Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Probably the most obvious one.

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

We learn three things here.

It's the beginning
God created Earth
god created the Heavens

Genesis 1 then continues the story by explaining what Earth is after it was created; Genesis 1:1 happened first, and then everything after it happened after it, like every other story. Makes sense, right?

Then we go up to genesis 1:6-8

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

God creates Heaven again!

Now how or why does god create Heaven twice? Can anyone explain this?

Maybe Genesis 1:1 is the summary and the stuff afterwords is to be taken as the details.

Seriously, who gives a shit that the Bible suffers from poor editing in this particular part that it warrants an entire thread?

There are probably half a dozen threads already made that this could have gone into.

Its quite obvious the "heaven" as in some holy place in some other dimension or whatever, is meant in a different sense as the heavens which refers to the sky atmosphere and all that.

Maybe the original Hebrew text had different words for the two heavens

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Maybe the original Hebrew text had different words for the two heavens

Most likely, Lord_XYZ just seems to think he is stumbling on all this information that will bring down a religion that has lasted 2000 years...

Originally posted by lord xyz
Probably the most obvious one.

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

We learn three things here.

It's the beginning
God created Earth
god created the Heavens

Genesis 1 then continues the story by explaining what Earth is after it was created; Genesis 1:1 happened first, and then everything after it happened after it, like every other story. Makes sense, right?

Then we go up to genesis 1:6-8

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

God creates Heaven again!

Now how or why does god create Heaven twice? Can anyone explain this?

Genesis 1:1-2 is the basic explanation. God made Heaven and Earth. To begin with all he had was a formless void.

Genesis 1:3-31 details to process of creation, going day by day. Careful notes are included in verses 5, 7, 13, 19, 23 and 31 so that anyone with basic reading comprehension and logical reasoning can understand the way it is written.

Similarly in Genesis 1:26-29 the basic story of Adam's creation is noted but in Genesis 2:7 it is given in slightly more detail.

Again, I stand by my policy that the Bible was not written for idiots.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Most likely, Lord_XYZ just seems to think he is stumbling on all this information that will bring down a religion that has lasted 2000 years...

Seconded. Even I think it has a little more internal consistency than that.
It is like the time that I convinced myself that I found biblical evidence favoring abortion.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Maybe Genesis 1:1 is the summary and the stuff afterwords is to be taken as the details. No, because as I said, 1:2 etc continue the story. Also, 1:6 is day two, not the beginning.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, because as I said, 1:2 etc continue the story. Also, 1:6 is day two, not the beginning.

Because day one is detailed immediately before day two.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because day one is detailed immediately before day two. 1: Earth and heavens are created
2: Day 1
3: Day 2, God creates heaven again

Incase you didn't know, every line after 1:1 starts with "and".

(1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth (2) was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Day 1 is now over) (6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (7) And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

God creates heaven on the first day and the second day.

Originally posted by lord xyz
1: Earth and heavens are created
2: Day 1
3: Day 2, God creates heaven again

Incase you didn't know, every line after 1:1 starts with "and".

(1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth (2) was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Day 1 is now over) (6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (7) And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

God creates heaven on the first day and the second day.

Not by any reading but yours.

Basics: 1:1-2

Details: everything else

How do you get through ordinary books or explanations?

Right.

You know what you've done because you posted it yourself.

Heavens vs Heaven.

Heavens can be the sky, the stars etc

Heaven is the place of salvation

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Again, I stand by my policy that the Bible was not written for idiots.

But quite possibly by them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But quite possibly by them.

Not a bad legacy for a bunch of idiots.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not by any reading but yours.

Basics: 1:1-2

Details: everything else

How do you get through ordinary books or explanations? Then why does Gen 1:3 etc. begin with "and"? Gen 1:2 says darkness was upon the face of the deep, but doesn't mention light, as if 1-2, there's no light, and then 1:3, there's light.



Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Right.

You know what you've done because you posted it yourself.

Heavens vs Heaven.

Heavens can be the sky, the stars etc

Heaven is the place of salvation Well, it actually was "the heaven and the earth", but I thought that was a misprint, so I typed "heavens" instead.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Not a bad legacy for a bunch of idiots.

Very true.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But quite possibly by them.

Not impossible, but they'd still be the most successful idiots in history.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not impossible, but they'd still be the most successful idiots in history. Well, since they might be the most successful people in history that's also true.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then why does Gen 1:3 etc. begin with "and"? Gen 1:2 says darkness was upon the face of the deep, but doesn't mention light, as if 1-2, there's no light, and then 1:3, there's light.



Well, it actually was "the heaven and the earth", but I thought that was a misprint, so I typed "heavens" instead.

you thought it was a misprint...

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then why does Gen 1:3 etc. begin with "and"? Gen 1:2 says darkness was upon the face of the deep, but doesn't mention light, as if 1-2, there's no light, and then 1:3, there's light.

It was dark and the Earth was a formless void so it's not the Earth yet. The actual story begins with God moving across the waters. Everything from then on describes him making things, it begins with light. Before that it just tells you what the story is about.

I think xyz's problem can be explained by "heaven" having multiple meanings. It's a bit confusing, not an outright contradiction though. He could concentrate on actual contradictions instead, but being the child he is, he was blinded by his youthful anger.

Would people please stop calling me angry? It's getting quite annoying.

Anyway, another contradiction:

Gen 1:2

How can the earth have waters and surface when it's void?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Would people please stop calling me angry? It's getting quite annoying.

Does it make you more angry?


Originally posted by lord xyz
Anyway, another contradiction:
Gen 1:2

How can the earth have waters and surface when it's void?
What version are you using?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Does it make you more angry?



What version are you using? Right now, the one you just posted.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Right now, the one you just posted. The one I posted doesn't mention "void", so, that's probably not it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The one I posted doesn't mention "void", so, that's probably not it. It says "formless and empty", which basically means the same thing.

Originally posted by lord xyz
It says "formless and empty", which basically means the same thing. Nope. There's no contradiction just because you don't understand literature.

Okay, how does it have waters and surfaces if it's formless and empty?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay, how does it have waters and surfaces if it's formless and empty? The water is empty because there is nothing in it. And I suppose it is formless cause it is water....it might also be metaphorical cause there's no light in it. Why are you being so incredibly boneheaded, can't you focus on more intelligent and more mature criticism of Religion?

