|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 18, 2018 18:07:20 GMT
In a single sentence you've just demonstrated that you can't substantiate your claims. Don't feel too badly, you have plenty of company--virtually every Christian I've ever spoken with on the subject trots out the same lame fallback response when pressed on this topic. It's not 'your job' to explain it because you can't, and you think pulling the QED of 'read the Bible and that will explain it all' is sufficient. It isn't: I've read several translations of the book, and differing versions amongst various sects. All this has shown me is that, the more versions one takes in, the more the glaring the inherent contradictions become. Demonstrate some knowledge yourself before requiring it of others. Thus far you haven't. Again, point out something specific to discuss, otherwise, to substantiate my claim wud be to link you to a Bible. Everything I state is in there. It is irrelevant if you don;t trust me on that since you haven't read it. Man up and present something beyond your long winded sentences and we could have a conversation. Surely there's a link out there that can provide something that fills in the gaps of your ignorance. You've pointed out nothing specific yourself--just vague maunderings about how the bible--if read 'properly'--reveals that "God is the awesome" (or however you phrased it; English doesn't appear to be your first language) and shows some manner of cohesive narrative based upon the fact that all of its books share a thematic linear narrative in being based upon recognition of this god. By that criteria, I could posit that any religion, present or ancient, which includes a body of writings based upon its particular deity or deities is equally 'true'.
Stop making idiot assertions that anyone who doesn't agree with your premises or conclusions hasn't read the bible. Man up yourself, and admit that others can be as knowledgeable as yourself (or possibly even more so), even if their conclusions on the truth or otherwise of the bible don't agree with your own. Until you can manage that, you don't make yourself sound like the sort whom it's worth expending the time to try discussing anything with.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 18, 2018 18:16:50 GMT
Again, point out something specific to discuss, otherwise, to substantiate my claim wud be to link you to a Bible. Everything I state is in there. It is irrelevant if you don;t trust me on that since you haven't read it. Man up and present something beyond your long winded sentences and we could have a conversation. Surely there's a link out there that can provide something that fills in the gaps of your ignorance. You've pointed out nothing specific yourself--just vague maunderings about how the bible--if read 'properly'--reveals that "God is the awesome" (or however you phrased it; English doesn't appear to be your first language) and shows some manner of cohesive narrative based upon the fact that all of its books share a thematic linear narrative in being based upon recognition of this god. By that criteria, I could posit that any religion, present or ancient, which includes a body of writings based upon its particular deity or deities is equally 'true'.
Stop making idiot assertions that anyone who doesn't agree with your premises or conclusions hasn't read the bible. Man up yourself, and admit that others can be as knowledgeable as yourself (or possibly even more so), even if their conclusions on the truth or otherwise of the bible don't agree with your own. Until you can manage that, you don't make yourself sound like the sort whom it's worth expending the time to try discussing anything with.
again, my criticism was never meant to be followed up with anything. However if you would like to bring up something, please do. If not, then why are you still talking? It must be to change the subject since not once have I discussed the Bible being true. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 18, 2018 18:26:40 GMT
You've pointed out nothing specific yourself--just vague maunderings about how the bible--if read 'properly'--reveals that "God is the awesome" (or however you phrased it; English doesn't appear to be your first language) and shows some manner of cohesive narrative based upon the fact that all of its books share a thematic linear narrative in being based upon recognition of this god. By that criteria, I could posit that any religion, present or ancient, which includes a body of writings based upon its particular deity or deities is equally 'true'.
Stop making idiot assertions that anyone who doesn't agree with your premises or conclusions hasn't read the bible. Man up yourself, and admit that others can be as knowledgeable as yourself (or possibly even more so), even if their conclusions on the truth or otherwise of the bible don't agree with your own. Until you can manage that, you don't make yourself sound like the sort whom it's worth expending the time to try discussing anything with.
again, my criticism was never meant to be followed up with anything. However if you would like to bring up something, please do. If not, then why are you still talking? It must be to change the subject since not once have I discussed the Bible being true. All you've done in each response you've made is completely contradict all of you've stated in previous responses. Sorry to be rudely blunt, but this either points up the notion that you're not overly bright, or else a very poor debater who honestly believes these types of tactics will work in your favor. Whichever the case may be, further attempts at rational discussion with you seem pointless, because you show no apparent capacity for it. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 18, 2018 18:34:46 GMT
You've pointed out nothing specific yourself--just vague maunderings about how the bible--if read 'properly'--reveals that "God is the awesome" (or however you phrased it; English doesn't appear to be your first language) and shows some manner of cohesive narrative based upon the fact that all of its books share a thematic linear narrative in being based upon recognition of this god. By that criteria, I could posit that any religion, present or ancient, which includes a body of writings based upon its particular deity or deities is equally 'true'.
