Bible study

[Guest Guest]

1.  This isn't the first time he posted under a "guest" name.

2.  I don't believe everything written in the bible (although there are some good lifes lessons to be learned from it), I think he's a sarcastic little twit who's trying to provoke anyone who will fall for his stupid game (much like he did to P).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a credit to the people on Matthew's side of this argument that they haven't accused every Guest on the other side of being David Paszkiewicz. You don't know who posted it, so stop the nonsense. The comments got to you. The responsible course is to deal with them on their merits, which is not what you're doing.

[Guest Guest]

This has all the ear marks of a glorified monkey in a dress stirring up trouble again. God will judge you and you should really be ashamed of yourself for mocking the scriptures. 

But I can see why you are confused, after all you were a MONKEY at one time right!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This has all the earmarks of an ignorant and angry person who can't address the argument on the merits.

[Guest Guest]

I wonder what day you'd say penguins were created on. "Fowl" and "land creatures" are not mutually exclusive categories,  you know.

If Adam was meant to have sex with his companion (which turned out to be the woman), and before creating the woman God offered every species of animal to him as a companion, then what's the alternative? Only that God was merely screwing (pun not intended) with Adam by offering him all these creatures when he knew Adam wouldn't select any of them. So, you've apparently got two choices: either the god you worship is mischievious, or he doesn't mind bestiality, lol.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a very serious problem with the story. If God's original intent was to find Adam a companion from among the animals, and not create the woman at all until none of the animals was found to be a suitable companion, then how was God intending for the man to reproduce? What does "help meet" mean? Does it mean chit-chat, does it mean a domestic servant, or does it mean sex and reproduction? What does it mean? It's your Bible (in the sense that you claim to believe it), and you're the ones who claim to understand it, so what's the answer? How can you make any sense out of this no matter how you interpret it? The story says God's original intent was to create all the other animals male and female, but the human as a male with no female. How can any of you, stretching your desire to believe in the Bible as far as you can stretch it, make sense out of this? And why isn't it obvious to you that you're stretching to make it fit, not looking for the truth? The obvious sexual issues are implicit in the story itself. Don't blame the person who posted this topic for doing it with some humor. If he is being blasphemous or disrespectful, that's his problem. Deal with the very real issue that is created by the story itself, if you can.

[Guest Guest]

1.  This isn't the first time he posted under a "guest" name.

2.  I don't believe everything written in the bible (although there are some good lifes lessons to be learned from it), I think he's a sarcastic little twit who's trying to provoke anyone who will fall for his stupid game (much like he did to P).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't know that, but we know you have. We just don't know who you are. But you do. How many times have you done it? And if it's wrong for whomever started this topic, why isn't it wrong for you?

Do you people ever see yourselves?

[Guest Guest]

Practice what you "preach" Paul.

I suppose that the way to change peoples minds is to do it with the "stylish wit" of the original poster of this topic!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are 25 posts in a few days, and an animated discussion. At the very least is has some people thinking.

Is that why you don't like it?

[Guest Rooster]

Hubble Space Telescope was much too clever for San Francisco Police Department?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not that HST, Google " Raoul Duke "

[Strife767]

1.  This isn't the first time he posted under a "guest" name.

Baseless accusation nonetheless.

2.  I don't believe everything written in the bible (although there are some good lifes lessons to be learned from it),

Then why did you bother posting in this topic at all? Stop trying to derail the thread.

[Strife767]

This has all the ear marks of a glorified monkey in a dress stirring up trouble again. God will judge you and you should really be ashamed of yourself for mocking the scriptures.

The ultimate cowardly cop-out: 'God's going to judge you for asking questions about my incoherent beliefs I can't answer!'

But I can see why you are confused, after all you were a MONKEY at one time right!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How infantile--even the idea at the foundation is completely wrong. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys are related, more like cousins. Will people like you ever stop making the same idiotic mistakes?

