Christianity's biggest lie

Posted in the Christian Forum

Comments (Page 9)

Showing posts 161 - 180 of284
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Satanic Priest wrote:
<quoted text>I can prove that the christian god does not exist
By definition alone it's possible to show that the Christian God is a five-sided square.

These idiots suffer from cognitive dissonance and there is no cure. I think it's fun just to dance on their brains!

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what the ENGLISH text says. The original Hebrew text doesn't say that.
And there's your answer: the translator spotted the contradiction and changed the tense.
<><
Bulk Wrap! You could not locate a Hebrew verb if your life depended on it. In fact you don't even know what that means. And you are trying to tell someone what the original Hebrew "really" says.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The first two chapters of Genesis are regularly bashed on the noggin for being contrary to modern notions of science; but we won't be discussing that here. Instead, we're going to look at the issue of internal inconsistencies in the two so-called "creation accounts" -- which actually split at verse 2:4; but for brevity we'll refer to the accounts, respectively, as G1 and G2.
We will explore these areas:
1. Are there actually two creation accounts?
2. Do these two accounts contradict one another? In answer to this question, we will pursue these replies:
o Evidences of unity of authorship in the two accounts. Most cite contradiction in tandem with proofs that G1 and G2 were authored by different parties, in accord with the JEDP hypothesis. In response, it should be noted that it is certainly possible, if not very likely, that both G1 and G2 began as oral accounts that were later put into writing. We will argue that one author was responsible for both written accounts, whatever their original source may have been, thus indicating that any contradiction that would exist would have been intentional, and thus not problematic for inerrantists.
o Internal and grammatical solutions. We will show that even if two different people authored G1 and G2, they are not contradictory at all, but complementary.
G1? G2?
A key operational question for this subject may come as a surprise: Are G1 and G2 actually creation accounts? G1 is undoubtedly so, but the classification of G2 is a bit more subtle, and affects somewhat our overall presentation.
The book of Genesis contains several sections that begin with the phrase which we sometimes render, "These are the generations of..." The word "generations" is the Hebrew toledot and has the connotation of a family history or succession. Toledot are given for Adam's line (5:1-6:8), Noah (6:9-9:29), Noah's sons (10:1-11:9), Shem (11:10-26), Terah and Abram (11:27-25:11), and so on -- there are nearly a dozen recurrences of the toledot introduction and method, and one of these, interestingly enough, is Genesis 2:4-4:6.
What does this mean? It means that G2 is not actually a creation account as such, but a "family history" of the first men in creation [Mat.Gen126, 12ff]. It is therefore a point to begin our argument by noting that anyone who reads G2 as a rehash of the creation accounted in G1 is missing the boat from the start.
It is quite unlikely, given the parallel toledot structure, that the author of Genesis is repeating himself (although we do have examples of dual creation accounts -- the former told generally, the latter told more specifically -- in Sumerian and Babylonian literature). Rather, the indication would be that G2 is of an entirely different genre and approach than G1, and that any supposed contradiction between them needs to be understood in that light.
So G2 is not exactly a "creation account" to begin with; and this leads to the next question, of whether a single author is responsible for both. In that regard, the evidence indicates a very close unity between G1 and G2, one that indicates either a single redactor or, more likely, a single author. G1 and G2 are indeed linked by a detectable and obvious pattern:
• 1:1-2 Introduction
• 2:4-6 Introduction
• 1:3-5 Light/Darkness
• 2:7 Man/Dust
• 1:6-8 Firmament in Heaven
• 2:8 Garden on Earth
• 1:9-13 water and land, plants
• 2:9-15 plants, water and land
• 1:14-19 luminaries separated
• 2:16-17 two trees separated
• 1:20-3 first creation of animal life
• 2:18 first concern for man's companionship
• 1:24-31 creation continues
• 2:19-22 concern continues
• 2:1-3, 2:23-4 internal patterns
o end of process
o divine involvement
o separation of Sabbath/separation of couples from parents

