(August 9, 2012 at 3:20 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

I'm genuinely not sure whether to like Clinton or not. I want to, theres something just intrinsically likeable about the man.
I don't really know much about politics. I know he gave Fox a good kicking but then Hitchens *hated* the guy, called him a war criminal and hes always had his finger on the pulse of all things political. Hitch was always, if nothing else, brutally honest to the last.

(August 9, 2012 at 12:50 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: Our Word says that our Lord created the earth and plants on day 3 and the sun and stars on day 4.

What the problem is? Light was created on the first day...

Quote:[*] Godless heathen science says that the sun is older than our earth.

The same ones that said pluto was a planet and then a few years ago it wasn't? or was it the ones that said there was going to be a mini Ice age by 2000 because of the 'polution' we were dumping in the atmosphere, and then in 2000 subjected us to global warming till 2005-09 when we had record winters they changed it again to 'global climate change?' Or the ones who claimed there was a hole in the Ozone due to our addiction to Cfc's. then the hole closed before all the bans took effect???

So how did thee 'scientists' they determine the age of the sun, did they cut it open and count the rings? or did they simply stare into it till it "Dawned on them?"

Quote:[*] So why are you trying to reconcile the Word with science when they clearly get such simple things wrong?

We (our scientists) can help if we do not truly explain how the universe works. We only been trying to figure things out for a few hundred years.

---

(August 9, 2012 at 12:28 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(August 9, 2012 at 12:18 pm)Drich Wrote: But if God made Adam and Eve and set them to replenish then their task would be to replenish what God created in his own image, which were Adam and Eve! Or am I missing something?

The entire point. What you just described is a complete paradox and defies the definition of replenish.
You cannot replenish something that hasn't been.
God is not part of mankind. Adam and Eve are supposedly the first, if this is the case then when Adam and Eve are created mankind was not replenished. Created? Yes. Born? Yes. Acquired? Maybe. Replenished? No.
Mankind supposedly hadn't existed before, you can't replenish something you've never had.
(Not sure why I'm arguing for catfishs point but I'd wager I'm doing it better than he would have.)

The word in Hebrew is:

מלא male'

1) to fill, be full

a) (Qal)

1) to be full

a) fulness, abundance (participle)

b) to be full, be accomplished, be ended

2) to consecrate, fill the hand

b) (Niphal)

1) to be filled, be armed, be satisfied

2) to be accomplished, be ended

c) (Piel)

1) to fill

2) to satisfy

3) to fulfil, accomplish, complete

4) to confirm

d) (Pual) to be filled

e) (Hithpael) to mass themselves against

Do you need me to explain further or do you see the problem with holding the text to your understanding of the translated word?

Everyone, I present to you Reverend Karl Pilkington.

---

(August 10, 2012 at 9:38 pm)Drich Wrote: The word in Hebrew is:

מלא male'

1) to fill, be full

a) (Qal)

1) to be full

a) fulness, abundance (participle)

b) to be full, be accomplished, be ended

2) to consecrate, fill the hand

b) (Niphal)

1) to be filled, be armed, be satisfied

2) to be accomplished, be ended

c) (Piel)

1) to fill

2) to satisfy

3) to fulfil, accomplish, complete

4) to confirm

d) (Pual) to be filled

e) (Hithpael) to mass themselves against

Do you need me to explain further or do you see the problem with holding the text to your understanding of the translated word?

Then it shouldn't use the word "replenished" then? Should it?
Thats the wrong word to use.
Why am I getting shit for the silly little errors of theists? You're presenting this to me like I'm the guy who wrote the word in there.
You take it up with the people who translated it as opposed to making smarmy little comments here.
Fuck sake.

Plus if theres that many translations like that which could be taken any which way then what value is The Bible?
You could pretty much interpret it any way you want depending on what translation you buy into and then you have different interpretations on each one.
Its ridiculous.