This argument is rendered invalid by pointing out the majority of Christians think that Genesis is a metaphorical and poetic explanation of the origins of man- I'm sure even the creationists understand that what actually happened is not what is word for word said in the first part of Genesis.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
This argument is rendered invalid by pointing out the majority of Christians think that Genesis is a metaphorical and poetic explanation of the origins of man- I'm sure even the creationists understand that what actually happened is not what is word for word said in the first part of Genesis.

No that's the problem, they do think that it's what really happened. Many (I'd say most but I'm not sure) Christians understand that it's metaphorical on one level or another.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Would people please stop calling me angry? It's getting quite annoying.

Its quite possibly that he's not angry...maybe he is just exploring his thoughts and beliefs as he gets older...he might become a Christian soon.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No that's the problem, they do think that it's what really happened. Many (I'd say most but I'm not sure) Christians understand that it's metaphorical on one level or another.

That sort of fundamentalism is almost non-existant in this part of the world...then again I did know a boy who claimed the Earth was only 6000 years old...

Originally posted by Bardock42
The water is empty because there is nothing in it. And I suppose it is formless cause it is water....it might also be metaphorical cause there's no light in it. Why are you being so incredibly boneheaded, can't you focus on more intelligent and more mature criticism of Religion? But the Earth is what's empty, an empty earth can't have water...it's empty, unless the water is clinging on to the surface.

Water has a form.

I could, but I didn't want to.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Its quite possibly that he's not angry...maybe he is just exploring his thoughts and beliefs as he gets older...he might become a Christian soon. I could be christian, but it's quite unlikely. Then again, I considered being Muslim at one point.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Seriously, who gives a shit that the Bible suffers from poor editing in this particular part that it warrants an entire thread?

There are probably half a dozen threads already made that this could have gone into.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Would people please stop calling me angry? It's getting quite annoying.

Anyway, another contradiction:

Gen 1:2

How can the earth have waters and surface when it's void?

Gen 1.2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Spirit of God was hovering over the water.

whats wrong with that?

Thats just one version mind, if you use the online bible browser you can compare versions, languages and all that at a mouse click.

http://www.biblebrowser.com/genesis/1-2.htm

don´t get wound up too easy, religion and politics bring out all sorts of negative emotions in various people, don´t join them.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Gen 1.2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Spirit of God was hovering over the water.

whats wrong with that?

Thats just one version mind, if you use the online bible browser you can compare versions, languages and all that at a mouse click.

http://www.biblebrowser.com/genesis/1-2.htm

don´t get wound up too easy, religion and politics bring out all sorts of negative emotions in various people, don´t join them. Well, the deep water being on/in a formless empty earth for a start.

I wonder what God was doing before he created the heavens and the earth..lol..musta been boring...beer

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
I wonder what God was doing before he created the heavens and the earth..lol..musta been boring...beer Arm Wrestle with his roomate Chuggs.

There's only one error in Genesis: taking it literally.

Like Many of the stories. Just like Aesop's Fables.

Originally posted by peejayd
* in Genesis 1:3-5, God created light, but the light was not the sun...

Which begs the question, "How could there be 'the evening and the morning' on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?"




Originally posted by peejayd
it shows that the six days of creation is not literal 24-hour day... God is beyond space and time...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

There is no reason to believe that the term "day" in the creation account refers to any period of time other than 24 hours. If the Bible is written by God for man, then it would reference the period of time that man recognizes as day.




Originally posted by peejayd
* the trees were not planted, it does not need "photosynthetic processes"... they were created and commanded to grow and bear fruits...

Which begs the question, "How could the plants 'grow and bear fruit' if there was no sun to drive their photosynthetic processes?"




Originally posted by peejayd
* the moon, inspite of whatever you said, is still the lesser light that rules the night...

The moon is not a light at all.




Originally posted by peejayd
* Genesis would be uber-thick if it listed millions of species rather than the story itself...

Adam could not have named all of the animals, because there are still not names for all of them.




Originally posted by peejayd
* it was Satan who took the form of a serpent...

This does not affect the statement in question.




Originally posted by peejayd
* it was not implied that thorns and thistles were created only in that particular moment...

God commanded thorns and thistles to grow to punish Adam for listening to Eve.




Originally posted by peejayd
* so if there's no "archaeological evidence", does it automatically means it did not exist?

Does it follow from the supposed lack of archaeological evidence for "transitional species" that Evolution is not valid?

I'd like to know what was/is the source of this "light", if not a solar body?

Or how a formless empty Earth could have water.

Further more, when was Jupiter created?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which begs the question, "How could there be 'the evening and the morning' on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?"

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd like to know what was/is the source of this "light", if not a solar body?

* before creation, there was nothing... then God first created light, His light...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is no reason to believe that the term "day" in the creation account refers to any period of time other than 24 hours. If the Bible is written by God for man, then it would reference the period of time that man recognizes as day.

* the mere fact that it was reiterated that the sun, moon & stars were not created in the first day - it only shows the six days of creation & the seventh day of rest are not literal 24-hour day...

* true, the Bible was written for man, written by men inspired by God... the Bible was written to establish understanding between God and man...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which begs the question, "How could the plants 'grow and bear fruit' if there was no sun to drive their photosynthetic processes?"



* there's no need, the trees were not planted, but was created and commanded to grow...

* Adam and Eve did not start out as fetuses, don't they?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The moon is not a light at all.

* technically, yes... but whether you like it or not, the moon serves as a light in the evening...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Adam could not have named all of the animals, because there are still not names for all of them.

* technically, yes... the only question that hangs is, are those unnamed species was already named by Adam or not? we all don't know, i might not consider this as an error...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This does not affect the statement in question.

* it does because, since satan used the appearance of a serpent/snake, God derived satan's curse from a serpent/snake... technically, it's a snake; but spiritually, it's not, it's satan...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
God commanded thorns and thistles to grow to punish Adam for listening to Eve.

* i know... but it does not even imply that the thorns were only created in that circumstance...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Does it follow from the supposed lack of archaeological evidence for "transitional species" that Evolution is not valid?

* there might be some creatures which really evolved but some only adapted... well, you tell me, since it was you who are saying that giants lack archaelogical evidences...

Originally posted by lord xyz
Or how a formless empty Earth could have water.

Further more, when was Jupiter created?

* i believe the planets in the solar system and even the whole galaxy was created chronologically starting from a celestial body that was capable of universal equilibrium... Earth should be in accordance with the other planets to create balance, and what-nots...

Form presumably refers to terrain, yet to be terraformed by his noodly appendage. Or rather more accurately aquaformed. And empty presumably refers to a lack of furries and shinies. Although those probably aren't the only ways one could interpret the statement. Even if one is taking it literally; one doesn't have to be literarily obtuse.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/MarsTransitionV.jpg/152px-MarsTransitionV.jpg
Relatively formless to begin with?
-Check.
Relatively empty to begin with?
-Check.