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
<><
Bulk Wrap! You could not locate a Hebrew verb if your life depended on it. In fact you don't even know what that means. And you are trying to tell someone what the original Hebrew "really" says.
He can't even see how ignorant his post is. Thanks for pointing out the glaring truth.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

o blessing of Sabbath/unity of couple
Given these internal clues, we would argue that if any contradiction is found between G1 and G2, it is intentional -- serving a rhetorical or polemical purpose -- and therefore, of no consequence for any supposition of inerrancy. However, we find it more likely that no contradiction does exist between G1 and G2, and we shall see how this is so in our next section.
Points of Order
Typically, critics find two major points of disagreement between G1 and G2. The first of these is rather easy to dispose of:
Gen. 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen. 2:4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
The allegation is that whereas G1 has plants made before man, G2 has man made before plants. But it is really rather simple to see that G2 indicates no such thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist yet were plants and herbs "of the field" -- what field?
The Hebrew word here is sadeh, and where it is used of known geographic locations, refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, "earth", which is 'erets -- a word which has much broader geographic connotations.
See for example:
• Gen. 23:12-13: "And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land ['erets], saying, But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me: I will give thee money for the field [sadeh]; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there."
• Ex. 9:22 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch forth thine hand toward heaven, that there may be hail in all the land ['erets] of Egypt, upon man, and upon beast, and upon every herb of the field [sadeh], throughout the land ['erets] of Egypt."
• Lev. 25:2-3, "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land ['erets] which I give you, then shall the land ['erets] keep a sabbath unto the LORD. Six years thou shalt sow thy field [sadeh], and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof...")
A key to understanding what is being described here is that verse 2:5 goes on to explain WHY there were no "plants of the field" -- because a) there was no rain upon the earth, and b) there was no man to work the earth -- the two key elements for agriculture according to the ancient mindset. Thus, what this passage indicates is that there was as yet no organized agriculture, and that makes sense of the verses following, where God specifically plants the garden of Eden and places man to tend to it.
G2 is not indicating that there were no plants created yet at all, but that a special place was set aside for the foundation of agriculture and for plants "of the field" to be developed.(This idea of Eden as a special place set aside shall come into play as we progress.)
But now to the second alleged contradiction:
Gen. 1:24-5 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen. 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
Problem? G1 says that animals were created before man; G2 says that man came first, there was a need to designate a helpmeet, then animals were created for the first time...or does it?
They have certainly reported the text of the grammar correctly, but the "waw consecutive" is rather a more complicated matter, for it does not ALWAYS indicate temporal sequence, as indeed the grammar indicates. There are examples in the OT, NT, and in Egyptian and Assyrian literature of "dischronologized" narratives where items are arranged topically rather than chronologically, and this would justify our own use of the pluperfect for the sake of context; indeed, even commentators that prefer to keep the simple past tense suppose not that there is a contradiction, but that G2 is reporting the order out of sequence purposely in order to stress man's dominion over the created animals.
An older commentary by Keil and Delitsch made this point nicely:
The consecutive arrangement (in Gen. 2:19) may be explained on the supposition that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the beast, went back to the creation, in the simple method of the early Semitic historian, and placed this first instead of making it subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same would be "God brought to Adam the beast which He had formed."