[Stixx3969]

This has all the ear marks of a glorified monkey in a dress stirring up trouble again. God will judge you and you should really be ashamed of yourself for mocking the scriptures. 

But I can see why you are confused, after all you were a MONKEY at one time right!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's right. God will judge. So why do most Christians feel that judgement is the one area where God is horribly inept and that they must do it for him?

[Guest Guest]

Man is the apex of the created order. Chapter two highlights his need of a suitable counterpart and details her creation. She is special. She is fashioned out of the side of man. There is great symbolism here, she is not taken from his heal, she is his companion. Never was it suggested that man might have sex with animals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry for not responding sooner. I told my wife what you said about this. It took two days for the swelling to go down around my eyes enough so that I could reply.

Thanks for a good laugh. That is, until I told my wife.

[Bryan]

Will any of the religious nut jobs who have been posting at KOTW have the honesty and integrity to admit the obvious? There is an inescapable contradiction in the first two chapters of the first book in the Bible.

If it's obvious, then it should be fairly easy for you to compose it in the form of a valid deductive syllogism.

I don't think you can do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

It still wouldn't be this big a deal if they kept their beliefs to themselves, but they don't.

You've got something in common with them, then. You chose to share your belief that Genesis 2 directly contradicts Genesis 1.

So you want to back that up now?

They have worked their way into every branch of government, and one of their own is in the White House.

It wasn't much work, really, considering that the United States has always been dominated by Christians.

Under his misrule, the last two appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, and a few before that, were selected because they were religious nut jobs.

They were selected because they were highly qualified judges who also happen to offer originalist interpretations of the Constitution.

Have you got something against that?

We are at the precipice of having more than 200 years of stability under a written Constitution undone.

You're starting to sound like a religious whack job. Christians put together the U.S. government, and kept it going from then until now. Now you seem to have an irrational fear that the same type of Christian who signed the Constitution is going to rip it up and start over under papal rule or something.

So, to all the Bible-thumping zealots who may read this: You set the stakes very high for yourselves. Now live up to them, and if you can't, then have the decency to admit that you might not know as much as you claim to know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, if you can construct a deductive syllogism showing that Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 without committing a fallacy (I'll give you five tries so that you have a chance to fix any minor mistakes that I find), I'll cheerfully admit that I might not know as much as I claim to know.

I look forward to your response.

[Bryan]

Genesis 1 says that fowl were created on the fifth day, and the land animals and both man and woman on the sixth:

20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

. . .

31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2 says that fowl were created after the man, but before the woman.

No, it doesn't. Genesis 2, after recapping Genesis 1, does not appear to offer a chronology of creation events. That must be inferred into the text. Is it fair to infer the key point of an alleged contradiction?

I'll add emphasis in bold to emphasize the deficiency in Paul's argument.

The text is clear that the purpose was to find “an help meet” for Adam:

18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Review from chapter 1:

"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

The term "of the field" refers to human agriculture. I should warn you not to get your hopes up about "cattle" but you'd probably ignore the warning anyway ... so you might as well explore that avenue.

No doubt you would have found this quickly enough if you thought it supported your position, but there is no denying, by any reasonable person, that the order of creation of the fowl is in contradiction between the two texts.

Oh, you want to focus on the foul.

What is the reason for assuming that the "fowl that may fly above the earth in the

open firmament of heaven (and "every winged fowl after his kind") are the same group as "every fowl of the air" given that Genesis 2 is focused on the preparation of the Garden of Eden (with a more obvious distinction made between the types of animals)?

Were you also aware that the Hebrew in chapter 2 allows for past tense (rendered in the NIV, for example, "had formed")?

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air

See again my earlier post emphasizing that Genesis 2 makes no attempt to establish a chronology of creation events.

