Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Don't flatter yourself, the only thing you did was tell us that you trust the bible's word to the degree of whipping up some holy incest story with people who aren't even there to explain how Cain could have a wife.
I didn't "whip up" anything, it's the only logical possibility.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You didn't by your own logic show anything. You assumed that there were more people there even though the bible doesn't in any sense indicate that to begin with. Do you see(who am I kidding) how you twist the rules every time you answer? Of course you don't, but just so you know, everybody else does.
The Bible does indicate this.
You'll see throughout the Bible that it only points out the most important births, and sometimes these births aren't even in chronological order. Why? Because it doesn't matter, all that matters is that the event happened.
You have the wrong impression about the Bible, you assume that it must abide by your rules (no matter how silly they may be)
All your so-called inconsistencies are completely based on your own bias opinion of how the Bible should be, not how it actually is.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Or... Abel, Cain and Seth married the daughters of the unnamed couple in chapter 1 on Genesis. It's a lot less creepy than the idea of them marrying their SISTERS.
Please Phredreeke, point out what you are talking about.
Quote and explain rather than making unproven statements.
Eternalman and everyone else you all surely noticed by now it's pointless to discuss with urbanmonk, so I'd recommend you to just let this discussion die.
It's like trying to discuss with a statue, it will only lead to hair loss, whoever tutored him when he was young did an incredible job and no matter what you tell him his mind won't change a bit nor will change anytime soon so just let him have the last word and move on to more interesting things.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Or... Abel, Cain and Seth married the daughters of the unnamed couple in chapter 1 on Genesis. It's a lot less creepy than the idea of them marrying their SISTERS.
Please Phredreeke, point out what you are talking about.
Quote and explain rather than making unproven statements.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:27 (notice how male and female are created at the SAME TIME, also they are not mentioned by name)
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.", Genesis 2:7-8
"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Genesis 2:18-13 (Man is created FIRST, then God creates Woman from Adam's rib)
Now, either one of the verses are incorrect since they contradict eachother OR God created two human couples.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Wiiman: Sorry I only saw your post now.
I said it before, it's not about disproving god, it's about disproving the genesis or at least disproving whoever (urbanmonk, to be more exact) still takes each word of it as a fact which is plain ridiculous in modern days. I don't really agree with your interpretation of the genesis for several reasons but at least it's rather plausible and makes a degree of sense. I don't buy it firstly because well, I don't believe in god and secondly because it has quite some inconsistencies that are hard to get around even if you read it in a subjective way. In addition it only talks about things we knew at the time which is rather suspicious to say the least. ie. no mention of micro organisms, other planets, the universe as whole, etc... and states earth is flat and immovable among the other inconsistencies I brought in this topic.
To throw what I think could be an interesting question, who wrote the genesis and how did he know how god supposedly created earth ?
@Phredreeke: Not that I'm saying the Bible isn't full of contradictions, but nowhere in the first sentence does it mention that God created man and woman at the same time. It just said he created them. The first sentence is a pre-amble to the story.
@Johnny: You're looking at the Bible the wrong way around - it was a belief system first, a book second. The Bible is a recording of that which was taught and practised by teachers through story-telling and preaching.
I'm all for people criticising and questioning things in science- that is, after all, how we learn. But I can't for the life of me understand why religious people don't apply the same scrutiny and logic when questioning their own beliefs.
Science doesn't have the answer for everything, though of course more is being discovered and explained all the time. But to use that as an excuse to claim that everything that science doesn't prove can be explained with 'God did it' doesn't make sense to me.
Don't aim for perfection- you'll miss the deadline
'~Tom~ says (16:41):
well why does the custom controls for the keyboard palyer even affect the menu controls at all whats thep oint jsutm ake it so for the keyboard palyer on the menu screens everything is always up down left right enter regardless of the controls they set'
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Wiiman: Sorry I only saw your post now.
I said it before, it's not about disproving god, it's about disproving the genesis or at least disproving whoever (urbanmonk, to be more exact) still takes each word of it as a fact which is plain ridiculous in modern days. I don't really agree with your interpretation of the genesis for several reasons but at least it's rather plausible and makes a degree of sense. I don't buy it firstly because well, I don't believe in god and secondly because it has quite some inconsistencies that are hard to get around even if you read it in a subjective way. In addition it only talks about things we knew at the time which is rather suspicious to say the least. ie. no mention of micro organisms, other planets, the universe as whole, etc... and states earth is flat and immovable among the other inconsistencies I brought in this topic.
To throw what I think could be an interesting question, who wrote the genesis and how did he know how god supposedly created earth ?