But it's still a sphere at the start.
-No shit Sherlock, have a cookie.

I found one where God goes to cain and abel "go forth and multiply" how do they multiply when eve was the only female

Or does that mean were all inbred ?

Originally posted by Kazenji
I found one where God goes to cain and abel "go forth and multiply" how do they multiply when eve was the only female

Or does that mean were all inbred ?

We are all inbreed according to the Bible. Adam and Eve had a multitude of sons and daughters (since they lived to be 900 or so), who then ****ed each other and made more sons and daughters so on and so forth.

Eventually we get to Noah (inbreed descendant of Adam) and the Great Flood, God drowns everything except Noah, his immediate family (8 people in all I believe) and a mixture of some (only certain animals made God's grade) animals. After the flood, Noah and his immediate family begin incest-****ing to repopulate the Earth. Kinky.

Edit:Have to ask, if they were Jews from the Middle East, how did the world end up with the Asians, Negroes, Indians (feather, not dot) etc?

Originally posted by Robtard
We are all inbreed according to the Bible. Adam and Eve had a multitude of sons and daughters (since they lived to be 900 or so), who then ****ed each other and made more sons and daughters so on and so forth.


A-actually...Adam and Eve were the first humans made....not the only ones.

In reality though we are all inbred....cause we all stem from but one mother.

Or if you go further, we all stem from just one organism.

In fact, we are just part of one big chemical reaction. Have a good day

Originally posted by Bardock42
A-actually...Adam and Eve were the first humans made....not the only ones.

In reality though we are all inbred....cause we all stem from but one mother.

Or if you go further, we all stem from just one organism.

In fact, we are just part of one big chemical reaction. Have a good day

They were the only two people in the Garden when Eve ****ed up and God punished her with the pain of child-labor for her actions (along with mortality) while throwing them out into the world to fend for themselves. Unless you have something that says otherwise?

Well yes, but we also have breeding/mixture with other primates outside that first "Eve", we just share that common mother-bloodline if you go back far enough.

Originally posted by Robtard
They were the only two people in the Garden when Eve ****ed up and God punished her with the pain of child-labor for her actions (along with mortality) while throwing them out into the world to fend for themselves. Unless you have something that says otherwise?

Well yes, but we also have breeding/mixture with other primates outside that first "Eve", we just share that common mother-bloodline if you go back far enough.

Well, I just have that it doesn't say that Adam and Eve were the only people. If you have any prove that they were the only people lets have it.

True, true. She got around.


Also, Jesus is a Necromancer

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I just have that it doesn't say that Adam and Eve were the only people. If you have any prove that they were the only people lets have it.

True, true. She got around.


Also, Jesus is a Necromancer

God isn't mentioned creating other people after he makes Adam from dirt and Eve from rib, so it leads me to believe that they were it. I'm also fairly certain there are passages that sustain Adam & Eve being the only humans at the time of expulsion, I can't recall them off the top of my head though. (I'll check later)

Well, there were several other species that developed along with the line that eventually lead to modern man, there's also some proof of species mixing along the way, like modern man and Neanderthals did sex it up at times. Wouldn't you have gotten around?

If that were true, that would raise his stock for me, Necromancers are sweet.

Adam is lonely as he is naming animals and tending the ground, so God gives him a single "helper" in Eve. Later, God casts out Man from Eden, and Adam and Eve are banished.

When I read Genesis 1 I infer that God had an extremely loose plan, where he takes a look at the things that he creates, Light, Water, Sky, and then after checking it out, he determines that it is "good". I just find it interesting how capricious God comes off to be.
What I find most interesting in Genesis 2, is after Adam and Eve eat the fruit then go to cover themselves up. God comes, discovers they ate the fruit and says: "'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil'" (3:22).

Originally posted by Mindship
There's only one error in Genesis: taking it literally.

Bam!

Originally posted by Bardock42
A-actually...Adam and Eve were the first humans made....not the only ones.

In reality though we are all inbred....cause we all stem from but one mother.

Or if you go further, we all stem from just one organism.

Praise LUCA?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, Jesus is a Necromancer

Well he claimed to be a prophet but I don't believe he ever summoned the dead in order to learn about the future.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
What I find most interesting in Genesis 2, is after Adam and Eve eat the fruit then go to cover themselves up. God comes, discovers they ate the fruit and says: "'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil'" (3:22).

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

There are actually any number of different things that God could be saying in that instance.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A-actually...Adam and Eve were the first humans made....not the only ones.

In reality though we are all inbred....cause we all stem from but one mother.

Or if you go further, we all stem from just one organism.

In fact, we are just part of one big chemical reaction. Have a good day You don't know we came from one organism. What's not to say that some of us came from an organism created in Asia, and others came from an organism created in America.

Speaking of inbreeding, since all humans are God's children, that means Mary is also God's child. Furthermore, Jesus proclaimed he is his own father. Making Mary the mother, sister and daughter of God. Now that's some ****ed up shit right there.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You don't know we came from one organism. What's not to say that some of us came from an organism created in Asia, and others came from an organism created in America.


Because the likelyhood of two species of humans evolving to be exactly the same but on separate lines is highly unlikely.

But like I said, there's evidence that some of our greatX100 grandfathers did it with a Neanderthal, maybe it's the reason why you're always so irrational and angry, you're part brute.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because the likelyhood of two species of humans evolving to be exactly the same but on separate lines is highly unlikely.

But like I said, there's evidence that some of our greatX100 grandfathers did it with a Neanderthal, maybe it's the reason why you're always so irrational and angry, you're part brute. By us I didn't mean humans.

Originally posted by lord xyz
By us I didn't mean humans.

You did use "we" directly beforehand. Next time be more clear, chinless.

Originally posted by Robtard
You did use "we" directly beforehand. Next time be more clear, chinless. I didn't mean humans when I said we either.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I didn't mean humans when I said we either.

We were talking about humans, so either you failed to comprehend or you're just covering up now in lieu of admitting you were wrong, iceman.

No, just a poor choice of words.

Calm down.

I...I am calm.

Do I phrase my posts in a way that give off an angry impression?

Originally posted by lord xyz
I...I am calm.

Do I phrase my posts in a way that give off an angry impression?

Just ****ing with you, going with the previous gag.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just ****ing with you, going with the previous gag. Oh, I see.