Stop making idiot assertions that anyone who doesn't agree with your premises or conclusions hasn't read the bible. Man up yourself, and admit that others can be as knowledgeable as yourself (or possibly even more so), even if their conclusions on the truth or otherwise of the bible don't agree with your own. Until you can manage that, you don't make yourself sound like the sort whom it's worth expending the time to try discussing anything with.
again, my criticism was never meant to be followed up with anything. However if you would like to bring up something, please do. If not, then why are you still talking? It must be to change the subject since not once have I discussed the Bible being true. why are you still talking?
A good question to put to yourself, since up to this point you haven't actually said anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 18, 2018 18:40:49 GMT
again, my criticism was never meant to be followed up with anything. However if you would like to bring up something, please do. If not, then why are you still talking? It must be to change the subject since not once have I discussed the Bible being true. All you've done in each response you've made is completely contradict all of you've stated in previous responses. Sorry to be rudely blunt, but this either points up the notion that you're not overly bright, or else a very poor debater who honestly believes these types of tactics will work in your favor. Whichever the case may be, further attempts at rational discussion with you seem pointless, because you show no apparent capacity for it. i haven’t contradicted anything padwan. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 18, 2018 18:41:44 GMT
again, my criticism was never meant to be followed up with anything. However if you would like to bring up something, please do. If not, then why are you still talking? It must be to change the subject since not once have I discussed the Bible being true. why are you still talking?
A good question to put to yourself, since up to this point you haven't actually said anything.
im not talking to argue with you. I’m commenting on the thread. You’re taking this way too personally rookie. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 18, 2018 18:52:30 GMT
why are you still talking?
A good question to put to yourself, since up to this point you haven't actually said anything.
im not talking to argue with you. I’m commenting on the thread. You’re taking this way too personally rookie. Stop attempting juvenile debating tricks. You aren't good at it. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 18, 2018 20:44:14 GMT
im not talking to argue with you. I’m commenting on the thread. You’re taking this way too personally rookie. Stop attempting juvenile debating tricks. You aren't good at it. We aren't debating and so I can't do a debating trick. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 18, 2018 20:50:23 GMT
Stop attempting juvenile debating tricks. You aren't good at it. We aren't debating and so I can't do a debating trick. You're right; we aren't, as you aren't capable of it. As you keep demonstrating. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2018 11:31:04 GMT
There is a difference between an assertion that the content of the Gen.2 is not in contradiction to the first because is it is "not discussing the creation process at all" and next time saying that there is "no way they can be exact." Which are they? Incomparable or just inexact? if they are incomparable wouldn’t that make them in exact? Al I know is that, obviously, in order to establish either way, the two would have to be compared. But as said already, a minor point - although I appreciate the distraction. A comparison between the two Genesis accounts clearly shows different timings for the creation of man, a fact which can be easily checked, and which is the point I am making. Special pleading apart, the mere order of something has nothing to do with the presence, or not, of any formal calendar marking progress. Both Gen 1 & 2 are talking about a linear order of events, my friend. But I think you know this really and your argument, frankly, is just reaching. But, good try. Lets ask around if you feel this is contestable: has anyone else here read the two Genesis accounts side by side and after feels that in both man was made at the end of momentous events? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 19, 2018 11:45:01 GMT
if they are incomparable wouldn’t that make them in exact? Al I know is that, obviously, in order to establish either way, the two would have to be compared. But as said already, a minor point - although I appreciate the distraction. It's not my intention to distract. Why would it be? Nothing has been said that requires a change to my initial response. Someone is able to compare any two verses making the argument a bit silly and moot and actually smelling of deflection. If you want to avoid a distraction, don't bring it up in the first place. Focus on my original statement which is pretty pure and accurate to boot. The correct answer is always a good try. But again, can I assume that the ONLY way to understand a verse to you is to understand it in the weirdest way possible? You are just repeating what you've already said with no sort of validation, so it seems kinda pointless to rewrite what I said. I'll see f there is more detail to your view that I wasn;t able to comment on yesterday. The order of something does matter, however, not nearly as much as the content which is completely different than the first chapter. You can't say there is a contradiction just because one chapter offers details missing from another. They are not mirror discussions. In fact they are discussing two completely different things. You might as well be comparing the verses to any verse discussing creation. Maybe those are your next ten since you implied there were several. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 19, 2018 11:45:33 GMT