Chapter 2 can't focus only on the sixth day of creation because the fowl are said in chapter 1 to have been created on the fifth day, and man is said to be alone (Gen 2:18), which we "know" from Gen 1:26-31 couldn't have happened until day six; so your interpretation is incorrect and the contradiction is inescapable --- that is, unless you insist on sticking your fingers in your eyes and ears and making a lot of noise. This is a standard dodge used to avoid the contradiction, but there is no wiggle room.

You've got your facts mixed up, counselor.

Look again at chapter 2. God says he will make a helper suitable for Adam. It's fair enough to note that God refers to a future action. But then we've got the naming of the animals among which there was no suitable helper--and don't forget the past tense which is admissible when referring to the creation of the animals in this chapter. So, God's statement of future action need not refer to any being other than the helpmate God made for Adam. That is, Eve.

The mistake skeptics tend to make is in ignoring the plain statement of the text in chapter 2 that the context is the Garden of Eden (even the fact that the animals are brought to Adam lends itself to this understanding, but skeptics tend to ignore it).

Why are we even discussing this? If you heard this story in any other context, you would recognize it immediately as a fantasy.

Perhaps so--but would we see it as contradictory if we didn't carelessly ignore aspects of textual criticism such as genre, grammar and style?

Regarding the purpose of the animals, what do you think the fair reading is? Forget the sex, how bright do you have to be to know in advance that the animals wouldn’t provide suitable companionship for the man? If you really believe in this god, as you claim, why isn’t this blasphemy? The text portrays him as stupid.

No it doesn't, absent the lens of the modern who fails to appreciate ancient literature. The readers of the day probably saw the text as emphasizing how Adam was different from the animals that God had created. Certainly there wasn't any gigantic rush create Eve since Adam had plenty of years ahead of him.

Ancient literature of the time frequently used patterns such as the chiastic pattern to tell stories. Moderns who have no clue about such things may make faulty assumptions about the meaning of ancient texts because they tend to read them with the same expectations they bring to modern literary forms.

This story looks like a great many other ancient myths from primitive peoples. Why is it so hard for you to accept that that is what this is?

Source: http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvGene.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give an example and I'll give you a reason.

[Guest Guest]

This has all the ear marks of a glorified monkey in a dress stirring up trouble again. God will judge you and you should really be ashamed of yourself for mocking the scriptures. 

But I can see why you are confused, after all you were a MONKEY at one time right!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of us was ever a monkey. People don't evolve during their lifetime. Evolution of any species takes many generations, and evolution of any complex species, such as any primate, takes many thousands of years.

We are not descended from monkeys. We share a common primate ancestor with monkeys.

What you are mocking is universally accepted as true by the entire scientific community. The very few exceptions are people at the fringes of science with a political or religious axe to grind. The evidence supporting evolution as a fact is overwhelming. It consists of a mountain of fossils, dated by established methods that are accepted and applied across the board in science; DNA analysis of species all the way from tiny microbes to the largest and most complex plants and animals on Earth, all of which verifies the predictions of evolutionary theory to the letter; verification in laboratories, where evolution has been reproduced in simple organisms such as bacteria, and also slightly more complex species such as fruit flies. There is a common misconception, which David Paszkiewicz improperly and incorrectly fed to his history class before he was turned in, that evolution has never been reproduced scientifically. That statement is categorically false.

You should be ashamed of yourself for steeping yourself in ignorance, criticizing someone you obviously don't understand, and worse still, being proud of it.

[Guest Paul]

No, it doesn't.  Genesis 2, after recapping Genesis 1, does not appear to offer a chronology of creation events.  That must be inferred into the text.  Is it fair to infer the key point of an alleged contradiction?

I'll add emphasis in bold to emphasize the deficiency in Paul's argument.

Review from chapter 1:

"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

The term "of the field" refers to human agriculture.  I should warn you not to get your hopes up about "cattle" but you'd probably ignore the warning anyway ... so you might as well explore that avenue. 

Oh, you want to focus on the foul. 

What is the reason for assuming that the "fowl that may fly above the earth in the

open firmament of heaven (and "every winged fowl after his kind") are the same group as "every fowl of the air" given that Genesis 2 is focused on the preparation of the Garden of Eden (with a more obvious distinction made between the types of animals)?