Where did this start anyway?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh, I see.

Where did this start anyway?

In a galaxy far far away? Don't recall the exacts.

Originally posted by Robtard
In a galaxy far far away? Don't recall the exacts. *tantrum*

Why don't you just ****ing tell me.

LOL, funny joke.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I didn't mean humans when I said we either.

So . . . what species do you consider yourself then?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So . . . what species do you consider yourself then? Who said anything about species?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Who said anything about species?

"I didn't mean humans when I said we either"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/I

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/we

Originally posted by peejayd
* before creation, there was nothing... then God first created light, His light...

However, it is not this light that indicates day and night, but the path of the sun and the moon through the sky. Again, which begs the question, "How could there be 'the evening and the morning' on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?"




Originally posted by peejayd
* the mere fact that it was reiterated that the sun, moon & stars were not created in the first day - it only shows the six days of creation & the seventh day of rest are not literal 24-hour day...

How so?





Originally posted by peejayd
* true, the Bible was written for man, written by men inspired by God... the Bible was written to establish understanding between God and man...

If the term "day" in the creation account refers to a period of time other than the one that man recognizes as day, then it does not "establish understanding," but creates confusion.




Originally posted by peejayd
* there's no need, the trees were not planted, but was created and commanded to grow...

Nearly all life on Earth is directly or indirectly dependent upon photosynthetic processes for energy. Without energy, photoautotrophic plant life cannot grow or reproduce.




Originally posted by peejayd
* technically, yes... but whether you like it or not, the moon serves as a light in the evening...

That the moon emits energy in the form of light is factually incorrect. If The Bible contains information that is factually incorrect, then it is not inerrant.




Originally posted by peejayd
* technically, yes... the only question that hangs is, are those unnamed species was already named by Adam or not? we all don't know, i might not consider this as an error...

Considering that 10,000 new species of insect are discovered each year; no, he did not.




Originally posted by peejayd
* it does because, since satan used the appearance of a serpent/snake, God derived satan's curse from a serpent/snake... technically, it's a snake; but spiritually, it's not, it's satan...

This does not change that snakes did not have legs, or that they do not eat dust.




Originally posted by peejayd
* i know... but it does not even imply that the thorns were only created in that circumstance...

This does not change that plants had no need of natural defenses before Eve tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge; prior to this transgression, death did not exist.




Originally posted by peejayd
* there might be some creatures which really evolved but some only adapted... well, you tell me, since it was you who are saying that giants lack archaelogical evidences...

This does not answer my question; does it or does it not follow from the supposed lack of archaeological evidence for "transitional species" that Evolution is not valid?

The whole Genesis is an error in itself

Originally posted by Mindship
There's only one error in Genesis: taking it literally.

**** ya!

Originally posted by Robtard
Edit:Have to ask, if they were Jews from the Middle East, how did the world end up with the Asians, Negroes, Indians (feather, not dot) etc?

* in the time of the Tower of Babel where the languages were all mixed up, people of the same language flocked together and moved to a place/country of their own, from there, their bodies adapted to what kind of climate their country has...

* just my hunch...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
However, it is not this light that indicates day and night, but the path of the sun and the moon through the sky. Again, which begs the question, "How could there be 'the evening and the morning' on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?"

How so?

If the term "day" in the creation account refers to a period of time other than the one that man recognizes as day, then it does not "establish understanding," but creates confusion.

* it could create confusion if we will insist that the six days of creation is literal 24-hour days...

* but since it was written that the sun, moon & stars were created in the fourth day, it really is not 24-hour day...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Nearly all life on Earth is directly or indirectly dependent upon photosynthetic processes for energy. Without energy, photoautotrophic plant life cannot grow or reproduce.

* i know, i got your point... that's why i'm saying that the trees were not planted, they need not photosynthesis because they were created, they were not planted... in parallelism, Adam and Eve did not start out as fetuses...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That the moon emits energy in the form of light is factually incorrect. If The Bible contains information that is factually incorrect, then it is not inerrant.

* i really don't know what's the problem with this topic... the moon serves as the lesser light in the evening... whether the origin of the light came from the sun, by which the moon only reflects it, it does not matter and it is irrelevant... what was relevant is, the moon serves as the lesser light in the evening... it's not a Biblical error...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Considering that 10,000 new species of insect are discovered each year; no, he did not.

* i really don't know...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This does not change that snakes did not have legs, or that they do not eat dust.

* well, if we are going to be strict Biblically, it's nachash in Hebrew, it says it's a serpent, a snake or a dragon... and it's a masculine noun... so it really is not a literal snake perse, it might be a snake, a serpent or a dragon according to Hebrew transliteration...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This does not change that plants had no need of natural defenses before Eve tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge; prior to this transgression, death did not exist.

* woah! nope... God appointed death to humans from the very start, Hebrews 9:27...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This does not answer my question; does it or does it not follow from the supposed lack of archaeological evidence for "transitional species" that Evolution is not valid?

* because i'm not answering you, i'm saying you tell me since it is you who stated that giants did not exist due to lack of archaeological evidences...

Originally posted by lord xyz
By us I didn't mean humans.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I didn't mean humans when I said we either.
Yes you did, you wanker.

wanker, iceman, chinless...you seem to be very popular xyz..lol

Oh ****ing hell.

I didn't know 2 letter words could cause so much controversy.

Genesis is metaphorical.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Genesis is metaphorical. The metaphor that light existed without suns or stars to produce light?

Originally posted by lord xyz
The metaphor that light existed without suns or stars to produce light?

If you really can't see the metaphorical implications of light, creation or day you need serious help.

Thanks. I believe that it is all very light and in no way substantive. Genius is more a fable or how to feel or what did happen, yet not in the way we would perceive...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you really can't see the metaphorical implications of light, creation or day you need serious help. I need help because I don't understand what the **** it's tryng to say, despite the obvious explanation it's talking shit?

Originally posted by lord xyz
I need help because I don't understand what the **** it's tryng to say, despite the obvious explanation it's talking shit?

So you're of the opinion that all things must be written to express a literal meaning? I mean, how can a story talk? Hell, how can anything "talk shit"? You're not making any sense.

If you lack an understanding of the literary idea of metaphor or of what light can mean other than radiant photons well for Jesus ****ing Christ in high heaven you're an idiot. There's no other explanation. LIGHT IS THE OLDEST AND MOST COMMON METAPHORICALLY USED THING IN THE HISTORY OF LITERATURE.

You light up my life; or shower electromagnetic radiation on my biological activity.

