Genesis Creation

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's no hint about it. It really means that those who use it don't really have anything of real substance.

Or maybe, just maybe, it actually means that you tend to argue strawmen.
Has that option ever crossed your mind?

I have made clear already what I mean when I say that ancients were not ignorant and that you nevertheless continue to argue with a false representation of that in mind , so why aren't you the one using the straw man?

Because you are talking about "intelligence" instead. Which I actually addressed as well.
You can be the most intelligent human that has ever lived and be utterly ignorant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So was I. The unhappy women, gays, mass shootings, etc are alive and well right here in our woke USA.


This is somehow not a straw man? What does it have to do with anything I've said?

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of the argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. Straw man - Wikipedia

/facepalm

The point of the thought exercise is to demonstrate to you that your statement that the modern world is in bad shape, is bullocks.

And I guess that's why you refuse to answer it.

Because you know the rational answer is one of today's more progressive secular democracies. That's where you can maximize your chances of living a good life regardless of who you are, what your ethnicity is, what your beliefs are, what your sexual orientation is, etc

Because you wouldn't want to choose medieval london and end up a gay atheist.
You wouldn't want to choose 1940s Germany and end up a jew.
You wouldn't want to choose 1700s America and end up a black guy.
You wouldn't want to choose Jesus' era and end up a christian. Or jew.
In fact, most times before 1950 wasn't a good time to be a jew, in any place.

Is a modern humanist secular democracy a guarantee of a good, long, healthy and happy life? Off course not.
Is your chance maximized in such a society? YES.


If you have a different answer, feel free to mention it. I only asked 3 times already.

 

[rrobs]

/facepalm

The point of the thought exercise is to demonstrate to you that your statement that the modern world is in bad shape, is bullocks.

And I guess that's why you refuse to answer it.

Because you know the rational answer is one of today's more progressive secular democracies. That's where you can maximize your chances of living a good life regardless of who you are, what your ethnicity is, what your beliefs are, what your sexual orientation is, etc

"According to a new Gallup poll, U.S. satisfaction has hit it’s lowest point in two decades, with many citing the virus, economy and political tensions as reasons for their dissatisfaction."
Americans “Satisfaction Rate” Just Took Biggest Dive Ever Recorded in US History - WayneDupree.com

A real paradise. NOT!

Because you wouldn't want to choose medieval london and end up a gay atheist.
You wouldn't want to choose 1940s Germany and end up a jew.
You wouldn't want to choose 1700s America and end up a black guy.
You wouldn't want to choose Jesus' era and end up a christian. Or jew.
In fact, most times before 1950 wasn't a good time to be a jew, in any place.
If you have a different answer, feel free to mention it. I only asked 3 times already.

What's the prize for the correct answer?

 

[rrobs]

Of course if genesis is a myth that would also include Adam and Eve as a symbolic myth along with all of the blame falling on the woman which makes no sense from my religious perspective because all gods and goddesses are all equal thus men and women are equal but that evidently was an important symbol to that religion. So be it, it is not my religion.

Rom 5:12,

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
​

Look in Genesis. You will see that God never told Eve anything at all about the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 2:16,

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
​

Looks like you're off the hook for that one.

You also correctly see how the fact that science questions and continuously gathers new information that it progresses with time and we can even look back in our own history and see how ideas have grown and changed. My only objection is the inflammatory use of the word gullible which is entirely inappropriate.

Only one objection to all a wrote is pretty good in my book!

BTW, I trust you feel it is equally inflammatory the many times I've been labeled gullible for believing the truth.

 

[Bear Wild]

Gen 2:16,

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

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 when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

But according to the myth the woman did know about the tree. So I return to what I said and women got blamed for taking to fruit and giving it to her husband. This seems to clearly place the blame on women in this religion and not so on the path I follow.

Still it is good you can separate science from symbolism in myth.

 

[Yahcubs777]

The creation story of Genesis is often used as "proof" that the Bible is false. Of course it is true that the universe is constructed in a way that is not even close to what is said in Genesis. But is it reasonable to think that God should have told the people about atoms, leptons, quarks, space-time continuum, conservation of energy, etc.? Personally, I think it highly unreasonable to think that way.