Were you also aware that the Hebrew in chapter 2 allows for past tense (rendered in the NIV, for example, "had formed")?

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air

See again my earlier post emphasizing that Genesis 2 makes no attempt to establish a chronology of creation events.

You've got your facts mixed up, counselor.

Look again at chapter 2.  God says he will make a helper suitable for Adam.  It's fair enough to note that God refers to a future action.  But then we've got the naming of the animals among which there was no suitable helper--and don't forget the past tense which is admissible when referring to the creation of the animals in this chapter.  So, God's statement of future action need not refer to any being other than the helpmate God made for Adam.  That is, Eve.

The mistake skeptics tend to make is in ignoring the plain statement of the text in chapter 2 that the context is the Garden of Eden (even the fact that the animals are brought to Adam lends itself to this understanding, but skeptics tend to ignore it).

Perhaps so--but would we see it as contradictory if we didn't carelessly ignore aspects of textual criticism such as genre, grammar and style? 

No it doesn't, absent the lens of the modern who fails to appreciate ancient literature.  The readers of the day probably saw the text as emphasizing how Adam was different from the animals that God had created.  Certainly there wasn't any gigantic rush create Eve since Adam had plenty of years ahead of him.

Ancient literature of the time frequently used patterns such as the chiastic pattern to tell stories.  Moderns who have no clue about such things may make faulty assumptions about the meaning of ancient texts because they tend to read them with the same expectations they bring to modern literary forms.

Give an example and I'll give you a reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

There is no fair reading of this except that God created the beasts and the fowl after he created the man, who was previously "alone." Looking at it both ways, that is the inescapable meaning of the text. This is a chronological description of events, notwithstanding all attempts to deny that so as to avoid the contradiction; and "alone" means there weren't any other creatures around, which is the clear meaning of verse 19 includes the fowl. You can't explain what "alone" means except by looking at verse 19, which includes the supposed creation of the fowl. If that was not the meaning that was intended, the translators would have written it differently. What has happened instead is that apologists like yourself who start with the conclusions they wish to draw and reconstruct the facts to fit them, have twisted the text beyond its clear meaning. Not to mention the fact that if an almighty God had anything to do with this, the text wouldn't have these problems.

As you know very well, I'm focusing on the fowl because they are said in Genesis 1 to have been created on the fifth day. Your little games are tiring enough without deliberate feigning of ignorance.

"20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."

You're still not addressing the other obvious problem with the story.

And even if you managed to "win" the argument, you wouldn't still won't have any evidence that any of this ever happened. The point is that the story is fatally inconsistent from within, and quite amusing to boot.

[Bryan]

"18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

There is no fair reading of this except that God created the beasts and the fowl after he created the man, who was previously "alone."

I'm dealing with an idiot.

Paul, it may come as a surprise to you, but you're cutting and pasting a translation of a document written in Hebrew. I just explained to you that the Hebrew permits the past tense (it might occur to you that the rendering of the NIV translation committee supports that idea).

It is preposterous of you to claim that "There is not fair reading except ..." unless you are an expert in Hebrew whose qualifications exceed those of scholars (including a sufficient majority on the aforementioned NIV committee) who found ample room for a past-tense rendering.

Why is it so tough for a lawyer to present a serious argument? Even knowing virtually nothing about the Bible you should realize the potential issues with translation.

Looking at it both ways, that is the inescapable meaning of the text.

By "both ways" you mean you read it in Hebrew?

This is a chronological description of events, notwithstanding all attempts to deny that so as to avoid the contradiction; and "alone" means there weren't any other creatures around, which is the clear meaning of verse 19 includes the fowl.

Ah, the old "clear meaning" argument. I'm going to assume that you're not an expert in Hebrew and suppose that you think that the "clear meaning" in the NIV is that the animals and fowl were created after Adam.

