day.
Why are you too deathly scared to directly address this detailed time-
line, Duke? Of what are you so terrified? Is it that you simply
cannot find the honesty, decency, and intellectual integrity (hell,
even just the intellect) to address this issue: to deal with each of
the names and each of the ages in this short list?
The time-line shows Adam through Abram in an unbroken line of descent,
father to son, with ages in between.
How can it be prehistory, Duke? Were the 130 years between Adam and
Seth "God Years", Duke? Did each of those "years" last 300 million
years, Duke? Where did the "God Years" change into human years and
how? Where does the Holy Bible make this distinction?
Where does it say, IN THE BIBLE Duke (not in your pissant fallible
human commentary that you blasphemously favor over the Bible text)
which part is prehistory and which isn't? Where, in that unbroken
timeline with years from father to son, does it break into historical
and prehistorical, and what are the determining factors?
Address that Duke. We all know you can cut & paste your Bible
commentary and hide behind it. But you can't address these names and
ages directly, can you?
That's okay. We don't expect you to. We expect you to keep running
away and hiding behind any and every pissant farcical excuse you can
dredge up, no matter how insanely laughable those excuses are.
Duck and Run, Duckshit. Duck & Run. It's what you're known for,
after all.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e26j03dj76p56fkvj...@4ax.com...
Don't you just love how he dances like a trained chihuahua? He will
do quite literally *anything* rather than come to grips with what his
own Holy Bible quite *clearly and unambiguously* states.
What a laugh riot!
Budikka
duke
here's your answer, dud.
>Adam at 130 begat
>Seth at 105 begat
>Enosh at 90 begat
>Kenan at 70 begat
>Mahalalel at 65 begat
>Jared at 162 begat
>Enoch at 65 begat
>Methuselah at 187 begat
>Lamech at 182 begat
>Noah at 500 begat
>Shem at 100 begat
>Arpachshad at 35 begat
>Shelah at 30 begat
>Eber at 34 begat
>Peleg at 30 begat
>Reu at 32 begat
>Serug at 30 begat
>Nahor at 29 begat
>Terah at 70 begat
>Abram
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
duke
>> Hey, bud the dud, you're back. Why am I so blessed.
>You forgot to add "stupid" to the end of that last sentence.
Ok, here: "Hey, bud the dud stupid, you're back. Why am I so blessed".
>We only know it's 4.5 billion years old from science
That's right. Congrats, stupid. You finally figured it out. The bible sure
doesn't date it.
duke
>> Here's that QED again, bubba dud.
>So you're saying the bible LIED about the generations between Noah and the
>flood? Do you think the church deceitfully changed the scriptures? That
>seems to be what you're saying.........
Nope. The bible doesn't even address a time table.
duke
>On Mar 27, 7:05 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>Don't you just love how he dances like a trained chihuahua?
The truth nails you every time, bubba dud.
Mike
> On 28 Mar 2007 15:30:30 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>> Hey, bud the dud, you're back. Why am I so blessed.
>> You forgot to add "stupid" to the end of that last sentence.
>
> Ok, here: "Hey, bud the dud stupid, you're back. Why am I so blessed".
You're so blessed stupid that you don't even know what "end" and "last
sentence" mean.
Budikka666
> prehistory+of+genesis+%221+11%22&source=web&ots=k965YPQn2A&sig=
> T1YPXZ12c_rpgMLBR6EjvD6TiFk#PPA63,M1
>
> "Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
> history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
> history."
> *****
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Keep hiding behind your "Biblical commentary", Duckshit. Keep running
from addressing the *actual genealogy* given in your god's Holy Word.
Earl Weber: another limp Peter at the passion.
Budikka
duke
>On Mar 29, 12:49 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2007 15:43:57 -0700, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> here's your answer, dud.
here's your answer, dud.
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
duke
That IS my last sentence, dumbass.
Once bud the dud admits her towering defeat at my hands, I can move on to
correcting her on other issues.