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

A striking example of this style of narrative is in 1 Kings 7:13. The building and completion of the temple we noticed several times in chapter 6, and the last time in connection with the year and month, chapter 6:9,14,37,38. After that, the fact is stated that the royal palace was 13 years in building; and then it is related that Solomon fetched Hiram from Tyre, to make 2 pillars. If we are to understand the (WAW/VAV) consecutive here, Solomon would be made to send for the artist 13 years after the temple was finished. It only expresses the thought, "Hiram, whom Solomon fetched from Tyre.-Also note Judges 2:6.
More than this, there are also various "exceptions" which crop up in Hebrew grammar where the waw consecutive is used. Greenberg, citing the grammar of Jouon, notes [Gree.UE, 37, 168n] that the waw consecutive "sometimes occurs when there is no idea of succession" and that there are places where a pluperfect can be rendered in accordance with a summarizing or recapitulating use of the waw consecutive.
Collins [Coll.WAP] points out that there are cases of unmarked pluperfects in the OT, and that the specific verb in question in this verse itself often warrants a pluperfect translation. Furthermore, another contributor observed:
Gen. 2:19 begins with VaYYiTSeR; the verb "YaTSaR" in the imperfect with a WAW consecutive. Waltke and O'Connor ("Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew", pp. 544-546) say that "It (imperfect with a WAW consecutive) shows in Hebrew meanings equivalent to those of the suffix (perfect) conjugation." Earlier, on p. 490, they had already shown that the suffix conjugation can have a pluperfect meaning; later, on p. 552, they show that the imperfect with a WAW consecutive can also have a pluperfect meaning, giving as examples "The Lord *had said*(Hebrew: VaYeDaBBeR) to Moses" (Num. 1:47-49) and "The Lord *had said*(Hebrew: VaYYoMeR) to Moses" (Ex. 4:18-19).
I have not been able to check the accuracy of this cite, but assuming it is true, we have now as many as four indications that the use of the waw consecutive in no way diminishes the argument for the use of the pluperfect. It remains untouched by the critic's argument.
Another Option
So the pluperfect is a more than acceptable reading; but since we are facing the sorts who believe that merely quoting versions is a way to prove that one is correct, and since most versions do use the simple past tense (although as we have noted, even commentators who use it do not necessarily agree that it constitutes actual contradiction), we had better have another line of defense -- and indeed, there is another, one that relates back to our indication of the garden as a special sort of "domestic creation" for man to do his service in.
The naming of the animals was not simply a pre-Linnean classification exercise; it was a demonstration of Adam's dominion over the entirety of nature. The giving of names, in ancient oriental thought, was an exercise of sovereignty and command. One may compare here the idea of bringing subjects before a sovereign, and this will come into play as we develop our argument that assumes reading "formed" as a simple past tense.
Now for recollection purposes, let's once again quote the key passage:
Gen. 2:18-20 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.
Notice: God "formed" beasts and fowl here -- but he brings before Adam beasts, fowl, and cattle -- the domestic creatures!

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Where did they come from? The answer, under this proposition, is that they were already in Eden (a place of domestic specialty set aside), and that the "forming" of the beasts and fowl is an act of special creation, giving Adam "samples" of these beasts and fowls from outside Eden for the sake of presenting them to the earth's appointed sovereign.(For after all, why should a king have to wait for his subjects to wander in when he can have them brought to him at once?)
In this passage the author clearly shows awareness of the cattle having already been created in G1, for he does not indicate their creation here, but rather assumes that they don't need to be created. Even without the pluperfect rendering, G1 and G2 demonstrate a perfect consistency.
This explanation is also supported by the chiastic structure of the report of the animals: They are cited in the order, "beasts...fowl...cattle.. .fowl...beasts" -- suggesting that the report is done by design, not because the writer couldn't see contradiction so plainly in front of him.
Other Objections
• Gen. 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.; vs. 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
It is said: "In the first account Adam may eat from any fruit tree; while in the second he may not eat the fruit of all trees."
However, the tree of knowledge is part of a garden not planted until Genesis 2:8. It did not exist at the time Gen. 1:29 is recorded; Gen. 2;17 is therefore updated instructions.
• Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.; and 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
It is argued that in the first case, man and woman were created together, while they were created separately in the second.
Once again it is simply a matter of establishing the chronology: the last phrase of Gen. 1:27 refers to an event that takes place chronologically much later than the first phrase. We need to keep in mind that we do indeed agree that there are two stories here; but they are complementary (just like dual creation accounts in other ancient sources), and each reflects an intact unit of oral tradition. It is only when we read them as logocentric moderns that we see a problem: The two stories originally were told independently.
• Gen. 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.; and 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
It is said that the first account gives men and women dominion, whereas in the second they were "confined" to Eden.
Where does it say that they were "confined" to Eden? All I see here is God getting the dominion process started easy with an initial parcel of land that is ready to go.
• Re the use of Elohim in the first account and Yahweh Elohim in the second: for the use of the word elohim, see here.

• Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
vs.
Gen. 3:5, 22 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil...And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
It is objected that "In the first creation man is made in the image of God; while in the second that likeness is acquired by learning of good and evil."

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

• Gen. 1:2, 9-10 And the earth was without form, and void...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters...And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas.
vs.