if they are incomparable wouldn’t that make them in exact? Al I know is that, obviously, in order to establish either way, the two would have to be compared. But as said already, a minor point - although I appreciate the distraction. A comparison between the two Genesis accounts clearly shows different timings for the creation of man, a fact which can be easily checked, and which is the point I am making. Special pleading apart, the mere order of something has nothing to do with the presence, or not, of any formal calendar marking progress. Both Gen 1 & 2 are talking about a linear order of events, my friend. But I think you know this really and your argument, frankly, is just reaching. But, good try. Lets ask around if you feel this is contestable: has anyone else here read the two Genesis accounts side by side and after feels that in both man was made at the end of momentous events?Look.... I'm not saying that there aren't reaaaallly good reasons to not believe in God... or question The Bible's divine origin. But... THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. YOU NEED A BETTER ARGUMENT. THIS ONE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED FAAAAAAR TOO MANY TIMES ON THIS BOARD (and the other) FOR YOU TO STILL BE BRINGNG THIS UP. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2018 11:56:40 GMT
THIS ONE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED FAAAAAAR TOO MANY TIMES ON THIS BOARD (and the other) FOR YOU TO STILL BE BRINGNG THIS UP. And so the explanation is.... |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2018 12:03:00 GMT
The correct answer is always a good try. Which is why I feel confident. Why is it weird to read scripture in the most regular way possible? The validation can be found when comparing the verse side by side and seeing when exactly man was created according to the text. At the end of events in Gen 1 and at the beginning in Gen 2. Denying this obvious fact is special pleading, which I told you I would flag up. And so I do. Both accounts cover the order of creation. One uses 'days'. one not. It really is simple as that. Disingenuous or what lol. I noted several likely authors to Genesis, maybe, my friend - not several accounts. And these two are very close in proximity. I hope that helps. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 19, 2018 12:03:11 GMT
THIS ONE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED FAAAAAAR TOO MANY TIMES ON THIS BOARD (and the other) FOR YOU TO STILL BE BRINGNG THIS UP. And so the explanation is.... The same one that was explained to you 8 years ago... 7 years ago... 6 years ago... 5 years ago... 4 years ago... 3 years ago... 2 years ago... Last year... Last month... Last week... Yesterday... Probably already in this thread....  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 19, 2018 12:19:50 GMT
FilmFlaneurYou're cherry picking to prove your point. I'll help by helping you understand the divisions a bit. The numbering can be confusing for those that don;t read the whole chapter, but that isn;t the writer's fault. So this can be considered the concluding paragraph of chapter 1. Simply a reflection of what was written in chapter 1 with clear references to it being completed and the seventh day being one of res from creration. In short, ALL creation is completed. This is the setup for man's creation. The word used there is for agricultural plants and vegetation. The verse was basically saying that there was no agriculture because man was there's to work the land. I'm going to assume the Bible scholars you reference so much know the meaning of words in the Bible, but if you'd like I can try to find a Hebrew dictionary for you. The sixth day in all its glory in chapter 2. So these verses reveal man's purpose and how God helped him to achieve it.Notice the different tenses at play. I assume you think God crerated the animals specifically for Adam to name them as opposed to the more logical understanding that God had created the animals that Adam was naming. See the difference? Even ancient people from thousands of years ago without an internet connection could, but you think about this stuff a lot and maybe got buried in your ultimate goal to trip people up ones realizing the need to just keep it simple. It doesn't matter if there were two authors or not except that most Bible scholars basing that as the reason probably aren't very good Bible scholars. Surely there's more to it. There is no change of writing style or chronology and no question of who wrote it until thousands of years later, & as you would have to admit at this time, no contradiction. So it is a fantastic effort by the second writer to be able to mirror perfectly the first writer! 