Budikka666
addressing the specific material that's actually **IN** your own so-
called Holy Bible, you pathetic little coward:
Adam at 130 begat
Seth at 105 begat
Enosh at 90 begat
Kenan at 70 begat
Mahalalel at 65 begat
Jared at 162 begat
Enoch at 65 begat
Methuselah at 187 begat
Lamech at 182 begat
Noah at 500 begat
Shem at 100 begat
Arpachshad at 35 begat
Shelah at 30 begat
Eber at 34 begat
Peleg at 30 begat
Reu at 32 begat
Serug at 30 begat
Nahor at 29 begat
Terah at 70 begat
Abram
No PREHISTORY here - only an unbroken line of descent from father to
son, with the ages in between, adding up to LESS THAN 2000 YEARS
BETWEEN ADAM AND ABRAM WITH THE FLOOD RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE just 4,300
or so years before the present day.
Here are the questions you're currently running from (shall I add them
to the 100+ questions you've been running from for over three years,
Puke?):
1.
Why are you too deathly scared to directly address this detailed time-
line, Duke? Of what are you so terrified? Is it that you simply
cannot find the honesty, decency, and intellectual integrity (hell,
even just the intellect) to address this issue: to deal with each of
the names and each of the ages in this short list?
2.
Does the time-line show an unbroken line of descent, father to son,
with ages in between from Adam through Abram or not?
3.
How can is it prehistory, Puke? neve rmind the Bibel commentary you
keep hiding behind. *8ADDRESS THE ACTUAL BIBLE DIRECTLY**.
Were the 130 years between Adam and Seth "God Years", Puke? Did each
of those "years" last 300 million years, Puke? Where did the "God
Years" change into human years and how? Where does the Holy Bible
make this distinction?
Where does it say, IN THE BIBLE Duke (not in your pissant fallible
human commentary that you blasphemously favor over the Bible text)
which part is prehistory and which isn't? Where, in that unbroken
timeline with years from father to son, does it break into historical
and prehistorical, and what are the determining factors?
Address that Puke. We all know you can cut & paste your Bible
Uncle Vic
with this:
> On 27 Mar 2007 15:36:37 GMT, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> You're following in their footsteps. Guaranteed.
>>>>Guaranteed how? Please explain.
>>> Sinning.
>
>>Sin doesn't exist to non members of your religion. Therefore it is
>>not guaranteed that we will follow in the footsteps of two imaginary
>>humans.
>
> Sin is telling God "no", and applies to you just as importantly as it
> applies to those that do believe in him.
That's *your* religion. Your religion doesn't apply to me any more than
Mormonism doesn't apply to you.
>
> It's your funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
I'll be dead, duck.
Uncle Vic
with this:
> What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical
> Biblical Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has
> never been withdrawn in any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the
> official document states that the literal historical meaning of the
> first three chapters of Genesis could not be doubted in regard to":
> 1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
We have evidence that these things evolved on their own, no gods
required. Sorry, puke.
> 2.) the special creation of man
Man and the Chimpanzee both evolved from the same primate. We have
evidence that proves this. Which means we have evidence that proves the
Genesis creation myth false. Sorry, puke.
> 3.) the formation of the first woman from the first man
Just a bullshit religious myth. Sorry, puke.
> 4.) the unity of the human race
Means what, exactly?
> 5.) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of
> justice, integrity, and immortality
Happiness is proof of god? You're nuckin' futs.
> 6.) the command given by God to man to test his obedience
Your religious dogma, nothing more. It means nothing outside your
religion.
> 7.) the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the
> devil under the form of a serpent
Your stupid religious dogma, nothing more. Well, maybe a little more.
Like, what a fucking STUPID story!
> 8.) the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of
> innocence
"Parents" that never existed, according to evolution theory.
9.) the promise of a future redeemer.
Unrealized. Unrealized, puke.
Uncle Vic
with this:
> On 28 Mar 2007 15:43:57 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net>
<snip>
Repeating it over and over again impresses only yourself.
Mike
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:11:20 -0500, Mike <prab...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On 28 Mar 2007 15:30:30 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hey, bud the dud, you're back. Why am I so blessed.