The structure of the universe as described in Genesis is much the same as all other ancient Near East concepts of the universe.

View attachment 49075

Looking at this image, it is obvious that it is not an accurate representation of the actual universe. That can not be denied. But, few consider the effect this has on the overall message of the scriptures. That would be none, zero, zip, nada!

Very few people, and I mean VERY few, even know what the scriptures are about. Just Google, "what is the Bible about" for many different answers. But if one want to really know what it is about, they need read nothing more than the Gospel Luke or John.

Luke 24:27,

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.​

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
​

The scriptures are about Jesus Christ. They are not meant to be a science book. God's only goal in life after Adam and Eve screwed up was to send a redeemer. He had to convince humans to believe the things He said about the coming Messiah. That was all He cared to communicate. He didn't care if Israel knew and understood the intricacies of cosmology as we know them today. Such knowledge was totally irrelevant to the message He wanted to proclaim.

Since Israel was surrounded by the other ancient Near East people, there was no reason to complicate the message by introducing our modern concepts of cosmology. It didn't detract from the message one bit to just let Israel think the same way as the rest of the ancient Near East people. There is simply no way they could have understood what we know today. Why gum up the message with irrelevant information that they never could have understood anyway?

Since God could not really explain the truth of cosmology, and since it didn't matter one whit anyway, He just wisely let them believe what they believed concerning the structure of the universe. It was a moot point.

To those who insist that Genesis must conform to our modern science, I would issue a challenge to come up with the curriculum that would have "enlightened" the ancient Near East on how the world came to be and the structure of the universe.

On a related note, lately I've been seeing a lot of scientific news about radically new ideas on how the universe came to be. Old universally accepted ideas of cosmology and cosmogony are being questioned in light of these new observations. Could it be that 3,000 years from now our image of the universe will appear as quaint and gullible to the then modern scientist as that of the ancient Near East appears to the scientists of today?

GOD said when HE made Man in HIS image and after HIS likeness, that it was very good.

How can GOD proclaim that Man is like HIM, and the man in question then screws up? You don't even have to be spiritually minded to see the error here.

Furthermore, science deals with the natural world. Their is natural science. GOD reveals supernatural science, which cannot be understood by the natural mind.

 

[Yahcubs777]

Rom 5:12,

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
​

Look in Genesis. You will see that God never told Eve anything at all about the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 2:16,

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
​

Looks like you're off the hook for that one.


Only one objection to all a wrote is pretty good in my book!

BTW, I trust you feel it is equally inflammatory the many times I've been labeled gullible for believing the truth.

Yet the woman replied to the serpent:

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

So she knew of it.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yet the woman replied to the serpent:

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

So she knew of it.

Happy birthday.

You know it was all a set up to frame the serpent and give serpents a bad name. Clearly Adam and Eve may have smoked one of the plants in the garden of Eden and became hungry and ate from the tree of knowledge ( why god did not want them to know the difference of good and evil is one of those mysteries and certainly knowledge must be bad). upon getting caught by God as he was strolling through his garden both turned and pointed to the serpent and said "The serpent made us do it". Since then serpents have had a bad name in the Abrahamic religions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"According to a new Gallup poll, U.S. satisfaction has hit it’s lowest point in two decades, with many citing the virus, economy and political tensions as reasons for their dissatisfaction."
Americans “Satisfaction Rate” Just Took Biggest Dive Ever Recorded in US History - WayneDupree.com

A real paradise. NOT!

Still not meeting the challenge I see.
So what's up with the refusal?

Nobody said the modern secular world is a utopian paradise. So that's yet another strawman. ;-)

Care to actually man up and face the challenge?
So.... which time, which place do you choose and why?

What's the prize for the correct answer?

A set of balls.

 

[rrobs]

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

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 when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

But according to the myth the woman did know about the tree. So I return to what I said and women got blamed for taking to fruit and giving it to her husband. This seems to clearly place the blame on women in this religion and not so on the path I follow.

Still it is good you can separate science from symbolism in myth.

I gave a clear cut verse that says God commanded the man (Gen 2;16).