Gen. 2:4-6 ...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth...there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
It is said: "In the first creation account the earth was first covered with water and land did not appear until later. In the second creation account there was no water at first. The earth was dry land and was later watered by a mist."
But the second verse set does not say that "there was no water at first" at all. It says that there was no rain, which is not quite the same thing.
It is said, "Genesis 2:18 makes it plain that the animals had not been created yet since Adam is described as being alone."
"Alone" simply means without a suitable helpmate, which is somewhat curious given that we have no textual justification for assuming that God had left the scene.
It is said, "Genesis chapter 1 states that creation took a full week - seven days, evening and morning. But the second creation story, beginning in 2:4, says this:'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.' This verse says 'In the day'- that is, one day, singular -'that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.' In short, while chapter 1 spreads the creation out over a week, chapter 2 compresses it entirely into one day."
This asserts that "in the day" means on one particular day based solely on the singular form of "day" within that phrase. Indeed?
Thus, we may conclude that Genesis 35:3 makes clear that Jacob experienced his troubles during a single day of distress. Leviticus 14:1-9, likewise makes clear that the rules in effect in the day (14:2) of a leper's cleansing, which take about a week, take merely one day to go through. This is simply misreading of Biblical language.
-JPH
Sources
1. Coll.WAP - Collins, C. John. "The Wayyiqtol as 'Pluperfect': When and Why". Tyndale Bulletin 46, 1995, 177-40.
2. Gree.UE - Greenberg, Moshe. Understanding Exodus. Berhman House: 1969.
3. Mat.Gen126 - Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. Broadman and Holman, 1996.

http//www.tektonics.org

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big Al wrote:
“The historical saga contained in the Bible – from Abraham’s encounter with God and his journey to Canaan, to Moses, deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, to the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah – was not a miraculous revelation, but a product of human imagination.
It was first conceived – as recent archaeological findings suggest – during the span of two or three generations, about twenty-six hundred years ago....the goal was to create a myth saying that Judah is the center of the world…”– Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, Ph.D., director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University
<><
Wail Hail! It must be true one [1] archaeologist said so.
<><
Let's all go drink some of Jim Jones' kool aid he said it was OK. And there's a website that says income tax is illegal. So everyone just stop paying their income tax.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

So G2 is not exactly a "creation account" to begin with; and this leads to the next question, of whether a single author is responsible for both. In that regard, the evidence indicates a very close unity between G1 and G2, one that indicates either a single redactor or, more likely, a single author. G1 and G2 are indeed linked by a detectable and obvious pattern:
• 1:1-2 Introduction
• 2:4-6 Introduction
• 1:3-5 Light/Darkness
• 2:7 Man/Dust
• 1:6-8 Firmament in Heaven
• 2:8 Garden on Earth
• 1:9-13 water and land, plants
• 2:9-15 plants, water and land
• 1:14-19 luminaries separated
• 2:16-17 two trees separated
• 1:20-3 first creation of animal life
• 2:18 first concern for man's companionship
• 1:24-31 creation continues
• 2:19-22 concern continues
• 2:1-3, 2:23-4 internal patterns
o end of process
o divine involvement
o separation of Sabbath/separation of couples from parents
o blessing of Sabbath/unity of couple
Given these internal clues, we would argue that if any contradiction is found between G1 and G2, it is intentional -- serving a rhetorical or polemical purpose -- and therefore, of no consequence for any supposition of inerrancy.

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.htm...

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HighlyEvolved wrote:
Here's a direct comparison of Genesis 1 and 2:
(1) Creation is divided into days.(2)No days or other periods of time are mentioned.
(1) Creation has a cosmic scope.(2) Creation has to do with the earth only.
(1) Animals are created before man.(2) Man is created before animals.
(1) Animals are part of a cosmic design (along with plants and everything else.)(2) Animals are created for a limited purpose: to keep man company or be "a helper" - though they turn out to be unsuitable for Adam, forcing God to make Eve instead.
(1) Man is to rule the world.(2) Man is to have charge of Eden only and, presumably, is never to leave it.
(1) Woman is created simultaneously with man.(2) Woman is created after (and from) the body of man.
(1) No names are given to creatures.(2) All creatures, including man and woman, are given names.
(1) Only the deity speaks.(2) Four speakers engage in dialogue, one of them an animal.
(1) The deity makes a day of the week holy.(2) The deity forbids eating the fruit of a tree.
----------
Side note: Has anyone ever considered that God made the animals hoping that among them there would be a suitable helper for the man, and FAILED? Right off the bat we have a fallible God.
Another side note: The creation stories in Genesis have their roots in two myths. Genesis 1 is taken from the Mesopotamian creation stories found in "The Epic of Gilgamesh", and Genesis 2 is taken from an ancient Egyptian creation myth.
Two sources, two styles, two authors, two orders of creation.
The Holy Babble is debunked in the first two chapters alone!
<><
This series of posts debunks all your mindless copy/paste bulk wrap!

