Originally posted by JesusIsAliveOK, so I have shown you empirical evidence how they were done, different ways they could have been done, that have been verified by many other sources and many in your own faith and you are the only one that knows the right way and is on the true path and the other 6 billion people in the world are idiots. You my friend have the biggest ego and self bloated value of anyone that I have ever talked to in my many years, I do enjoy a good debate but this isn't one of them. I'm tired and I'm going to bed and let someone else deal with the raving loon.
You may have convinced yourself but I remain unimpressed and unpersuaded. In short, I am not convinced.My magic? I do not practice magic.
I couldn't care less what other pseudo or uninformed Christians think that they know.
pitt_wave
Originally posted by ThePittman
OK, so I have shown you empirical evidence how they were done, different ways they could have been done, that have been verified by many other sources and many in your own faith and you are the only one that knows the right way and is on the true path and the other 6 billion people in the world are idiots. You my friend have the biggest ego and self bloated value of anyone that I have ever talked to in my many years, I do enjoy a good debate but this isn't one of them. I'm tired and I'm going to bed and let someone else deal with the raving loon.pitt_wave
Don't get angry at me because I am not gullible and naive. I see through the facade, veneer, and pretense that David Blaine and Chriss Angel operate under. The whole Mindfreak thing is just a smokescreen. It is not your mind that is playing tricks on you it is genuine witchcraft. Deal with this then get over it.
Oh, I almost forgot: Good night.
😄
The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...
2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a"😉 and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.
3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?
4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.
5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.
6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.
Order of creation
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)
Originally posted by Ashestoashesjc
For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors.
The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones?
The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
Oh, and the serpent's "eating dust"? A figurative expression representing utter defeat/humiliation. Since snakes eat, you know, rats and stuff, it's obviously not literal (as the writers would, you know, realize this).