(August 9, 2012 at 12:49 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(August 9, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Drich Wrote: Maybe i'll open a saterical account as an atheist (D' Wretch) and start posting some of the blantly hyprocrisies and general hate for God that all good non-believers of God are supposed to have. (appearently)

That sounds hilarious, go ahead.
You spelt apparently wrong by the way... even though spell-check would of underlined it before you posted it.

Honestly, I was but there is a conflict with repersenting myself that way or making fun of what you (atheist) believe.(to that degree) I do not think that is right. Just because I do not believe what you do, does not mean your belief is any less important than mine is. It is what you need to believe now, and it will be a part of the sum total of who you will become, and ultimatly how your are judged. I needed my experience in Atheism and needed to see it to it's logical conclusion, in order to move forward...

(August 10, 2012 at 9:53 pm)Drich Wrote:

(August 9, 2012 at 12:49 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: That sounds hilarious, go ahead.
You spelt apparently wrong by the way... even though spell-check would of underlined it before you posted it.

Honestly, I was but there is a conflict with repersenting myself that way or making fun of what you (atheist) believe.(to that degree) I do not think that is right. Just because I do not believe what you do, does not mean your belief is any less important than mine is. It is what you need to believe now, and it will be a part of the sum total of who you will become, and ultimatly how your are judged. I needed my experience in Atheism and needed to see it to it's logical conclusion, in order to move forward...

Translation: "I have no sense of humour."

Aside from the fact I don't believe in anything you make the mistake of thinking anyone here cares if people rip us alittle. We laugh at shit like that.
... you also misspelled ultimately by the way... just saying...

[quote='RaphielDrake' pid='321824' dateline='1344649494']

Quote:Then it shouldn't use the word "replenished" then? Should it?
Thats the wrong word to use.

You guys always ask why there are so many different bibles.. This is why. Because of who and how the word is 'interpreted.' Most main stream bibles are 'literal' tranlations. meaning if a word written in the orginal is recognized as a given word in english then it is translated literally even if the interpreted meaning may give a different meaning than what ther orginal intended. That is why we have: study bibles, abridged, various dominationally specific bibles, and easy to read versions.

Litterally translated bibles or traditional bibles, require more than just a casual reading for a deeper understanding.

(August 10, 2012 at 10:06 pm)Drich Wrote: Litterally translated bibles or traditional bibles, require more than just a casual reading for a deeper understanding.

False

(August 10, 2012 at 10:06 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote='RaphielDrake' pid='321824' dateline='1344649494']

Quote:Then it shouldn't use the word "replenished" then? Should it?
Thats the wrong word to use.

You guys always ask why there are so many different bibles.. This is why. Because of who and how the word is 'interpreted.' Most main stream bibles are 'literal' tranlations. meaning if a word written in the orginal is recognized as a given word in english then it is translated literally even if the interpreted meaning may give a different meaning than what ther orginal intended. That is why we have: study bibles, abridged, various dominationally specific bibles, and easy to read versions.

Litterally translated bibles or traditional bibles, require more than just a casual reading for a deeper understanding.

As I understand it the original version of the bible, assuming it is indeed the original, could be interpreted many different ways even if read in its native language.
Do you deny this?

(August 10, 2012 at 9:56 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(August 10, 2012 at 9:53 pm)Drich Wrote: Honestly, I was but there is a conflict with repersenting myself that way or making fun of what you (atheist) believe.(to that degree) I do not think that is right. Just because I do not believe what you do, does not mean your belief is any less important than mine is. It is what you need to believe now, and it will be a part of the sum total of who you will become, and ultimatly how your are judged. I needed my experience in Atheism and needed to see it to it's logical conclusion, in order to move forward...

Translation: "I have no sense of humour."

Aside from the fact I don't believe in anything you make the mistake of thinking anyone here cares if people rip us alittle. We laugh at shit like that.
... you also misspelled ultimately by the way... just saying...

I misspell lots of things..