the account of adam and eve as a literal event is so full of logical contradictions that it is mind-boggling.
it only takes a minimum of scrutiny to discover that fact, too.. there is something god did not want adam and eve to know.
he didnt want them to know the difference between good and evil.
AC
OK, point taken. But you always gotta wonder when christains start throwing verses like that one at yah. Had it happen to me before, and all of them meant it.
Seriously, i can usually understand what your saying...but...wow...those posts are spaced. Too much red wine maybe???
anyway... enjoy your easter i guess.
the account of adam and eve as a literal event is so full of logical contradictions that it is mind-boggling.
it only takes a minimum of scrutiny to discover that fact, too.. there is something god did not want adam and eve to know.
he didnt want them to know the difference between good and evil.
"this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes." (Matt. 13:15)
no, it just didn't make any sense. Mainly because i think your fundamental premise is wrong. That being that you seem to be saying that Adam and Eve were doomed to eat from the tree that God told them not to. As if they had no freedom to choose not to eat...as if they were created without freedom.
you threw too many terms around like good, and evil ,and freedom, and love without any real definition of what they mean. That made it confusing to me too. They are big words that probably need a little more defining.
And you drew a real long bow when you tried to tell us God didn't punish adam and eve.
As far as me being calloused...guess that would make me a bible basher huh! And we all know dem kinda people who dont believe cannot possibly be good people. Of course I know thats baloney!
seriously, i wouldn't have written anything in reply like i did above, because usually the stuff you write makes sense...is sort of logical. Even though I feel you make alot of assumptions in your arguments you still make logical sense....but dude, this above stuff really spaced me out. After I read it i didn't know up from down, felt like i just read one of biblemans posts.
the account of adam and eve as a literal event is so full of logical contradictions that it is mind-boggling.
it only takes a minimum of scrutiny to discover that fact, too.. there is something god did not want adam and eve to know.
he didnt want them to know the difference between good and evil.
Achristian
read all of it
understood none of it
christians, what's so great about jesus?.
why do so many people feel the need to base their life on a person, they have never met, did not write any of the works on his life, and has enormous claims made about him that can not be proved to be true?.
sounds just like following the governing body of jehovahs witnesses to me.. can anyone give me a good reason for me putting trust in this man?
hi gumby,
It has a chapter in it on why we can believe in a historical and biblical Jesus.i believe JC existed...he just wasn't the son of god. Just one of many around at the time who thought they were.
If it is truly a matter of life or death to know.......why not investigate it more....and pray about it....even if your not sure you believe.hmmm
see...a god that will execute me or anyone else for unbelief can eat my jocks. thats my honest feeling. I mean, what kind of god is that. A god that is so desperate to be aknowledged and yet at the same time hides him/herself so well just doesn't make sense to me.
christians, what's so great about jesus?.
why do so many people feel the need to base their life on a person, they have never met, did not write any of the works on his life, and has enormous claims made about him that can not be proved to be true?.
sounds just like following the governing body of jehovahs witnesses to me.. can anyone give me a good reason for me putting trust in this man?
One thing I just never got about christianity is the usual "dont worry god loves you" refrain. Never helped me. Never gave me any comfort. Dont worry about your problems "god loves you just the way you are"...blah blah blah.
Christianity, to me, puts too much emphasis on an after life...as if this life dont matter.
the two different creation stories in genesis contradict each other in the matter of the order of the creation of man and vegetation.
in the first story, vegetation was created on the third day, and three days later man was created.
however, in the second creation story, there was no vegetation before man.
stocwach
Gweedo,well, it aint referring to any limited geographical area at verse 9, is it.How do you get the impression that "land" in vs. 9 refers to everything exclusively? It simply is used in context as a name for "dry ground".
It does not change the fact that "land" can be used to reference a geographic area.
so when i put this genesis verse...
'9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.'
together with this one:
'5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth[land] [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth[land] [3] and there was no man to work the ground,'
I get a clear impression that the bible is telling me that no shrubs had grown yet...and no rain had fallen either apparently, on land -- any of it.
AC said this:
giving most readers the idea that these two verses are referring to our entire planet, can also be translated as "land," which most readers would then understand to refer only to a limited geographical area.Well, I understand it to mean Dirt, which is pretty much everywhere.
the two different creation stories in genesis contradict each other in the matter of the order of the creation of man and vegetation.
in the first story, vegetation was created on the third day, and three days later man was created.
however, in the second creation story, there was no vegetation before man.
g'day AC
It is with this solution in mind that the translators of the NIV Bible tell us in a footnote attached to Genesis 2:5,6, that the Hebrew word which is usually there translated as "earth," giving most readers the idea that these two verses are referring to our entire planet, can also be translated as "land," which most readers would then understand to refer only a limited geographical area.unless you read gen 1:9, which gives me the impression that it means everything --the earth[bar the seas].
'9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.'
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
g'day faithful
Oh, and how bout those stupid Bible writers of Genesis and Psalms? Saying that the whole world was covered with water in the beginning and that God made dry ground appear by commanding the water to run off the land into seas. How do you think fools like them ever dreamed up an idea like that? I'll give you three clues. G O Dhmmmm
This is a most interesting statment. It seems you think this proves that the bible is divinely inspired. I have 6 clues for you. S O _ W H A T...
achristian believes those who think the bible teaches that the flood was global look foolish.
he wrote, .
i encourage all christians to investigate the possibility that the bible does not really teach that the whole earth was flooded at the time of noah.
There was no point taking birds onto the ark in the first place either. There was no need to do that to 'preserve them alive', as the bible says. Ravens and doves are nothing unique. There would have been many outside the radius of the flood, if it was local, that would have survived.
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
Like I told you, I'm with AC on this one. I wont be posting to any thread started by a Bible basher.
See the difference with between you and JA is that he can actually make a cogent argument. Since you obviously cant discredit his stuff....you just label him a 'bible basher' inorder to avoid dealing with his arguments. Of which many are extremely strong...as Farkel said already. And since you so obviously want to believe, you willing to see past the fact that AC's arguments rely on wild speculation. Go down to the space.com thread of his and read his exchange between AF, if you dont believe me.
In fact I'm going one better. I'm not responding to anything written by a Bible basher in any thread.Oh no...what are we going to do...
Bible believers have dismantled every argument you have made here so far.Keep telling yourself that and you'll eventually believe it.
AC showed your Psalms argument was junk.It may be speculative. But it is fairly good speculatation. A lot tighter than the arguments you guys indulge in. Wanna call it junk...you better call the local flood theory junk first.
None of your constant attacks are ever found after close examination to have any merit.yeah keep telling yourself that.
So why bother responding to them? I think we should all just ignore all of your posts.ignore reasoned argument...good idea!