>>>> You forgot to add "stupid" to the end of that last sentence.
>>> Ok, here: "Hey, bud the dud stupid, you're back. Why am I so blessed".
>> You're so blessed stupid that you don't even know what "end" and "last
>> sentence" mean.
>
> That IS my last sentence, dumbass.
If you're going to call someone else a dumbass, you should at least know
what you're talking about, idiot. A sentence ends with a period, a
question mark or an exclamation mark. The TWO sentences you had above
had "back" and "blessed" as the last words of them. The LAST sentence
ended with "blessed." So putting "stupid" into the middle of the FIRST
sentence was not "add[ing] "stupid" to the end of [the] last sentence",
stupid.
duke
Here's your unbroken line of descent, bud the dud: I understand the taste of
crow gets better with time. You are learning.
*****
"Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
history."
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
*****
http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
*****
duke, American-American
duke
>Repeating it over and over again impresses only yourself.
Tell bud the dud that. She's eating leftover crow now.
duke
>> That IS my last sentence, dumbass.
>If you're going to call someone else a dumbass, you should at least know
>what you're talking about, idiot.
> A sentence ends with a period, a
>question mark or an exclamation mark. The TWO sentences you had above
>had "back" and "blessed" as the last words of them. The LAST sentence
>ended with "blessed." So putting "stupid" into the middle of the FIRST
>sentence was not "add[ing] "stupid" to the end of [the] last sentence",
>stupid.
You better stick with carrots, peter rabbit.
duke
>One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckg...@cox.net> bloodied us up
>with this:
>
>> What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical
>> Biblical Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has
>> never been withdrawn in any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the
>> official document states that the literal historical meaning of the
>> first three chapters of Genesis could not be doubted in regard to":
>> 1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
>We have evidence that these things evolved on their own, no gods
>required. Sorry, puke.
Sure you do, but everybody knows better than to believe bud the dud any more.
duke
>> Sin is telling God "no", and applies to you just as importantly as it
>> applies to those that do believe in him.
>That's *your* religion. Your religion doesn't apply to me any more than
>Mormonism doesn't apply to you.
And God will judge you and I at the moment of our respective deaths.
Best of luck.
>> It's your funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
>I'll be dead, duck.
So you hear the anguish in your soul yet?
Budikka666
> Here's your unbroken line of descent:
You have the attention span of a gnat. The line of descent - the one
you're too scared to death of to find the guts to directly address -
is the one in your own Holy Bible.
You know - the Holy Bible you're desperately trying to ignore in favor
of the meaningless commentary that has turned you into nothing but a
spastic knee-jerk robotic parrot?
You know, the genealogy that proves what a pathetic little hypocrite
and LIAR you are?
You know, the unbroken line of descent with names of fathers and sons
and the ages in between running from Adam to Abram that spans only
2,000 years, with the flood right in the middle of it, dating the
flood to approxiamtely 4,300 or so years ago?
> "Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
> history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
> history."
I addressed this. Still waiting on you finding:
1. The guts
and
2. The material to respond.
Remember, Gnat, that I asked you to answer in your own words instead
of the spastic knee-jerk robotic parrot response which is all you
apparently capable of?
Remember I asked you (regarding that unbroken line of descent from
Adam through Abram with names of fathers and sons and the ages in
between) what it was that distinguished history from prehistory,
because there's nothing in your Holy Bible which does so?
But keep running from my questions and hiding behind your irrelevant
parrotting if it makes you feel better about the lying, hypocritical,
vacuous life you're forced to lead.
> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
You mean that unbroken genealogy in Luke 3 from Adam through Jesus,
dating the earth to some 6,000 years and the flood to ~4,300 years
ago? The one you have been running from for many weeks now? Now you
want to talk about that one? Because it matches the one in Genesis
quite happily.
> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
> beginnings of things.
No shit, Sherlock! Duhh. The very beginning according to the idiot
Bible writers who thought Earth and the universe were only some 6,000
years old!
> It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
> are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life.