I also gave an equally clear verse that said sin (dysfunction) entered the world through one man (Rom 5:12).

Instead of going through a convoluted explanation and reasoning to make it say something you want it to say, why not just accept the simple assertion that it was Adam's fault, not the woman's?

Even it the Bible is pure myth, it, like any other myth, has a definite story. If we go about changing that story then the myth becomes useless as a guide to life. Just read as written and accept that as the actual truth (or myth if that's what you prefer).

 

[rrobs]

GOD said when HE made Man in HIS image and after HIS likeness, that it was very good.

How can GOD proclaim that Man is like HIM, and the man in question then screws up? You don't even have to be spiritually minded to see the error here.

Furthermore, science deals with the natural world. Their is natural science. GOD reveals supernatural science, which cannot be understood by the natural mind.

God of course has free will, so if we're in His likeness then we have it to.

Try to put yourself in the world of the ancient Near East. It wasn't like ours, and the people had a world view that was virtually opposite to ours.

 

[rrobs]

Yet the woman replied to the serpent:

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

So she knew of it.

So it's your reasoning vs the scriptures. Hmmm....who to believe? I know! I'll accept the 3rd grade level sentences that says God commanded the man (Gen 2:16) and that sin (dysfunction) entered by one man (Rom 5:12).

 

[rrobs]

Still not meeting the challenge I see.
So what's up with the refusal?

Nobody said the modern secular world is a utopian paradise. So that's yet another strawman. ;-)

Care to actually man up and face the challenge?
So.... which time, which place do you choose and why?
A set of balls.

So now we're talking about scrotum sizes? Sorry, but I'll have to pass on that one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So now we're talking about scrotum sizes? Sorry, but I'll have to pass on that one.

 

[Yahcubs777]

So it's your reasoning vs the scriptures. Hmmm....who to believe? I know! I'll accept the 3rd grade level sentences that says God commanded the man (Gen 2:16) and that sin (dysfunction) entered by one man (Rom 5:12).

I posted the scriptures. I didn't even provide any reasoning. Perhaps you should read things without your own bias.

1 Tim 2:14

 

[rrobs]

View attachment 49232

.

 

[rrobs]

I posted the scriptures. I didn't even provide any reasoning. Perhaps you should read things without your own bias.

1 Tim 2:14

First of all, looking back on our conversation, I see that I mixed you up with someone else. You are correct in saying all you did was quote a couple of scriptures. Sorry for the mixup.

Well, 1 Tim 2:14 is certainly a good verse. Yes the woman did transgress, but she was not the cause for sin and death entering into the world. As it plainly said in Romans, that was the man's doing.

Adam was not deceived. He knew exactly would happen if he disobeyed God's commandment. The woman, on the other hand was deceived. In Genesis we see that God told the man about the tree of knowledge. There is nothing to indicate He talked directly to the woman about that.

Do you anything there worth considering? Why was Eve deceived but not Adam? Surely that must mean something.

And yes, we should leave bias out of the scriptures. The vast majority is written at a 5th grade reading level (or so), so we must be careful to read what's written without interjecting extraneous ideas into it. Good point.

 

[rrobs]

Nonsense. So Angels and Cherubim and Seraphim are also in HIS likeness too? You should go back to the third grade and learn how to read again.

How would you have me reply to that? Should I hurl an insult back at you, or should I somehow try to give a dignified response? I find it unsavory to do the former, and I'm just not clever enough for the latter.

 

[Yahcubs777]

How would you have me reply to that? Should I hurl an insult back at you, or should I somehow try to give a dignified response? I find it unsavory to do the former, and I'm just not clever enough for the latter.

You were the one that wanted to be sarcastic talking about the third grade. So i played along with your idea.

 

[rrobs]

You were the one that wanted to be sarcastic talking about the third grade. So i played along with your idea.

Well, maybe there was a misunderstanding. I was't being sarcastic about the third grade. That is not far from the actual grade level in which the Bible is written. I think it actually 5th or maybe 6th grade. The point is, it's not that hard to read. Most people are convinced it is, but it really isn't. It uses pretty simple grammar for the most part.