|
Post by amyghost on Jul 21, 2018 12:53:48 GMT
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 Arguing with 4CoolJGS is largely pointless, because he/she is insistent on pushing their agenda that the Bible is a literally true document in all aspects, and thus inerrant. And, via courtesy of circular reasoning, its inerrancy makes it literally true, and thus all contradictions are magically folded into said inerrancy. This is a standard and very old-hat debating tactic of Christians; and our friend is simply adding in the more recent wrinkle of the so-called 'stealth' Christian who tries to pretend to disinterest in whether or not the document is 'true' or 'false', or whether or not they are 'believers'. They've fooled themselves into thinking this is a masterful stratagem for dealing with atheists and agnostics, and don't for a moment generally realize just how transparent this gambit is. The very fact that 4Cool apparently cannot get it through his/her head that the fact that there have been many, many translations of the Bible over the centuries, and that, yes, translation from one language to another in even a single instance can substantially change meanings and nuances of language (so it's literally impossible to imagine the changes that have been wrought through hundreds of instances), means that anyone coming up against his 'logic' is doomed from the outset because he/she is in denial of the first premise in arguing for or against the literal truth of the bible. The limp noodle repeat assertion that only by reading the book properly (i.e. unquestioningly) as he/she has done can all contradictions be made whole and cohesive is nothing more than a lazy way of evading debate where the weight of evidence isn't on 4Cool's side. Another standard tactic of a certain type of Christian mentality, and an especially intractable one. After all, if one is confident that the truth is on their side, thus allowing them to read the bible correctly, and that all who disagree with one's conclusions are dong so because they fail to share in that 'truth'--well, who can argue sanely against reasoning as insular and impervious to evidence as that?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 23, 2018 9:39:09 GMT
Here's verse 19 in it's entirety: Notice how YOU are adding a "then" that doesn't exist? It's not a statement of "NEXT, God formed the animals"... It's just a reiteration that God created the animals.... and THHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNN brought them to Adam to be named. You seem to confuse yourself with your own shit.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 23, 2018 11:41:03 GMT
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 I am in no way asking for proof that you've read the Bible. However, you can tell if someone's read something but their comments about it. Your comments are slight and silly. Just sayin'. It is not at all important that I [still] don;t think you've read it. If you have then congratulations and take comfort in your own satisfaction in accomplishing that. It would just be nice if you could talk about it a bit given the amount of whining.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 23, 2018 20:47:05 GMT
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 I am in no way asking for proof that you've read the Bible. However, you can tell if someone's read something but their comments about it.Your comments are slight and silly. Just sayin'. It is not at all important that I [still] don;t think you've read it. If you have then congratulations and take comfort in your own satisfaction in accomplishing that. It would just be nice if you could talk about it a bit given the amount of whining. You missed three ALL important words in the bolded sentence. However, you can tell if someone's read something and believed itbut (sic)their comments about it. Because of the all important three words there is no obligation on my part to add to your pre-existing opinion or narrative of what YOU 'believe' it says. I simply disagree with your interpretation of what you think the Bible says, its authenticity and its credibility. Yes, I read it in my six years at an Anglican school as it was the text upon which my ' Divinity ( the subject as it was called ) exams were based.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 23, 2018 21:05:46 GMT
Some say the Old Testament is included as a warning so people know what the Chosen people would do to a society however I am not sure I buy that claim. I think violence was accepted as normal for centuries so the various genocidal qualities in the Old Testament (and Revelations) was no big deal. But historical research suggests that there was no such thing as a Christian Zionist prior to the 70s or 80s. Traditionally the Christian was God's chosen people--makes sense doesn't it? Why would you want to believe in a God if someone else who doesn't follow the same rules is the actual chosen?
I have heard Christianity described as a slave religion though-so maybe that was the intention. While Jews are collecting wealth, the gentile Christian is reading "the meek shall inherit the Earth."