Woohoo, finally mature discussion returns to the topic
I've been doing a bit of research on that last question, can't find too awful much, and you can't trust the internet, especially when it comes to religion. Some sites seem to suggest it being the works of Moses who lead the Israelites from Egypt. If I could only remember where I set my bible... It is most likely that the beginning parts of the world's origin would have been told to Moses or the unknown author by God, as God talked to him before. Where as the rest, or majority of the rest, may be history passed down from stories from the Israelite people.
Where as Genesis being written on what was known at the time, well I totally agree with that But at the same time, if Genesis were to come out and say 'and then God sendeth microrganisms to earth which multiplied asexually and eventually evolve into human beings,' nobody at the time would understand it. So as stated earlier about the origins being told to Moses from God, how could he explain such issues as microorganism when talking a human being with no concept of science? Perhaps even concepts such as evolution were hard for God to explain?
Though perhaps such issues are included, but remain coded? I've been reading some text, haven't found anything to great, but a couple of particular excerpts: 'And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man' This makes me think of the early micro organisms that would have to reproduce asexually at first. After becoming more evolved creatures though, they would reproduce normally as humans do. They may sound a little far out there and like I'm stretching my resources a bit, but it's like I said, the Bible is coded.
Also, do not recall anything about the Earth being flat, even though most people beleived it at the time.
All this talk about Genesis has me thinking about the wrong Genesis!
matt: Right, but where did those teachings come from ? Did god supposedly speak with someone whose name doesn't figure in the bible ? I couldn't find any concrete information on who wrote the book of genesis and where he took that information from, only suppositions.
wiiman: I don't think it makes much sense not to mention something because people didn't know what it was at the time and wouldn't understand, no one knew what micro organisms were until they were discovered. Also, a lot of people at the time already a strong notion of science, but even if didn't if someone could explain them how earth was created in 7 days and all the details that came with the genesis they could understand the concept of living beings so small they couldn't be seen. Also whether or not moses wrote the genesis is only a theory, no one really knows for certain.
The excerpts you posted don't seem to have absolutely nothing to do with micro organisms and I don't think the bible is coded. Originally people interpreted what is on the book of genesis objectively, but as the centuries passed and science evolved the inconsistencies became too glaring to be ignored and people were forced to read it in a subjective way.
When people have to twist what's in there until it has nothing to do with it's original meaning for it to make some sense then something isn't right. I'm not saying the entire bible is like that, but no offense to christians the genesis is a load of nonsense imo.
@Johnny: Who is to question the authorship of any myth, folk-story or indeed religious text, as if every idea has a single originator? There is no single source. The Bible's teachings are thousands of years old, and spoken before they were written. It's like Chinese whispers - one person tells somebody something, and that gets changed, and before you know it you have a mish-mash of sometimes contradictory, misleading and interconnected stories. As much as some people, Christians included, believe the whole of Christianity is recorded in that book, the Bible isn't all of the religion, just a part. Unless you believe that the Bible is literally the word and deed of God - in which case you are arguing from the same reference point as any literalist Christian, and aren't using your own logic.
This I think is the crux of the matter: you say the Bible is contradictory, ridiculous and illogical, but yet at the same time you seek concrete evidence in it and act as if it were a reliable source in itself. You say "The Bible is false - but it doesn't say inside who wrote it". What does it matter who wrote it, if you believe it's false? Would you believe it even if it told you?
Originally Posted by Johnny Look matt: Right, but where did those teachings come from ? Did god supposedly speak with someone whose name doesn't figure in the bible ? I couldn't find any concrete information on who wrote the book of genesis and where he took that information from, only suppositions.
wiiman: I don't think it makes much sense not to mention something because people didn't know what it was at the time and wouldn't understand, no one knew what micro organisms were until they were discovered. Also, a lot of people at the time already a strong notion of science, but even if didn't if someone could explain them how earth was created in 7 days and all the details that came with the genesis they could understand the concept of living beings so small they couldn't be seen. Also whether or not moses wrote the genesis is only a theory, no one really knows for certain.
The excerpts you posted don't seem to have absolutely nothing to do with micro organisms and I don't think the bible is coded. Originally people interpreted what is on the book of genesis objectively, but as the centuries passed and science evolved the inconsistencies became too glaring to be ignored and people were forced to read it in a subjective way.
When people have to twist what's in there until it has nothing to do with it's original meaning for it to make some sense then something isn't right. I'm not saying the entire bible is like that, but no offense to christians the genesis is a load of nonsense imo.
Oh and genesis, the band, are awesome.