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 19, 2018 12:24:19 GMT
Al I know is that, obviously, in order to establish either way, the two would have to be compared. But as said already, a minor point - although I appreciate the distraction. A comparison between the two Genesis accounts clearly shows different timings for the creation of man, a fact which can be easily checked, and which is the point I am making. Special pleading apart, the mere order of something has nothing to do with the presence, or not, of any formal calendar marking progress. Both Gen 1 & 2 are talking about a linear order of events, my friend. But I think you know this really and your argument, frankly, is just reaching. But, good try. Lets ask around if you feel this is contestable: has anyone else here read the two Genesis accounts side by side and after feels that in both man was made at the end of momentous events?Look.... I'm not saying that there aren't reaaaallly good reasons to not believe in God... or question The Bible's divine origin. But... THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. YOU NEED A BETTER ARGUMENT. THIS ONE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED FAAAAAAR TOO MANY TIMES ON THIS BOARD (and the other) FOR YOU TO STILL BE BRINGNG THIS UP. I NEVER question one's doubts in the belief of God. I don't care whether someone believes in God. However, this is blatant lack of reading ability just to come up with a cute way to cite a contradiction that doesn't exist. As I've said before, there are so many things that one can question about the Bible without bringing up retreads of easier stuff to understand. But that's why we still have shrimp threads. The well of skeptic criticism can only go so deep for some reason |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2018 13:52:24 GMT
And so the explanation is.... The same one that was explained to you 8 years ago... 7 years ago... 6 years ago... 5 years ago... 4 years ago... 3 years ago... 2 years ago... Last year... Last month... Last week... Yesterday... Probably already in this thread.... Not me, bub. And so the explanation of why Gen 2 does not show a series of events, beginning with the creation of man is...
Does anyone think that the alternate interpretation is true, that generations of things, some of which happen specifically before others, in fact happened all at once? Or that the chronicler would not arrange things, in traditional fashion in order of happening? Or that, being for him, the eastward garden was created after man? Or that 'generations' doesn't imply a progression of arrivals? But perhaps the second author got things jumbled up and really just didn't care the order of generations and when they were created, even though he or she'd had announced it at the start?
Nope, I don't think so either.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2018 14:45:57 GMT
I'll help by helping you understand the divisions a bit. The numbering can be confusing for those that don;t read the whole chapter, but that isn;t the writer's fault. First off: scholars generally agree that there are, at least, two authors to Genesis, with the various compiled texts commonly identified as "J" or "E" or "P". the likely tensions and differences of which being a much easier explanation of things as we read them than the special pleading you now indulge in. And yet oddly enough, more creation occurs as reported in the following paragraphs of Gen 2 - not only often the same as that which has been already reported, but in a different order. That is why the two passages are, very commonly called 'two creation accounts', and not only by me... EG : |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 21, 2018 2:59:03 GMT
All I need to know about the Bible, having read it, is that it is an unreliable source, overly translated, anachronistic, contradictory mish mash of themes and ideas that only a brainwashed Christian could interpret as a cohesive view of man and his place in the universe. It screams wishful thinking about the nature of God, is confusing about the alleged trinity and is frankly unbelievable in terms of Jesus as son of God and being 'divine' let alone the unsatisfactory nature of the miracles and parables, except for enforcing a 'morality' which gave the Church, power over stupid men. Well, of course I don;t believe you've read it. You're too lost on the simplest of topics. However, if you did read it, then you should be intelligent enough to come up with one example for each adjective you threw out (How can something be over translated lol?). You've never done it before, so I assume you simply rely on your"opinion" Are you claiming that it is proof that I haven't read the Bible, because I don't believe most of what it says? Seriously? How can anyone prove that anyone else has read anything? I guess it is remotely possible that I spent years in an Anglian school, passed Bible Studies without having read the Bible!!!!!!!! It didn't happen however. Over six years I had 216 hours of Anglican religious Biblical study + daily chapel services. All my adjectives are apt. Was the Bible written in modern English? Who were the multiple translators over two thousand years and what were their skill levels? When you think about it, an opinion is the only thing anyone can ever have about religion, either yours or mine. as there are absolutely NO FACTS |
|
