Regarding 'Creation Stories'

[PruePhillip]

Genesis should be read literally.
.

And it is. But you ignore my point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And it is. But you ignore my point.

Oops, sorry, somehow a word was missing from that post. I fixed it.

And I do not think that you have a point. Genesis is incredibly wrong if read at all literally. One cannot count the few hits and ignore the even worse misses.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Actually that was all that you did. Can you reason properly? And by that way, you are now bearing false witness against your neighbor.

If you think I took verses out of context then show me how.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

But it does not claim that. You did not understand the verses you quoted earlier.

You keep saying that but offer no explanation of the verses. So, please show how I do not understand the verses in question.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[PruePhillip]

Oops, sorry, somehow a word was missing from that post. I fixed it.

And I do not think that you have a point. Genesis is incredibly wrong if read at all literally. One cannot count the few hits and ignore the even worse misses.

What's the "hits"
Where are the "misses"?
I feel that "lack of specifics" ought to be considered a logic fallacy.

GOOD OLE REBEL would understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you think I took verses out of context then show me how.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Actually since you tried to use them the burden of proof is upon you. You don't seem to have an ability to understand your errors when they are explained to you. You were grasping at straws. Your verses were so weak that even you knew it, you were trying to BS your way out of an argument. Please note that all you did was to give their number. I could see why. When written out your failure was obvious.

Try to make a proper argument and I will refute it. All that was required for that weak -donkeyed garbage you gave was a statement of the fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's the "hits"
Where are the "misses"?
I feel that "lack of specifics" ought to be considered a logic fallacy.

GOOD OLE REBEL would understand.

One example of a miss was that plant life existed before the Sun. Heck, night and day existed before the Sun. Huge Miss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep saying that but offer no explanation of the verses. So, please show how I do not understand the verses in question.

Good-Ole-Rebel

No, once again you only posted numbers. The verses were so weak that you did not do your homework and quote the verses with a link. When you make a lazy argument a lazy refutation is all that you get.

Try again. Quote the verses, offer a link and context. As it stands your lame argument was refuted.

 

[sooda]

If you think I took verses out of context then show me how.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Genesis has two creation stories .. One from Judea and one from Israel. They were cobbled together during the time of King Omri.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genesis has two creation stories .. One from Judea and one from Israel. They were cobbled together during the time of King Omri.

Shhh! Don't confuse them with history. They are having too tough of a time understanding even their small mistakes

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Actually since you tried to use them the burden of proof is upon you. You don't seem to have an ability to understand your errors when they are explained to you. You were grasping at straws. Your verses were so weak that even you knew it, you were trying to BS your way out of an argument. Please note that all you did was to give their number. I could see why. When written out your failure was obvious.

Try to make a proper argument and I will refute it. All that was required for that weak -donkeyed garbage you gave was a statement of the fact.

The verses prove exactly what I wanted to prove. The Bible declares itself as the Word of God. You say that is taken out of context. That is your accusation. You need to show how I have supposedly taken it out of context. The burden is yours, not mine.

Iv'e seen this before. People use 'buzz phrases' such as 'out of context' or 'cherry picking' when they disagree with the verses given as said verses are against them. But when asked to explain how this is out of context or is cherry picking, they have no answer. Why? Because they don't know context from a hole in the wall.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No, once again you only posted numbers. The verses were so weak that you did not do your homework and quote the verses with a link. When you make a lazy argument a lazy refutation is all that you get.

Try again. Quote the verses, offer a link and context. As it stands your lame argument was refuted.

All you have to do is read. If you disagree with the verses, show me why?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Audie]

Shhh! Don't confuse them with history. They are having too tough of a time understanding even their small mistakes

Tough time? Totally incapable or understanding
even their smallest and least significant.

Sheesh, god,bible, angels, 6 day poof and all of
that could be totally true, without every silly
creo-notion like flash frozen mammoths being true.

But a creo-though, once thunk, becomes sacred
scrp, and can neither be jotted, nor tittled.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Genesis has two creation stories .. One from Judea and one from Israel. They were cobbled together during the time of King Omri.

There are two accounts of the Creation Story. One goes into more detail concerning man. (Gen. 2)

I don't know where you get 'one from Judea and one from Israel' from.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Audie]

There are two accounts of the Creation Story. One goes into more detail concerning man. (Gen. 2)

I don't know where you get 'one from Judea and one from Israel' from.

Good-Ole-Rebel

A little more education and you would not have to ask.

A little more careful reading and you'd notice the two
accounts are contradictory.

 

[PruePhillip]

One example of a miss was that plant life existed before the Sun. Heck, night and day existed before the Sun. Huge Miss.

You would have trouble deciphering ancient hieroglyphics or pictograms?
If it wasn't plain as day you would be stumped?

How about the eytmology of the word Jerusalem in ancient texts:
Ruslam? Is that 'Jerusalem', - no, can't be.
Urasalem, how about that? - no, can't be Jerusalem, it doesn't read J.E.R.U.S.A.L.E.M.''

Genesis is a very ancient text, translated many times and transmitted orally before that.
And it's overlaid with theological language.

But underneath, you can discern, if you have an open mind.

The early earth was a cloud planet, like Venus today. And Titan today.
And the early earth was purely oceanic, like Kevin Costner's Waterworld.

The darkness over the deep wasn't because there was no sun, it was because the earth
was shrouded in a massive cloud deck. That's what NASA believes. Yes, it says in another
place after there was "light" that God created the sun and moon, whatever. But that's just
repeats - like you find when you are deciphering clay tablets, secret codes, scraps of texts
and the like.

1 - God created the heavens (meaning everything above)
2 - and the earth (everything down here - except life as it was sterile)
3 - and it was wet, no land
4 - and it was dark (no sun ---- at least, no sun shining on the waters)

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

A little more education and you would not have to ask.

A little more careful reading and you'd notice the two
accounts are contradictory.

I see no contradiction. As I said, one goes into more detail concerning man. In fact, that is the purpose of the second account. It does not try and give a full account of the six day creation.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Audie]

I see no contradiction. As I said, one goes into more detail concerning man. In fact, that is the purpose of the second account. It does not try and give a full account of the six day creation.

Good-Ole-Rebel

What you choose to see is not especially
relevant to what is actually there beyond
your sight or comprehension.

I will leave it to those who will, to show you the
contradictions.

As for me, I am satisfied that since you cannot see
the problem for "flood" when there is polar ice
more than two million years old, it is no use to
show you anything that does not suit you.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

What you choose to see is not especially
relevant to what is actually there beyond
your sight or comprehension.

I will leave it to those who will, to show you the
contradictions.

As for me, I am satisfied that since you cannot see
the problem for "flood" when there is polar ice
more than two million years old, it is no use to
show you anything that does not suit you.

I see.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Audie]

I see.

Good-Ole-Rebel

So you say.