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188
May 9, 2013
 
Me Myself and I

Pineville, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#189
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
By definition alone it's possible to show that the Christian God is a five-sided square.
These idiots suffer from cognitive dissonance and there is no cure. I think it's fun just to dance on their brains!
If you had any sense you might be taken seriously. You are just another run of the mill, boring ass atheist.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Allen Richards wrote:
The first two chapters of Genesis are regularly bashed on the noggin for being contrary to modern notions of science; but we won't be discussing that here.
Oh yes we will. According to Genesis 1, God created day and night before he created the sun.

Also, God covered the Earth with vegetation before the sun was created.

Both of those things are scientifically impossible.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Allen Richards wrote:
So G2 is not exactly a "creation account" to begin with; and this leads to the next question, of whether a single author is responsible for both. In that regard, the evidence indicates a very close unity between G1 and G2, one that indicates either a single redactor or, more likely, a single author. G1 and G2 are indeed linked by a detectable and obvious pattern:
• 1:1-2 Introduction
• 2:4-6 Introduction
• 1:3-5 Light/Darkness
• 2:7 Man/Dust
• 1:6-8 Firmament in Heaven
• 2:8 Garden on Earth
• 1:9-13 water and land, plants
• 2:9-15 plants, water and land
• 1:14-19 luminaries separated
• 2:16-17 two trees separated
• 1:20-3 first creation of animal life
• 2:18 first concern for man's companionship
• 1:24-31 creation continues
• 2:19-22 concern continues
• 2:1-3, 2:23-4 internal patterns
o end of process
o divine involvement
o separation of Sabbath/separation of couples from parents
o blessing of Sabbath/unity of couple
Given these internal clues, we would argue that if any contradiction is found between G1 and G2, it is intentional -- serving a rhetorical or polemical purpose -- and therefore, of no consequence for any supposition of inerrancy.
http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.htm...
Two different authors, dix tane.

Gohf uckyer self.
little lamb

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192
May 9, 2013
 
In the beginning God created heaven and earth

Don't be misled by a foolishness of atheism that have no insight.

The sun and moon and planets were all created in the beginning.

The second time the sun is mentioned in scripture is for measuring of times and seasons.

Also its to be noted , that God had formed the man , before he placed him into the garden that God himself planted...and it is also noted that he brought the animals he had already created to Adam to let him name them.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

little lamb wrote:
In the beginning God created heaven and earth
Don't be misled by a foolishness of atheism that have no insight.
The sun and moon and planets were all created in the beginning.
The second time the sun is mentioned in scripture is for measuring of times and seasons.
Also its to be noted , that God had formed the man , before he placed him into the garden that God himself planted...and it is also noted that he brought the animals he had already created to Adam to let him name them.
<><
You are insulting the genus of asses by referring to an atheASSt as an ass. Asses have a valid function to perform.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#194
May 10, 2013
 
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
<><
You are insulting the genus of asses by referring to an atheASSt as an ass. Asses have a valid function to perform.
Yes they do - their function is to give birth to turds like you.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#195
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they do - their function is to give birth to turds like you.
<><
Is that your best shot, door quad? I have heard better put-downs around 5th graders. Watt appease ash hit.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 161 - 180 of284
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

48 Users are viewing the Christian Forum right now

Search the Christian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 31 min Barnsweb 1,254
Stealing the Keys to Heaven (Dec '12) 36 min NorCal Native 78,227
The Biblical God - A Maledictory, Wicked Monster 39 min jide oni 73
Does God exist? (Aug '11) 41 min Rose_NoHo 5,947
Introducing The Universal Religion 44 min jide oni 743
Who or what is the Son of Man 1 hr no-one-special 515
Does Prayer Make A Difference? 1 hr Earth Child 1 41
•••
•••
•••
•••