Here's the text (NIV):

18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Paul claims that there's no way this construction allows for the animals and birds to be created before Adam? Seriously?

On the contrary, the grammar of the NIV certainly permits the animals and birds to pre-exist Adam.

Perhaps Paul thinks that the context unavoidably suggests that the animals were created in the attempt to find a help-mate for Adam ... but he'll need an argument for that, I think--and we're probably dealing with a guy who has no clue about chiastic patterns and other nuances of ancient ME literature. How badly will he fumble around?

You can't explain what "alone" means except by looking at verse 19, which includes the supposed creation of the fowl.

Are you alone right now?

If yes, would you guarantee that you pre-existed the next animal you meet?

I hope you meet an elderly tortoise.

Adam was alone because (as the text points out and I have already noted) Adam was placed in a special part of the creation. That is, the Garden of Eden. The bulk of chapter two is focused on relating the story of the Garden of Eden, not with the broader issue of creation.

Adam was alone there because he was the first animal God put there, regardless of whether or not there were animals elsewhere. And even if there were animals in the Garden, it would still be proper to describe Adam as alone, just as Robinson Crusoe was described as alone on his desert island regardless of the presence of birds and other animals.

This is a common skeptical reaction to having a pathetic Bible argument knocked down, by the way. The skeptics do tend to come up with ludicrous justifications such as the one Paul just used (if he's alone, then there were no animals created up through that time).

Using that logic, we can trust that Paul will never be alone until all animals save for himself are utterly extinct. Enjoy the company, Mr. LaClair.

If that was not the meaning that was intended, the translators would have written it differently.

That was written as one who knows very very little about the work of translation. First, the translators do not necessarily know what meaning was intended. As with an originalist Supreme Court justice, they rely primarily on the text itself to supply the meaning. English Bibles tend to fall into two classes, translations and paraphrases, and the line between the two is not distinct.

But one thing you won't typically find even in a paraphrase, and that's a re-ordering of the text that runs against the tradition of the numbered verses. To a modern, it might make sense to eliminate chiastic and other patterns that run counter to our (cultural) expectations, except that the utility of cross-referencing with other translations would be lost.

There's also copyright--I'll let LaClair just begin to imagine the ramifications for the modern work of translation.

In short, it's not a good argument to assume that the text is rendered by the translators to eliminate all tendency to misread the text because of cultural bias (it's a pathetic argument).

What has happened instead is that apologists like yourself who start with the conclusions they wish to draw and reconstruct the facts to fit them, have twisted the text beyond its clear meaning.

Ah, so I inserted "Eden" into Gen. 2:8 in order to fulfill my preconceived position that the second chapter deals with the Garden of Eden rather than with the creation on the whole. Gotcha.

Make me laugh by trying to come up with a real example of what you're claiming. I've got it! You can argue that I made up the whole "chiastic pattern" thing to try to explain the contradiction! There's the ticket! Go for it, Mr. LaClair!

The truth, by the way, is that skeptics commonly fall back on this type of ad hominem circumstantial. The defense of the scripture is not legitimate because it supposedly stemmed from the believer's motive in making the contradiction go away.

That's a convenient way to dodge the meat of the argument, isn't it?

Not to mention the fact that if an almighty God had anything to do with this, the text wouldn't have these problems.

Ah, yes, that's the other popular dodge. If the skeptic has difficulty in interpreting the scripture properly, that is God's fault. The greater the idiocy of the skeptic's argument, the more God is at fault for not making the Bible idiot-proof.

As you know very well, I'm focusing on the fowl because they are said in Genesis 1 to have been created on the fifth day. Your little games are tiring enough without deliberate feigning of ignorance.

"20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."

You're still not addressing the other obvious problem with the story.

I don't suppose you'd like to mention it specifically?

And even if you managed to "win" the argument, you wouldn't still won't have any evidence that any of this ever happened.

What evidence have you got that I won't have any evidence that any of this ever happened?