Duhh. No one but fundies is claiming they are. Take it up with your
own "kind".
Meanwhile, we're not talking about the Bible as science, we're talking
about the Bible as a genealogy. You know, the unbroken line of
descent with names of fathers and sons and the ages in between running
from Adam to Abram that spans only 2,000 years, with the flood right
in the middle of it, dating the flood to approximately 4,300 or so
years ago?
> They
> are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
> and of mankind."
Duhh!
> Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
>
> *****http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
>
> So Pius XII
You mean the same scum who never once opposed Hitler or called him to
task about his treatment of Jews and Gypsies? That "pious" piece of
shit?
> suggests to exegetes a daring synthesis with respect to a
> hermeneutic of Genesis ch. 1- 11: the first eleven chapters of the book of
> Genesis employ simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of an
> uncultured people to express those truths of history fundamental to our
> salvation.
How does this negate an unbroken line of descent with names of fathers
and sons and the ages in between running from Adam to Abram that spans
only 2,000 years, with the flood right in the middle of it, dating
the flood to approxiamtely 4,300 or so years ago?
Or was that nothing but a glaring LIE right in the beginning of your
Holy Bible itself?
> In short, there is a solid core of history, as it were, buried under
> the language and popular mentality of the ancient Hebrew.
Would that solid core be an unbroken line of descent with names of
fathers and sons and the ages in between running from Adam to Abram
that spans only 2,000 years, with the flood right in the middle of
it, dating the flood to approxiamtely 4,300 or so years ago?
> What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical Biblical
> Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been withdrawn in
> any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that the
> literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
> doubted in regard to":
> 1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
There's zero evidence for that, as you yourself have admitted. But
how does this relate to the unbroken line of descent with names of
fathers and sons and the ages in between running from Adam to Abram
that spans only 2,000 years, with the flood right in the middle of
it, dating the flood to approxiamtely 4,300 or so years ago?
> 2.) the special creation of man
There's zero evidence for that. In fact, all available evidence
refutes it categorically. But how does this relate to the unbroken
line of descent with names of fathers and sons and the ages in between
running from Adam to Abram that spans only 2,000 years, with the flood
right in the middle of it, dating the flood to approxiamtely 4,300 or
so years ago?
> 3.) the formation of the first woman from the first man
There's zero evidence for that. In fact, all available evidence
refutes it categorically since the female "gender" arose before the
male one. But how does this relate to the unbroken line of descent
with names of fathers and sons and the ages in between running from
Adam to Abram that spans only 2,000 years, with the flood right in
the middle of it, dating the flood to approxiamtely 4,300 or so years
ago?
> 4.) the unity of the human race
> 5.) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice,
> integrity, and immortality
There's zero evidence for that.. But how does this relate to the
unbroken line of descent with names of fathers and sons and the ages
in between running from Adam to Abram that spans only 2,000 years,
with the flood right in the middle of it, dating the flood to
approxiamtely 4,300 or so years ago?
> 6.) the command given by God to man to test his obedience
There's zero evidence for that. But how does this relate to the
unbroken line of descent with names of fathers and sons and the ages
in between running from Adam to Abram that spans only 2,000 years,
with the flood right in the middle of it, dating the flood to
approxiamtely 4,300 or so years ago?
> 7.) the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil
> under the form of a serpent
There's zero evidence for that. But how does this relate to the
unbroken line of descent with names of fathers and sons and the ages
in between running from Adam to Abram that spans only 2,000 years,
with the flood right in the middle of it, dating the flood to
approxiamtely 4,300 or so years ago?
> 8.) the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence
There's zero evidence for that. But how does this relate to the
unbroken line of descent with names of fathers and sons and the ages
in between running from Adam to Abram that spans only 2,000 years,
with the flood right in the middle of it, dating the flood to
approxiamtely 4,300 or so years ago?
> 9.) the promise of a future redeemer.
There's zero evidence for that. In fact, all available evidence
refutes it categorically. But how does this relate to the unbroken
line of descent with names of fathers and sons and the ages in between
running from Adam to Abram that spans only 2,000 years, with the flood
right in the middle of it, dating the flood to approxiamtely 4,300 or
so years ago?
