Conflicting statements in the bible

[A_Nony_Mouse]

What kind of point of view is it that gets the order of creation different?

Adam's. When he was created,

When he was created there either was or was not a (hopefully) hot chick with him. As a man I can say I would have noticed her presence or absence.

---

What kind of point of view is it that gets the order of creation different?

Adam's. When he was created, he was put in a garden. Then, animals were shown to him. He didn't know if they were created before him or after him, he doesn't explicitly say either, and it wasn't important to him.

So the clown was so stupid he did not know the difference between Eve not existing and Eve getting him a beer?

You believers are so fucking stupid! Here all I raise are the obvious contradictions and your answers show the totally insane naming process only 6000 years ago, long after humans appeared in the Americas. As I SAID I will accept NO mutually exclusive explanations.

This response expects me to accept, in this one case, the creationist BS claim of a young earth to explain what is clearly impossible. Get your heads in order if you want to discuss the matter.

There WAS NO ADAM viewpoint because he never existed. There WAS NO EDEN because it never existed. NOTHING in either story makes a lick of sense, is all crap created by no one knows who, and you are all trying to explain the obvious contradictions by assuming there is something factual in the content.

Will you folks ever grow up?

---

How about the same story from different points of view?

That's how I see it. Two different people telling the same general story with differing agendas, which were later put together with little concern over whether the fine details matched or not.

There was no Adam. There was no Eve. There was no garden. Different agendas and a real shit editor is the only explanation.

---

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

The only trees mentioned in Gen 2:4-9 are those specifically in the Garden of Eden. It says nothing about these being the first trees created. You read that in because you want to see contradiction.

I did not want to find contradictions. I only raised these because they should be so bloody obvious that no one could imagine such things as you suggest such that animals had no names until 6000 years ago. What a waste of speech. The really interesting problems such as only 6000 years seem to be beyond the grasp of believers. Therefore I tried to KISS, Keep It Simple for the Stupid.

The issue is solely that there are contradictions. Contradictions cannot be explained by treating Adam, Eve, Eden and ANY of the rest as recountings of real events.

Was I not clear?

---

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/co...ounts.html


P.S. It notes that "jesus" says the first one is "correct." Which means that the second one, at least, may be wrong.


Of course, both ignore the fact that both are total horseshit invented by primitive fuckwits and still accepted as fact by fuckwits today.

Yet the believers are arguing that it is possible to have different viewpoints of a totally fictional event. The mind boggles.

---

Well, lets look at another famous "contradiction". (not really a contradiction per se but certainly unexplainable within the context of genesis.)

God creates adam and eve, they pork and have 2 sons. The sons are then sent off to far-away lands to "be fruitful and multiply".

Who, exactly did they multiply with?

This is not a contradiction in that one part of the bible says this and another part says that. It is a logical contradiction in that, according to the bible, there were only 4 people on earth at the time yet the sons were sent off and married to....who?

If believers ever get an education they will probably start claiming it was with Neanderthals and then come up with elaborate examples of inability to reason to fit them into the story which they should have agreed was a myth in the first place.

They can never keep track of where they are in their rationalizations.

---

Well, lets look at another famous "contradiction". (not really a contradiction per se but certainly unexplainable within the context of genesis.)

God creates adam and eve, they pork and have 2 sons. The sons are then sent off to far-away lands to "be fruitful and multiply".

Who, exactly did they multiply with?

This is not a contradiction in that one part of the bible says this and another part says that. It is a logical contradiction in that, according to the bible, there were only 4 people on earth at the time yet the sons were sent off and married to....who?

This is a very common error - reading "only" in where it isn't there. BTW, you should actually read it sometime, you have some details wrong.

In my native language, English, the word only in this context means all that is to be read. Whose imaginings of what is not there shall govern? Do not forget it is all young earth creationist crap to begin with. I know you would like to forget that.

Anyone and everyone who defends the Eden story in any way or defends any aspect of either creation story is a whacko. Anyone who wants to argue recent creation start a thread and invite us. Do not expect polite replies to creationist explanations.

---

Friedrich Nietzsche is dead ... GOD

But Nietzsche knows it.