Originally posted by peejayd
* it could create confusion if we will insist that the six days of creation is literal 24-hour days...

Using a term in a way that is consistent with its meaning does not cause confusion.




Originally posted by peejayd
* but since it was written that the sun, moon & stars were created in the fourth day, it really is not 24-hour day...

There is no relationship between the creation of heavenly bodies on the fourth day, and the length of each day of creation.




Originally posted by peejayd
* i know, i got your point... that's why i'm saying that the trees were not planted, they need not photosynthesis because they were created, they were not planted... in parallelism, Adam and Eve did not start out as fetuses...

This is a False Analogy; the progenitors may have been created fully mature, but when commanded to reproduce, they did so through natural processes. Without energy, these processes could not take place.




Originally posted by peejayd
* i really don't know what's the problem with this topic... the moon serves as the lesser light in the evening... whether the origin of the light came from the sun, by which the moon only reflects it, it does not matter and it is irrelevant... what was relevant is, the moon serves as the lesser light in the evening... it's not a Biblical error...

A bicycle reflector reflects light energy from the headlights of an automobile in the same way that the moon reflects light energy from the sun, but you would not regard a bicycle reflector as a light source.




Originally posted by peejayd
* well, if we are going to be strict Biblically, it's nachash in Hebrew, it says it's a serpent, a snake or a dragon... and it's a masculine noun... so it really is not a literal snake perse, it might be a snake, a serpent or a dragon according to Hebrew transliteration...

This does not change that snakes did not have legs, or that they do not eat dust. Furthermore, is it your argument that dragons exist? This is not surprising considering your belief that giants also exist.




Originally posted by peejayd
* woah! nope... God appointed death to humans from the very start, Hebrews 9:27...






Originally posted by peejayd
* because i'm not answering you, i'm saying you tell me since it is you who stated that giants did not exist due to lack of archaeological evidences...

Then you agree that it does not follow from the supposed lack of archaeological evidence for "transitional species" that Evolution is not valid?

Oh wow, you're actually arguing that a human being lived to the age of 900?

I seriously doubt you've confused anyone with your statements. I think what has confused everyone is that you are cherry picking the story and deciding for yourself which parts are literal and which are metaphorical; on top of the fact that you are making excuses for the differences in the two versions of the stories by interpreting the supposedly holy and indesputible word of your god to fit your beliefs.

Have you tried having this conversation with a Jew?



You know, with this statement, you only show how in your mind the scientific use of the word theory is equivalent to opinion or assumption. People like yourself need to get over the idea that the theory of evolution was created with an agenda to destroy god or religion. It's really kind of a paranoid attitude to take, especially if you take the bible literally.

How was the adultress stoning in your village this past weekend, or did you miss out on it becuase you were shopping for slaves or herding something?

Originally posted by Devil King
Oh wow, you're actually arguing that a human being lived to the age of 900?

* no, we're just talking about *ahem* the Bible...

Originally posted by Devil King
I seriously doubt you've confused anyone with your statements. I think what has confused everyone is that you are cherry picking the story and deciding for yourself which parts are literal and which are metaphorical; on top of the fact that you are making excuses for the differences in the two versions of the stories by interpreting the supposedly holy and indesputible word of your god to fit your beliefs.

* whoa? my opinions are not far from those saying the "light" is a metaphor yet you had me singled out...

Originally posted by Devil King
Have you tried having this conversation with a Jew?

* no...

Originally posted by Devil King
You know, with this statement, you only show how in your mind the scientific use of the word theory is equivalent to opinion or assumption. People like yourself need to get over the idea that the theory of evolution was created with an agenda to destroy god or religion. It's really kind of a paranoid attitude to take, especially if you take the bible literally.

* you're barking the wrong tree... it was me saying not to take the whole Genesis literally... just read a few post back...

Originally posted by Devil King
How was the adultress stoning in your village this past weekend, or did you miss out on it becuase you were shopping for slaves or herding something?

* so much for the obsolete Mosaic era eh? read the New Testament...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you're of the opinion that all things must be written to express a literal meaning? I mean, how can a story talk? Hell, how can anything "talk shit"? You're not making any sense.

If you lack an understanding of the literary idea of metaphor or of what light can mean other than radiant photons well for Jesus ****ing Christ in high heaven you're an idiot. There's no other explanation. LIGHT IS THE OLDEST AND MOST COMMON METAPHORICALLY USED THING IN THE HISTORY OF LITERATURE. Wait, so light is a metaphor. A metaphor, for goodness I assume.

Now you're just making stuff up.

Originally posted by peejayd
* so it's Moses' fault? hmm, i think by now you have read the posts above regarding the term "light" as a metaphor... what can you say about that? does it still cause confusion?

Then you agree that using a term in a way that is not consistent with its meaning causes confusion?




Originally posted by peejayd
* how can you tell? you agree that the sun, moon & stars were created on the fourth day...

By all means, explain the relationship between the creation of heavenly bodies on the fourth day, and the length of each day of creation.




Originally posted by peejayd
* the parallelism stands... it's the power and prerogative of God, the Creator, He commanded the trees to grow, with or without the aid of natural processes, He can pull it off...

No, it does not; your argument attempts to draw a comparison between two dissimilar things, i.e. the way progenitors are created, and the way progeny is created, e.g. Adam and Eve may have been created fully mature, but when commanded to reproduce, they did so through natural processes.




Originally posted by peejayd
* when did the Bible tell you that the moon has the source of light of its own? it's that what's bugging you?

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."
Genesis 1:14-19

* it does not matter whether the moon only reflects the light from the sun, or that the moon has no source of light of its own... what was said was God created two great lights, the lesser light (moon) is to rule the night, and it was so... the moon still serves as a light in the evening...

That God created two lights is factually incorrect; He created one light, and one reflector. If The Bible contains information that is factually incorrect, then it is not inerrant.




Originally posted by peejayd
* giants do exist in the Bible, if you're talking about here and now, there really are really big and tall people considered as giants, that's why there is an illness called "giantism"...

We are not discussing individuals whose height is in the upper 1% of the population, but of the hybrid offspring of angels and humans.




Originally posted by peejayd
* i based my answer according to the direct transliteration from the Hebrew texts, the word means serpent/snake/dragon... satan is refered to in the Bible as the dragon, so the serpent/snake in the garden of Eden is really satan... and the fact that God only derived satan's curse to a serpent/snake, does not mean/imply in anyway that snakes have legs or not, nor eat dust or not...

