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.
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 [b]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...[/B]
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...
Romans 5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
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?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Using a term in a way that is consistent with its meaning does not cause confusion.
* 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?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is no relationship between the creation of heavenly bodies on the fourth day, and the length of each day of creation.
* how can you tell? you agree that the sun, moon & stars were created on the fourth day...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
* 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...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
* 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...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
* 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"...
* 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...
* 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...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Romans 5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
* 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...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then you agree that it does not follow from the supposed lack of archaeological evidence for "transitional species" that Evolution is not valid?
* 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? 🙂
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?
* 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?
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 ChaosWait, so light is a metaphor. A metaphor, for goodness I assume.
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.
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:
Genesis 3:14The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life . . ."
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:
Hebrews 927-28And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, . . . so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
Man had not been appointed to die, prior to Eve tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge:
Romans 5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
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 Symmetric Chaos There are actually any number of different things that God could be saying in that instance.
"'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 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 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.
* i believe that in Genesis 1:26, the Father is speaking to the One who has the same image and likeness of Himself, who is:
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
Hebrews 1:1-3
"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"
Colossians 1:13-15
* His Son... 🙂
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then you agree that using a term in a way that is not consistent with its meaning causes confusion?
* i kinda agree that it might... what can you say about the metaphor-thingy?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, explain the relationship between the creation of heavenly bodies on the fourth day, and the length of each day of creation.
* 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... 🙂
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
* 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...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
* it is a fact beginning when man discovers that the moon is only a reflector... but prior to that?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
We are not discussing individuals whose height is in the upper 1% of the population, but of the hybrid offspring of angels and humans.
* 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...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To the contrary, the verse clearly denotes it:Genesis 3:14
The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life . . ."
* from the word itself "serpent" means a limbless reptile so, there's no indication that snakes before have legs or eat dust...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, The Bible is to be interpreted literally when it suites your argument, and figuratively when it does not.
* 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...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is not what the verse states:Hebrews 927-28
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, . . . so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
Man had not been appointed to die, prior to Eve tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge:
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
* 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...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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?
* 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... 🙂
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? 🙄