> With respect to any other dimension of Genesis 1-3, the literal sense must be
> examined more fully by exegetes.
In order that they can figure out how to lie their way around the fact
that scientific evidence utterly refutes the Holy Bible chronology and
the Holy Bible lie that there was a world-wide flood just 4,300 years
or so ago.
> So 1 - 9 form the historical core of truths
But guess what - I'm talking about the Holy Bible itself, and what it
categorically and directly and unambiguously states about genealogy
and dates, and **YOU'RE HIDING FROM IT**! LoL! So now you've
parrotted that for the nth time, let's get right back to this: the
unbroken line of descent with names of fathers and sons and the ages
in between running from Adam to Abram that spans only 2,000 years,
with the flood right in the middle of it, dating the flood to
approxiamtely 4,300 or so years ago:
Adam at 130 begat
Seth at 105 begat
Enosh at 90 begat
Kenan at 70 begat
Mahalalel at 65 begat
Jared at 162 begat
Enoch at 65 begat
Methuselah at 187 begat
Lamech at 182 begat
Noah at 500 begat
Shem at 100 begat
Arpachshad at 35 begat
Shelah at 30 begat
Eber at 34 begat
Peleg at 30 begat
Reu at 32 begat
Serug at 30 begat
Nahor at 29 begat
Terah at 70 begat
Abram
Here are the questions you're currently running from (shall I add them
duke
>> Here's your unbroken line of descent:
>You have the attention span of a gnat. The line of descent - the one
>you're too scared to death of to find the guts to directly address -
>is the one in your own Holy Bible.
Here's your direct address as I have been publishing for some time now. You
sure have been running away from it.
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
and of mankind."
Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
*****
http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
So Pius XII suggests to exegetes a daring synthesis with respect to a
hermeneutic of Genesis ch. 1- 11: the first eleven chapters of the book of
Genesis employ simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of an
uncultured people to express those truths of history fundamental to our
salvation. In short, there is a solid core of history, as it were, buried under
the language and popular mentality of the ancient Hebrew.
What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical Biblical
Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been withdrawn in
any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that the
literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
doubted in regard to":
1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
2.) the special creation of man
3.) the formation of the first woman from the first man
4.) the unity of the human race
5.) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice,
integrity, and immortality
6.) the command given by God to man to test his obedience
7.) the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil
under the form of a serpent
8.) the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence
9.) the promise of a future redeemer.
With respect to any other dimension of Genesis 1-3, the literal sense must be
examined more fully by exegetes. So 1 - 9 form the historical core of truths
fundamental to our faith expressed in Genesis ch. 1- 3, the truths around which
the ancient Hebraic authors either elaborated a story or collected a popular
tradition or recorded a primitive pre-history.
*****
http://books.google.com/books?id=WPt7NB9GFu0C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=
prehistory+of+genesis+%221+11%22&source=web&ots=k965YPQn2A&sig=
T1YPXZ12c_rpgMLBR6EjvD6TiFk#PPA63,M1
"Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
history."
*****
duke
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
*****
http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
duke, American-American
Mike
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:16:11 -0500, Mike <prab...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>
>>> That IS my last sentence, dumbass.
>
>> If you're going to call someone else a dumbass, you should at least know
>> what you're talking about, idiot.
>
>> A sentence ends with a period, a
>> question mark or an exclamation mark. The TWO sentences you had above
>> had "back" and "blessed" as the last words of them. The LAST sentence
>> ended with "blessed." So putting "stupid" into the middle of the FIRST
>> sentence was not "add[ing] "stupid" to the end of [the] last sentence",
>> stupid.
>
> You better stick with carrots, peter rabbit.
You're right; I'd get a more intelligent response from them than from you.
duke
>>> A sentence ends with a period, a
>>> question mark or an exclamation mark. The TWO sentences you had above
>>> had "back" and "blessed" as the last words of them. The LAST sentence
>>> ended with "blessed." So putting "stupid" into the middle of the FIRST
>>> sentence was not "add[ing] "stupid" to the end of [the] last sentence",
>>> stupid.