It wouldn't be that trusty fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, would it?

The point is that the story is fatally inconsistent from within, and quite amusing to boot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've had no failure to realize that your point was that the story has fatal internal inconsistencies. That's precisely why I stepped in to show that your argument is a failure.

If you want to believe on faith that the story is internally inconsistent even after your argument fails, that's your business.

[Bryan]

It's a credit to the people on Matthew's side of this argument that they haven't accused every Guest on the other side of being David Paszkiewicz. You don't know who posted it, so stop the nonsense. The comments got to you. The responsible course is to deal with them on their merits, which is not what you're doing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Matthew, is that you?

[Guest Guest]

Can anyone sort this out for me? I’m real confused.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are a Starfleet Federation explorer in the process of cataloging two newly discovered planets. The majority of the inhabitants of each planet believe in a deity, but they are two different deities. Deity "X" is said to be not only all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, but the designer of a marvelously complex and ordered world. Deity "Y" is said to be indifferent, absent, unconcerned with the affairs of his planet, and some even say evil. Which god rules over which planet?

Planet A: Has apparently achieved a state of advanced benign equilibrium in which there are no viruses or diseases, and only a very small number of natural disasters, which, when they do strike, always eliminate only the sinful and evil. The inhabitants, both plant and animal, have learned to maintain their existence through photosynthesis, and thus do not have to kill and eat each other in order to survive. There are no "birth defects;" every inhabitant comes into existence perfectly formed and equipped for a long and productive life.

Deity X_____

Deity Y_____

Planet B: Adorned with many examples of beauty and order, it is also constantly beset by hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, volcanoes, lightning bolts, viruses, disfiguring diseases, parasites, leeches, flies, crop-destroying pests and many other phenomena which afflict both the innocent and the evil. Every life form on the planet can only sustain its existence through the destruction and consumption of other life forms. Some of the inhabitants are born with a crippling condition called a "birth defect", which condemns them to living extremely limited, short, or painful lives.

Deity X_____

Deity Y_____

[Guest Guest]

You don't know that, but we know you have. We just don't know who you are. But you do. How many times have you done it? And if it's wrong for whomever started this topic, why isn't it wrong for you?

I didn't say it was wrong to post as guest. Re-read the tread......Paul

[Guest Guest]

Then why did you bother posting in this topic at all? Stop trying to derail the thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what exactly is this thread about to you Strife? I saw a sarcastic little twit trying to "save" the christians from who knows what by pointing out discepencies in the bible via a very snotty way. As Paul stated somewhere in this thread " If your trying to change peoples minds, that is not the way to do it".

[Guest Guest]

It's a credit to the people on Matthew's side of this argument that they haven't accused every Guest on the other side of being David Paszkiewicz.

I didn't accuse every guest on the LaClair side of being Matthew (Just the obvious ones).

You don't know who posted it, so stop the nonsense. The comments got to you.

No they didn't.

The responsible course is to deal with them on their merits, which is not what you're doing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Merits!? You call them merits? Only a daddy would call them merits!

[Guest Guest]

There are 25 posts in a few days, and an animated discussion. At the very least is has some people thinking.

Is that why you don't like it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As you said before, "If your trying to change peoples minds, that is not the way to do it"

[Guest Guest]

"18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

There is no fair reading of this except that God created the beasts and the fowl after he created the man, who was previously "alone." Looking at it both ways, that is the inescapable meaning of the text. This is a chronological description of events, notwithstanding all attempts to deny that so as to avoid the contradiction; and "alone" means there weren't any other creatures around, which is the clear meaning of verse 19 includes the fowl. You can't explain what "alone" means except by looking at verse 19, which includes the supposed creation of the fowl. If that was not the meaning that was intended, the translators would have written it differently. What has happened instead is that apologists like yourself who start with the conclusions they wish to draw and reconstruct the facts to fit them, have twisted the text beyond its clear meaning. Not to mention the fact that if an almighty God had anything to do with this, the text wouldn't have these problems.