I have read several national epics and hands down, the Bible is the most disjointed and non enjoyable of them all.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 6, 2018 12:29:43 GMT
Here's verse 19 in it's entirety: Notice how YOU are adding a "then" that doesn't exist? That's because it was my 'then', hence why I placed it in parenthesis. I added this to show an order of things as the second Genesis account describes them ie in Genesis 1, it is stated that all the vegeation was "made" previous to animals being "made", and that animals were "made" previous to man being "made" (male and female). But in Genesis 2, it has a different order; that man (Adam) was "formed" previous to vegetation being "formed, and that vegetation was "formed" previous to animals being "formed," and that animals were "formed" previous to Eve being "formed." And so on. I hope that helps. If Gen 2 is just a 'reiteration' then one would have thought it would have 'reiterated' things in the same order as they were previously described without major changes, such as man appearing first. No amount of special pleading, or creative interpretation, can avoid this fact - which, after all is the point.
I have quoted various authorities who hold to the opinion that there are two distinct creation accounts in Genesis, most likely since by two different authors. (I would suggest that this is most readily explained by the fact that the early compiler-editors of the Bible did not know which one to leave out, so they just included them both.) So it appears that this 'shit' is pretty widespread. In contrast to what is widely understood within scholarship, all I have had is CJG, and now you here, arguing the impossible - that when scripture describes a single event, or series of events, in two contradictory ways, it is not coherent as a single narrative. It is not 'God's way of explaining things' or an exact 'reiteration'. Gen 1 & 2 describe the same event, some major stages of which are described in different order..
www.godofevolution.com/as-different-as-morning-and-evening-genesis-1-and-2-contradictions/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 13:33:02 GMT
It's true, the old testament god is a real dick.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 6, 2018 14:08:44 GMT
If Gen 2 is just a 'reiteration' then one would have thought it would have 'reiterated' things in the same order as they were previously described without major changes. No amount of special pleading, or creative interpretation, can avoid this fact - which, after all is the point.
It did... but, for some reason English escapes you.... or should I say, THEN, English escapes you. No... What you have is an incredibly thick skull and a learning disability. To prove this point, I'll explain another misconception of yours... and I guarantee that it will do no good... and you'll bitch about this again in a few months as if it wasn't explained to you: What verse 2 mentions is "herbs and plants of the field, for there was no man, yet, to cultivate them".... HERBS AND PLANTS OF THE FIELD.
It isn't talking about all vegetation... It is talking about AGRICULTURE.... Things that needed to be CULTIVATED by man. Its like saying "Now God created the elements, but there were no cities, for there was no man, yet, to maintain them. THEN, God created a city an placed man in it." Get it?... No, of course you don't. See ya in a few months.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 6, 2018 14:37:02 GMT
for some reason English escapes you.... or should I say, THEN, English escapes you. What you have is an incredibly thick skull and a learning disability. As I have had cause to note before with other faithists and fundamentalists, a personal insult is never an argument. It is also, I would suggest, not what your Jesus would do. Good try - but predictably disingenuous. Let's first remind ourselves how Gen 2 4 onwards reads in for this particular matter : So, *sigh*: in connection with this key passage, I guess you didn't read my link from just above so here are the relevant passages, to which I entirely concur and which answers your special pleading:
One wonders, too, why God would ever create something that would fail through lack of rain. Or, have it the other way: by your own reckoning, why would God create something which would not grow, even though irrigated by streams, just because not cultivated? Perhaps he just created crops first? I hope that helps. You'll probably need that long. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 6, 2018 15:02:26 GMT
Good try - but as always disingenuous. But Gen 2 4 onwards reads : Good thing that Genesis wasn't written in English.... or that this one translation is the only one in existence. Because there is a huge difference between "plants" and "plants of the field".... but, hey.. You can just pretend that there isn't. Okay... Cite somebody who holds the same misconceptions as you do. No one is saying that plants don't need water. It was already mentioned that plants were being watered by a mist that was forming every night.... but, hey... You find comfort in somebody being as stupid as you are? Cool. Calling a stupid person stupid isn't an insult... It's a statement of fact.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 6, 2018 15:10:08 GMT
I'm not sure why I have to keep quoting the same things over and over again: One sentence and it explains how plants were watered unless "scholars" are under the impression the verse is describing how mud is made. Rain is never even mentioned until the flood, so not sure why the "scholar's " implication would be any more valuable than any one else's.
The quote makes the same mistake you made of thinking that the verses in chapter two are discussing the sixth day.