>> You better stick with carrots, peter rabbit.
>You're right; I'd get a more intelligent response from them than from you.
Do you listen to your doorknob also?
Uncle Vic
this:
> On 30 Mar 2007 03:57:04 GMT, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>> Sin is telling God "no", and applies to you just as importantly as it
>>> applies to those that do believe in him.
>
>>That's *your* religion. Your religion doesn't apply to me any more than
>>Mormonism doesn't apply to you.
>
> And God will judge you and I at the moment of our respective deaths.
>
> Best of luck.
Are you keeping up with the Book of Mormon? Have you been on your bicycle
mission?
>
>>> It's your funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
>>I'll be dead, duck.
>
> So you hear the anguish in your soul yet?
>
Can you see poultergeist too?
duke
>> And God will judge you and I at the moment of our respective deaths.
>> Best of luck.
>Are you keeping up with the Book of Mormon? Have you been on your bicycle
>mission?
Nope, I'm a Christian.
>>>> It's your funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
>>>I'll be dead, duck.
>> So you hear the anguish in your soul yet?
>Can you see poultergeist too?
It's your funeral.
Uncle Vic
with this:
> On 02 Apr 2007 21:01:04 GMT, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>> And God will judge you and I at the moment of our respective deaths.
>>> Best of luck.
>
>>Are you keeping up with the Book of Mormon? Have you been on your
>>bicycle mission?
>
> Nope, I'm a Christian.
I went through the receiving end of the Mormon Missionary when I was in
high school. They are positively convinced they are the One True Religion.
And they have as much imaginary evidence to back that as you do. They are
going to Catholic hell, and you are going to Mormon hell. Simple as that.
Atheists have no hell. It's a win/win situation. We don't waste our lives
chasing pipe dreams, and we don't fear the imaginary punishment of gods.
It's nice.
>
>>>>> It's your funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
>>>>I'll be dead, duck.
>>> So you hear the anguish in your soul yet?
>>Can you see poultergeist too?
>
> It's your funeral.
>
OK, run away duke. Bye.
duke
>>>> And God will judge you and I at the moment of our respective deaths.
>>>> Best of luck.
>>>Are you keeping up with the Book of Mormon? Have you been on your
>>>bicycle mission?
>> Nope, I'm a Christian.
>I went through the receiving end of the Mormon Missionary when I was in
>high school. They are positively convinced they are the One True Religion.
>And they have as much imaginary evidence to back that as you do. They are
>going to Catholic hell, and you are going to Mormon hell. Simple as that.
They believe john smith is God. They aren't Christians.
>Atheists have no hell. It's a win/win situation. We don't waste our lives
>chasing pipe dreams, and we don't fear the imaginary punishment of gods.
>It's nice.
God's rules apply to all - believers and non-believers.
>> It's your funeral.
>OK, run away duke. Bye.
You're not going into hiding again, are you, vs?
Uncle Vic
with this:
> On 03 Apr 2007 04:13:23 GMT, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> And God will judge you and I at the moment of our respective
>>>>> deaths. Best of luck.
>
>>>>Are you keeping up with the Book of Mormon? Have you been on your
>>>>bicycle mission?
>
>>> Nope, I'm a Christian.
>
>>I went through the receiving end of the Mormon Missionary when I was
>>in high school. They are positively convinced they are the One True
>>Religion. And they have as much imaginary evidence to back that as
>>you do. They are going to Catholic hell, and you are going to Mormon
>>hell. Simple as that.
>
> They believe john smith is God. They aren't Christians.
You really need to do some research into World Religions. You just made
a fool out of yourself.
>
>>Atheists have no hell. It's a win/win situation. We don't waste our
>>lives chasing pipe dreams, and we don't fear the imaginary punishment
>>of gods. It's nice.
>
> God's rules apply to all - believers and non-believers.
You need to watch this video. See if you can make it to the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=GxA8_NIxQZc