To the contrary, the verse clearly denotes it:






Originally posted by peejayd
* also i believe the phrase "eating dust" is metaphorical/figurative... you see, God made man/flesh from the dust of the ground... God cursed satan that he will eat dust all his life... i believe that even though satan wants to corrupt the souls/spirits of man, all he can corrupt is the flesh/dust...

In other words, The Bible is to be interpreted literally when it suites your argument, and figuratively when it does not.




Originally posted by peejayd
* not physical death, it's spiritual death... why? because Adam committed sin, right at that moment, Adam was dead spiritually... but he continues to live 900+ years more... but still, God appointed man to die from the very start, Hebrews 9:27...

That is not what the verse states:



Man had not been appointed to die, prior to Eve tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge:






Originally posted by peejayd
* personally, i don't believe in the theory of evolution... that's why i'm bringing back the question to you... you are the one who said giants don't exist due to lack of archaelogical evidences, do you or do you not believe it is?

If the supposed lack of archaeological evidence for "transitional species" is not evidence that Evolution is not valid, then why do you not believe in Evolution?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Wait, so light is a metaphor. A metaphor, for goodness I assume.

Now you're just making stuff up.

You have to be trolling at this point. There's no way you can possibly be quite this stupid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos There are actually any number of different things that God could be saying in that instance.
That's true. I just find it odd that God switches between singular and plural:

"'Let us make man in our image...'" (1:26).
"God said, 'See, I give you every seed bearing plant...'" (1:29).

To me the text is laid out so that when you know God is speaking with Man, God uses 'I', but when God is not directly speaking to someone, the 'us' is used. The majestic plural can still be applied here, but it can also be substituted for another entity. I find it especially interesting after reading some of Exodus where God commands the Hebrews to worship Him, and no other Gods. I think Jethro makes a mention of multiple Gods as well.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
That's true. I just find it odd that God switches between singular and plural:

"'Let us make man in our image...'" (1:26).
"God said, 'See, I give you every seed bearing plant...'" (1:29).

To me the text is laid out so that when you know God is speaking with Man, God uses 'I', but when God is not directly speaking to someone, the 'us' is used. The majestic plural can still be applied here, but it can also be substituted for another entity. I find it especially interesting after reading some of Exodus where God commands the Hebrews to worship Him, and no other Gods. I think Jethro makes a mention of multiple Gods as well.

Hard to explain, but great for conspiracy theorists. Judaism did appear in a world where pretty much everyone was polytheistic, it's possible that the idea of being monotheists was created later on and may have lead to inconsistencies. There's also the possibility of ambiguity in translation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no way you can possibly be quite this stupid. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and rule out the most plausible scenario...

Originally posted by peejayd
read the New Testament...

Oh, I have. I had to read it to pass certain classes in my catholic school. But have you read it?

I've always been of the opinion that the old testament was incuded in the bible to remind the people who subscribe to the new testament world view that they no longer had to live in that hateful, vindictive world. But those who subscribe to the ideals put forth by the bible, like yourself, haven't figured that out. Point out to me once in the bible where Jesus addressed gay rights. Point out for me where he once addressed abortion. You can't because they don't exist. Why don't they? Because Jesus was a man of his time. Jesus didn't have the foresight to address them because he was just a man. A great man, but a man none-the-less. And neither did any of the half-dozen or so desciples or followers that felt it as their place to speak for him, because they were men of their day, too.

What you have done in your last few pages of responses is to address the questions as though they were posed to Jesus in a matter that were applicable to this day and age. But they weren't. Why is that? You argue why metaphore is applicable to your world-view, but ignore why it might be applicable to another's world view. The sad fact, given your faith and adherence, is that you interpret that metaphore in a fashion that only serves your perspective. You have clearly demonstrated that you have no concept of what a scientific theory is, much less what a metaphore is. Don't sit there and tell the rest of us what god meant while you make up the explaination yourself. You know as much about god as does any other person here; which is to say you know shit about god. You just think you do. In fact, you are so sure of it that you have the audacity and gold-leafed balls to speak for god.

Originally posted by Devil King
Oh, I have. I had to read it to pass certain classes in my catholic school. But have you read it?

I've always been of the opinion that the old testament was incuded in the bible to remind the people who subscribe to the new testament world view that they no longer had to live in that hateful, vindictive world. But those who subscribe to the ideals put forth by the bible, like yourself, haven't figured that out.

* many people here told me that they've read the Bible... maybe they have, but according to your posts, you obviously did not...

Originally posted by Devil King
Point out to me once in the bible where Jesus addressed gay rights.

* what kind of gay rights? homosexual acts are forbidden in the Bible but a homosexual person not engaging in homosexual acts nor living a life of flesh is a candidate for salvation:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
I Corinthians 6:9-11

* gays/homosexuals - believer or not - are also humans, by all means, they enjoy this privilege,:

"For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."
I Timothy 4:10

* life seems unfair? have you done any good deed? at least one? enjoy this:

"For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister."
Hebrews 6:10

* now tell me these aren't sufficient to be gay rights?

Originally posted by Devil King
Point out for me where he once addressed abortion.

* many times:

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'
But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire."
Matthew 5:21-22

* not specific? here:

"These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren."
Proverbs 6:16-19

Originally posted by Devil King
You can't because they don't exist. Why don't they? Because Jesus was a man of his time. Jesus didn't have the foresight to address them because he was just a man. A great man, but a man none-the-less. And neither did any of the half-dozen or so desciples or followers that felt it as their place to speak for him, because they were men of their day, too.

* and you are telling me you've read the Bible? bah!

Originally posted by Devil King
What you have done in your last few pages of responses is to address the questions as though they were posed to Jesus in a matter that were applicable to this day and age. But they weren't. Why is that? You argue why metaphore is applicable to your world-view, but ignore why it might be applicable to another's world view. The sad fact, given your faith and adherence, is that you interpret that metaphore in a fashion that only serves your perspective. You have clearly demonstrated that you have no concept of what a scientific theory is, much less what a metaphore is. Don't sit there and tell the rest of us what god meant while you make up the explaination yourself. You know as much about god as does any other person here; which is to say you know shit about god. You just think you do. In fact, you are so sure of it that you have the audacity and gold-leafed balls to speak for god.

* maybe you don't know me... i am frequently advising to those who i respond to, that i am speaking and defending in accordance with the Bible, if the issue is not about it, i would rather voice out my opinion or merely shut up...

* and i don't know what in the freakin' blue hell is your problem with that kind of attitude?