Well, at least we could agree on what thing, the quality of the band Genesis
I see your points, but it is also important to note the the book of revelation is meant to be 100% coded. Even majority literal beleivers beleive this, though of course some such as the Jehovah's witness do take it literal. I beleive it to be in apocalyptic, figurative language about the end of the world. Even much of the early catholic church is known to take it figuratively not literally. Some examples of such are when it speaks of the ark of the covenant being in heaven. Why would the ark be in heaven? According to bible history it was last seen in the control of Nebuchanezzer, on earth of course. Another part speaks of Jesus reining over earth for 1000 years. This is contradictory to what is said; that he shall return, judge the dead then the living, then the earth shall end in fire. I think if perhaps Genesis isn't coded, again in my personal opinion it is though, that it is still most likely that revelation is intended to be coded as by the author coded. And if one book can be coded, why not another?
I don't think the book of revelations is meant to be a "coded book", more like it's meant to be read in a subjective manner. For instance if one of the books, like the genesis for example was meant to be coded then it wouldn't make sense to say that god didn't talk about micro organisms because people wouldn't understand. If they can't understand such a simple concept how would they be able to decode an entire book or at least take a meaningful interpretation from it?
I think we should broaden our focus, instead of just speaking of the bible and Jehovah, as the topic has turned to, let's focus simply as the basic question.
Is there something else out there?<
Is there a such thing as fate?
Do you beleive there are no coincidences?
Perhaps the last two questions do not apply, but I would like to hear some responses to the first one. Is there something else out there that may watch over us all, or perhaps govern silently? Say there is no after life, could something exist regardless?
I say yes to all of those questions. But what do you guys think?
So you're saying it's just coincidence that Neron Kaisar (greek for Emperor Nero), one of history's biggest persecutors of christians, has the numerical value 666?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
It could be a coincidence, but please note that there are many antichrists.
The sprite of the antichrist never dies, it just moves on to another willing vessel to put it simply, but I don't even know why you brought that up again.
As Johnny Look said the book of revelations isn't meant to be a "coded book" neither are any of the other books of the Bible, who came up with such an idea?
The book of Revelations does seem a little cryptic at first, but if you understand that the imagery used was based what John knew at the time it's easier to figure out.
And Matt Boothman already answered your so-called "unnamed couple", even those who read the Bible as a literary work acknowledge that much.
@Wiiman:
I've often heard people claim to believe in the Bible and (macro) Evolution at the same time, and they've never been able to explain that one to me.
The first problem with this idea is directly with Macro Evolution itself. Before you can go around trying to convince someone that Macro Evolution is in the Bible you have to prove that Macro Evolution even exists. Which according to the theory itself is impossible since it takes "billions of years" conveniently enough. So even if you try to somehow say that God created everything over a period of a billion or even a thousand years would require proof of the existence of such a phenomena in the first place.
Secondly why would God even do this? Isn't he capable of creating everything all at once? God usually has a purpose behind his actions, I've never seen/read of God doing something without one.
Thirdly how did each individual species survive for so long without the other interdependent species they relied on? Evolution tends to claim that interdependent species evolved at the same time, not one by one. Which makes more sense no matter how you look at it assuming Macro Evolution exists.
Basically prove that macro evolution exists before trying to use it in conjunction with anything else.
I live in England and I'm a Christian. I've read a few of these posts and its very interesting to see what people have written.
It surprises me that some God believing people ask: "I wonder why people don't think there's God?". Where I live Christians are the minority with Atheists and agnostics making up most of the population, especially at my university. Are these people from parts of america where almost everyone believes in some kind of God? Just wondering.
I was struck by the video about "look at the context", It seems fair to get annoyed at people who try to explain away all those parts of the bible.
I sincerely believe I deserve to face the kind of punishment I see in those passages, Most of my life I've rejected God, not to mention rejecting parents, friends - Just seeking to live life for my own gain, as if it intrinsically was mine to do with as I will.
When I go home at the holidays, home is often a great place to be. I love sharing my life with my family. Sometimes however it can be quite lonely- Sometimes its just like we're separate entities that don't really touch eachothers lives in meaningful ways- I don't know. I can see that I'm partially responsible for that, by deciding that my life and dreams were too important and as a result neglecting the relationships I have with my parents and siblings. I guess I mention that to give a little example of what I mean.
I never really post on things like this, but thought I should say something after looking at all your hard forum posting work.
Have a good one,
you don't have to be masochistic to klik, but it helps.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Johnny Look
But at the same time, if Genesis were to come out and say 'and then God sendeth microrganisms to earth which multiplied asexually and eventually evolve into human beings,' nobody at the time would understand it. So as stated earlier about the origins being told to Moses from God, how could he explain such issues as microorganism when talking a human being with no concept of science? Perhaps even concepts such as evolution were hard for God to explain?