As you know very well, I'm focusing on the fowl because they are said in Genesis 1 to have been created on the fifth day. Your little games are tiring enough without deliberate feigning of ignorance.

"20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."

You're still not addressing the other obvious problem with the story.

And even if you managed to "win" the argument, you wouldn't still won't have any evidence that any of this ever happened. The point is that the story is fatally inconsistent from within, and quite amusing to boot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I feel you may have avoided an earlier question. The original post for this line of discussion was a request for bible study. I was drwn in but turned off because it turned out to be an extremely distasteful attempt to mock the bible. It was particularly offensive because it suggested many times that Adam was involved in sex with animals and that God must have approved of it. At first glance, it look to me like something Strife might have posted. He is often crude in his arguments against God, Christianity and the bible. Because this is the case, Strife would have no reason to post as a guest. Another guest said it was Mathew. I noticed it was asked if this were the case and you didn't answer. This seems to imply that he might have unless you never saw the original question. It is a serious issue to me because of the level of insensitivity to the faith of millions of Christians, Jews and Moslems. If he didn't write it, he didn't write it and you should say so, but if he wrote it, I think he should apologize.

[Bryan]

You are a Starfleet Federation explorer in the process of cataloging two newly discovered planets. The majority of the inhabitants of each planet believe in a deity, but they are two different deities. Deity "X" is said to be not only all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, but the designer of a marvelously complex and ordered world. Deity "Y" is said to be indifferent, absent, unconcerned with the affairs of his planet, and some even say evil. Which god rules over which planet?

Starfleet wants me to figure out which god is in charge of what? I sure hope there's a setting on the tricorder that figures it all out, because otherwise this scenario does absolutely nothing to advance the argument that's already in print.

Planet A: Has apparently achieved a state of advanced benign equilibrium in which there are no viruses or diseases, and only a very small number of natural disasters, which, when they do strike, always eliminate only the sinful and evil. The inhabitants, both plant and animal, have learned to maintain their existence through photosynthesis, and thus do not have to kill and eat each other in order to survive. There are no "birth defects;" every inhabitant comes into existence perfectly formed and equipped for a long and productive life.

Deity X_____

Deity Y_____

What happens on that planet when people die? Do bacteria get to break down the bodies or do they have to stick with photosynthesis?

I only ask because I feel certain that Star Fleet would want to know.

Maybe all the dead (human and animal alike) are cremated?

But before the advent of fire, wouldn't the planet have become a tangled jungle of dead and undecayed matter?

Does Starfleet want me to guess at the answer or give them reasons?

Planet B: Adorned with many examples of beauty and order, it is also constantly beset by hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, volcanoes, lightning bolts, viruses, disfiguring diseases, parasites, leeches, flies, crop-destroying pests and many other phenomena which afflict both the innocent and the evil. Every life form on the planet can only sustain its existence through the destruction and consumption of other life forms. Some of the inhabitants are born with a crippling condition called a "birth defect", which condemns them to living extremely limited, short, or painful lives.

Deity X_____

Deity Y_____

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You should send Paul with the away team. See if putting him in the scenario awakens his latent ability to reason.

[Guest Paul]

Then why did you bother posting in this topic at all? Stop trying to derail the thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what exactly is this thread about to you Strife? I saw a sarcastic little twit trying to "save" the christians from who knows what by pointing out discepencies in the bible via a very snotty way. As Paul stated somewhere in this thread " If your trying to change peoples minds, that is not the way to do it".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't it interesting that when fundamentalists attack others in their beliefs, that's OK, but when others give the fundies a dose of their own medicine, all they do is whine.

[Guest Paul]

Merits!? You call them merits? Only a daddy would call them merits!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't give him the multiple awards he has received, write the editorials commending him or give him the job he just started because the head of a major corporation saw the story and admired what he did.

You're wrong. Why can't you admit it?