Originally posted by peejayd
* what kind of gay rights? homosexual acts are forbidden in the Bible but a homosexual person not engaging in homosexual acts nor living a life of flesh is a candidate for salvation:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
I Corinthians 6:9-11

If you'd read the Bible you'd know that Jesus and Paul are different people. Jesus himself never once addressed gay rights, but everything he did say implied that he would have supported a much more liberal view than you attribute him.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you'd read the Bible you'd know that Jesus and Paul are different people. Jesus himself never once addressed gay rights, but everything he did say implied that he would have supported a much more liberal view than you attribute him.

There are a lot of people who get Jesus and Paul confused, but if you look at their teachings with a open mind, you will see they don't agree on a lot of things.

Bringing to the conclusion it's full of shit.

But that's a different topic.

Originally posted by peejayd
* i kinda agree that it might... what can you say about the metaphor-thingy?

Then you agree that if the term "day" in the creation account refers to a period of time other than the one that man recognizes as day, then it does not "establish understanding," but creates confusion.




Originally posted by peejayd
* as i have said earlier, the fact that the light-producing bodies were only created on the fourth day, means that those bodies were not present in the first day... the light in the first day is not the light for the earth... light can also mean the start of everything because prior to that, all was nothing, void, empty and dark... now, going back, since the light-producing bodies were only created on the fourth day, there was no sign of having 24-hour day before that... as you argued before, natural processes are needed...

Again, it is not this light that indicates day and night, but the path of the sun and the moon through the sky. Which begs the question, "How could there be 'the evening and the morning' on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?"




Originally posted by peejayd
* ok, i will concede on that parallelism... however, another argument mine here is that it was the power & prerogative of God... He can create and make trees & plants bear fruits & flowers with or without natural processes...

Jesus cursed a fig tree, because it would not bear fruit out of season:






Originally posted by peejayd
* it is a fact beginning when man discovers that the moon is only a reflector... but prior to that?

Discovery has nothing to do with whether or not something is factual.




Originally posted by peejayd
* there're giants still, were they? moreover, these giants were in the time of Noah, very long time ago, it's not impossible that we cannot have archaeological evidences regarding them...

Even though both may be described as a "giant," there is a fundamental difference between an individual whose height in the upper 1% of the population, and the hybrid offspring of an angel and human being.




Originally posted by peejayd
* from the word itself "serpent" means a limbless reptile so, there's no indication that snakes before have legs or eat dust...

Limbless, since being cursed.




Originally posted by peejayd
* nope, i would argue it's literal if there's misinterpretation and if there are supporting verses that says it's literal... same if it's figurative... and i promise you, if that's not what it was or it's something i really don't know - i'll concede...

What authority do you have to determine which verses are literal and which are metaphorical?




Originally posted by peejayd
* Hebrews 9:27 reiterates the totality of men that Christ would have to save via His sacrifice, so it really was appointed for men to die...

After Eve tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge.




Originally posted by peejayd
* does the theory of evolution make the original creature obsolete/phased out while the evolved creature continues to live on? if so, the theory is utterly wrong... if it's not, i might reconsider...

How can you claim disbelief in Evolution, when you do not fully understand the theory?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
...How can you claim disbelief in Evolution, when you do not fully understand the theory?

Knowledge is not a requirement of blind faith.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you'd read the Bible you'd know that Jesus and Paul are different people. Jesus himself never once addressed gay rights, but everything he did say implied that he would have supported a much more liberal view than you attribute him.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you'd read the Bible you'd know that Jesus and Paul are different people. Jesus himself never once addressed gay rights, but everything he did say implied that he would have supported a much more liberal view than you attribute him.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are a lot of people who get Jesus and Paul confused, but if you look at their teachings with a open mind, you will see they don't agree on a lot of things.

* i'm not confused with Jesus and Saint Paul, i'm just abiding Jesus here:

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me."
Luke 10:16

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."
Matthew 10:40

* if you accept Jesus, then you should accept also His disciples,

Originally posted by peejayd
* i'm not confused with Jesus and Saint Paul, i'm just abiding Jesus here:

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me."
Luke 10:16

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."
Matthew 10:40

* if you accept Jesus, then you should accept also His disciples,

Paul was not a disciple of Jesus. Paul never knew Jesus while he was alive.

Originally posted by peejayd
* i'm not confused with Jesus and Saint Paul, i'm just abiding Jesus here:

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me."
Luke 10:16

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."
Matthew 10:40

* if you accept Jesus, then you should accept also His disciples,

That does not mean that they speak with the voice or authority of God, Jesus or anyone but themselves. Noting Paul's homophobic stances is not sufficient for me to say that Jesus would have held them as well because a few short lines cannot cancel out all the good things that Jesus is recorded as saying.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Paul was not a disciple of Jesus. Paul never knew Jesus while he was alive.

* Paul was not a disciple of Jesus at first. then he was called by Jesus and he converted. the other apostles accepted him and he later became one of them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That does not mean that they speak with the voice or authority of God, Jesus or anyone but themselves.

* Jesus gave them authority.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Noting Paul's homophobic stances is not sufficient for me to say that Jesus would have held them as well because a few short lines cannot cancel out all the good things that Jesus is recorded as saying.

* Paul did not cancel out anything. can you refute that what he preached was not a good thing? in fact, he did not condemn homosexuals, according to the verse i gave.

* and regarding Jesus not saying anything about gay rights, well yes, not specifically. but i can count it in on this:

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Matthew 22:37-39

Originally posted by peejayd
* Paul was not a disciple of Jesus at first. then he was called by Jesus and he converted. the other apostles accepted him and he later became one of them.

Paul never met Jesus, and hallucinations don't count.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Probably the most obvious one.

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

We learn three things here.

It's the beginning
God created Earth
god created the Heavens

Genesis 1 then continues the story by explaining what Earth is after it was created; Genesis 1:1 happened first, and then everything after it happened after it, like every other story. Makes sense, right?

Then we go up to genesis 1:6-8

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

God creates Heaven again!

Now how or why does god create Heaven twice? Can anyone explain this?

That is deplorable logic, which you clearly didn't research before you began to jump to conclusions, so allow me to educate you.

1. This is an english TRANSLATION of the original Hebrew text.
2. The word to which you refer to which is translated into Heaven in the KJV can be beter translated into "Sky".
3. The first time it uses heaven, it uses a different word, which refers to the location of Heaven and not the Heavens as in Sky.
(I had posted the actual word, but unfortunately KMC doesn't support Hebrew text.)

Infact other translations, such as the NIV have it translated into sky.

If you're going to preach learn the material.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Paul never met Jesus, and hallucinations don't count.