Chapter two is not discussing the creative days which were covered in chapter 1. It is not a repeat of the first chapters material.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 6, 2018 15:14:08 GMT
I'm not sure why I have to keep quoting the same things over and over again: One sentence and it explains how plants were watered unless "scholars" are under the impression the verse is describing how mud is made. Rain is never even mentioned until the flood, so not sure why the "scholar's " implication would be any more valuable than any one else's. It is hilarious that the scholar's condemnation of others having to "to omit part of it" has to omit part of it to make his point.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 6, 2018 15:16:37 GMT
there is a huge difference between "plants" and "plants of the field".... but, hey.. You can just pretend that there isn't. None of which affects the point made about all plants needing water. It's more a case of answering your creationist literalism and forced reading with a dose of sense, my friend. In which case one might expect their creation, and ensuing expected natural growth, to be noted before the arrival of man. QED. There is no mist mentioned in early Gen 2 btw. Another discrepancy between G1 & G2. Perhaps you need to wipe your glasses? Whatever. Incidentally the New Living Translation appears to undermine further the Vegas Bible, even including a 'then'. EG Neither wild plants nor grains.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 6, 2018 15:25:26 GMT
Incidentally the New Living Translation appears to undermine further the Vegas Bible, even including a 'then'. EG Neither wild plants nor grains. PREVIOUS POST: Good thing that The Bible wasn't written in English or that one translation isn't the only one in existence. PREVIOUS POST: No one is saying that plants don't need water. It is astounding how often that people have to repeat the same shit over and over to you. You intentionally omitting the next verse that explains how plants were receiving water so you can claim that plants weren't receiving water is just pathetic.... or are you just being stupid?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 6, 2018 15:26:45 GMT
One sentence and it explains how plants were watered unless "scholars" are under the impression the verse is describing how mud is made. Rain is never even mentioned until the flood, Even though most Gen 2:5 readings specifically mention it? I see. But I have not suggested that Gen 2:4 on covers 'days'. In fact it only claims to be The account of generations. It is the order of events which is contradictory. But in so far that Gen 2 does not repeat things, then yes, I would agree with you. The difference is sort of the point I am making, is it not?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 6, 2018 15:29:58 GMT
One sentence and it explains how plants were watered unless "scholars" are under the impression the verse is describing how mud is made. Rain is never even mentioned until the flood, Even though most Gen 2:5 readings specifically mention it? I see.
Holy shit!! You're mentally retarded??!!! Dude... I didn't know. My apologies. Altho… This does explain why you are just sooooooo fucking stupid.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 6, 2018 15:38:23 GMT
Good thing that The Bible wasn't written in English or that one translation isn't the only one in existence. That fact, as well as a patchwork past, probably explains the vexed passages which so bedevils believers, especially those (including CJG and you apparently) arguing that such a text would not have any naturally occurring errors and contradictions. No difference and the points remain, as already stated. Translation: it is astounding how much I cling to my special pleading and idea that the Bible must be inerrant.
There's no mention of plants, of any sort, on the land and then we hear of man's creation in Gen2. It is really not that hard to read that order of events it for one's self. That of course is not the only contradiction lol, though you might wish to make it seem so. In the Genesis 2 account, it looks as though man was created (2:7) before the animals (2:19a), and after that woman was formed (2:22a). You should not read things into scripture which are not stated but go by what is. But don't let that stop you.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 6, 2018 15:43:46 GMT
Perhaps you didn't know I have an autistic brother. You do now. Fair warning. Remember what I said just earlier about ad hominems? I do. You don't flatter yourself. CJG said rain is 'never even mentioned'. But it is: And it would be rather redundant to claim that rain had not been sent if it did not exist in the first place.QED.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 15:51:44 GMT
Genesis is rubbish... Here's how.
These big bloody dinosaurs roaming the earth for hundreds of millions of years, and he didn't mention them?
That's pish. If I had created dinosaurs, I would have been telling the world in my autobiography.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 6, 2018 15:52:55 GMT
CJG said rain is 'never even mentioned'. But it is:
It's not too hard to figure that he was referring to the actual action of rain... not the specific word. But, you not being able to comprehend a simple thought and blindly clinging to your own interpretation explains why this conversation is lasting as long as it is.... and why we'll be having it again in a few months. Can I say "blindly".. or do you have a cousin with cataracts?
|
|