It wasn't a Hallucination.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
...It wasn't a Hallucination.

If you see a dead person, then you are hallucinating.

So YOU believe.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
So YOU believe.

No, it is what you believe. Dead people don't walk around and talk to people.

If you speak in a pure physical sence... then no, people usually don't, however, if you speak in spiritual terms, then I do indeed believe that a "dead" person can communicate with a "living" person.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
If you speak in a pure physical sence... then no, people usually don't, however, if you speak in spiritual terms, then I do indeed believe that a "dead" person can communicate with a "living" person.

Like I said, it is your belief.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, it is what you believe. Dead people don't walk around and talk to people.

So you say.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you say.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
So YOU believe.

Doesn't make it any less correct. You seem to have trouble when people point out that your beliefs are just that, beliefs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Doesn't make it any less correct. You seem to have trouble when people point out that your beliefs are just that, beliefs.

...and you missed the point. I was so hoping you would get it.

The fact is the people who point out that what I have said was just a belief, are them selves promoting a belief that I am countering with a belief. They are often too blind to see this fact, and continue down the road of pointing out the very thing that they are doing. They can see it in me, but are blind to what they have just said. As if it was something more then just a belief. I do this on purpose to try and get them to see it from the other side.

So... let me make sure I've got it... Your saying that we are only citing a belief when we say that you are citing nothing more than a belief?

Or are you saying that we are promoting a belief, which you are countering with a belief...

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
So... let me make sure I've got it... Your saying that we are only citing a belief when we say that you are citing nothing more than a belief?

Or are you saying that we are promoting a belief, which you are countering with a belief...

In general: some people state a belief as fact, which is fine by itself. Then when someone counters that belief with their belief, they return with the denouncement that your counter is just a belief. They ignore the fact that both people are stating beliefs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In general: some people state a belief as fact, which is fine by itself. Then when someone counters that belief with their belief, they return with the denouncement that your counter is just a belief. They ignore the fact that both people are stating beliefs.

Not necessarily, it's quite possible for the first person to assume that the second is making the mistake you assume the first is making and attempt to point out that comical level of ignorance to them. Then when someone decides to try being a smart ass things are made needlessly confused.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In general: some people state a belief as fact, which is fine by itself. Then when someone counters that belief with their belief, they return with the denouncement that your counter is just a belief. They ignore the fact that both people are stating beliefs.

Ok, I think I get what you are trying to say.

So, as it stands (From the point of view of an outside observer that holds neither of our beliefs) I stated something that was nothing more than a belief, which you countered with nothing more than a belief.

But from our point of view the particular belief that we hold to is fact.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not necessarily, it's quite possible for the first person to assume that the second is making the mistake you assume the first is making and attempt to point out that comical level of ignorance to them. Then when someone decides to try being a smart ass things are made needlessly confused.

Ya, I could happen.

For the record I'm not promoting any belief.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, I could happen.

Ya did happen

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Ok, I think I get what you are trying to say.

So, as it stands (From the point of view of an outside observer that holds neither of our beliefs) I stated something that was nothing more than a belief, which you countered with nothing more than a belief.

But from our point of view the particular belief that we hold to is fact.

Is everything always about you?

Well, I was just citing a simple example.

i never got the expression "JUST a beleif" . i mean, is there anything SUPERIOR than a beleif in that categor??? i mean technically, everything we hold true for ourselves is a BELEIF. any value jugdement is a BELEIF. so how can one make an argument against your "beleif" by saying its just a BELEIF.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
That is deplorable logic, which you clearly didn't research before you began to jump to conclusions, so allow me to educate you.

1. This is an english TRANSLATION of the original Hebrew text.
2. The word to which you refer to which is translated into Heaven in the KJV can be beter translated into "Sky".
3. The first time it uses heaven, it uses a different word, which refers to the location of Heaven and not the Heavens as in Sky.
(I had posted the actual word, but unfortunately KMC doesn't support Hebrew text.)

Infact other translations, such as the NIV have it translated into sky.

If you're going to preach learn the material.



It wasn't a Hallucination. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the ancients refer to the sky as the heavens and believe that the clouds etc. were the kingdom of the gods?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i never got the expression "JUST a beleif" .

What's not to get?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the ancients refer to the sky as the heavens and believe that the clouds etc. were the kingdom of the gods?

Not the hebrews.

Even the greeks beleived that the gods lived on Mt. Olympus, and that the sky was held the sky on his shoulders.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Not the hebrews.

Even the greeks beleived that the gods lived on Mt. Olympus, and that the sky was held the sky on his shoulders. The top of Mt. Olympus, which is in the clouds.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the hebrews definately did not refer to the clouds as the heavens (and hell as a place deep within the Earth) like everybody else?

Give me time to find my sources and I will (If you don't accept biblical sources it will take alittle longer). However for now, I must run to Wal*Mart in order to get some paper on which to print off my essay which is due tomorrow.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The top of Mt. Olympus, which is in the clouds.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the hebrews definately did not refer to the clouds as the heavens (and hell as a place deep within the Earth) like everybody else?

Oh, and not everyone even had a hevan or hell in their respective religions.

And Mt. olympus: Among the clouds, not the clouds themselves.

And as I think about there may have been refrences that would lead people to believe that heaven is among the clouds, however that is under the english translation, and would need to be referenced back to the original hebrew... but the point still stands either way that the sky itself is not heaven.

And even at that, there had to be a point of refrence that the humans could understand.

As far as we know heaven may not even be on this plane of existance, or in another galaxy, or even be in or be another universe. But the Jews would have written it as if it were among the clouds just because that's how humanity thinks, especially at that time when space was not thought of in terms such as it is today.

I can, however honestly say that there is no point when God himself stated that heaven is in the sky. Now, even if the Jews infered that heaven was litterally among the clouds would have come from the simple need for the scriptures to be understandable to the people of that time.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
(If you don't accept biblical sources it will take alittle longer.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Oh, and not everyone even had a hevan or hell in their respective religions.

And Mt. olympus: Among the clouds, not the clouds themselves.

And as I think about there may have been refrences that would lead people to believe that heaven is among the clouds, however that is under the english translation, and would need to be referenced back to the original hebrew... but the point still stands either way that the sky itself is not heaven. How do you know it's not in the original hebrew? The Europeans must've got the ideas from somewhere.

I didn't say it absolutely isn't in the origional hebrew, I just said that it needs to be refrenced back to be certain of how good of a translation it is. You know, like the imperfect translation you cited as an error in genesis.