(May 2, 2013 at 1:10 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Then please fill me in on the details I have wrong.

The command to be fruitful was given to A&E, the sons weren't sent away (although Cain did leave) for example.

Quote:To me it seems simple. Genesis gives no account of others being created so "only" is a perfectly logical assumption.

There's no requirement that every child born be mentioned. Your logic isn't simple, it's simplistic.

Quote:BTW, I have read it, I just don't have it memorized.

You ought to brush up on it before discussing it. Only takes a few minutes.

(May 2, 2013 at 5:35 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(May 1, 2013 at 11:56 pm)Godschild Wrote: OK, let's get something straight here, many on this site want to call chapter two the second creation instead of the same story in greater detail.

The same story with different detail. You can't get much more specific than changing which comes before the other in one and reversing the order in the other.

Now I know for sure the doctor dropped you on your head, so it's not your fault you not able to see the truth, however you should stay away from these simple debates and find something simpler, before you completely ruin your mind.

(May 2, 2013 at 1:19 pm)John V Wrote: There's no requirement that every child born be mentioned. Your logic isn't simple, it's simplistic.

Quote:BTW, I have read it, I just don't have it memorized.

You ought to brush up on it before discussing it. Only takes a few minutes.

You are right about no requirement but since everything being discussed occurred in the garden or it's immediate vicinity, don't you think it might be worth mentioning if god had fucked off to another part of the world and created a bunch more people?

(May 2, 2013 at 1:33 am)Minimalist Wrote: I'm surprised you aren't locked up in a padded cell for your own protection.

If I were to be, I could be paroled to the sandbox where I would have to spend the rest of my days with you, and sir that would be hell.

(May 2, 2013 at 2:52 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 1:33 am)Minimalist Wrote: I'm surprised you aren't locked up in a padded cell for your own protection.

If I were to be, I could be paroled to the sandbox where I would have to spend the rest of my days with you, and sir that would be hell.

Tread softly False Profit, you may just end up in that box yet. He he he...

(May 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: 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?

First of all you should actually read and understand what you've read before crying contradiction. Able was killed by Cain, Able never married. Important fact you missed, and you are trying to use a dead man to come up with a contradiction, I'm not saying it is but it looks like a con being planned. Second the Garden of Eden was off limits to all humans, the curse of sin was brought into the world by Adam and Eve that caused this to be.
Now how do you know there were only four people in the world when Cain killed Able, scripture says Adam and Eve had many children, both male and female. We are not told anything about how old the brothers were when the murder took place.
Adam and Eve lived several hundred according to scripture and scripture says nothing about when their children were born. It does however point toward Cain and Able being the first two born.
With what the scriptures state we can only come to the conclusion that Cain married one of his sisters and actually the scriptures point to the brothers and sisters of Adam and Eve marrying and having children and those children were grown before Cain was sent away by God.

Oh! Well that clears up everything. I think we all can agree that this has been settled. The bible has no contradictions. Thanks for clearing this up for us GC! Now we can move on to the other crazy bullshit that book is has in it.
"It's not the parts of The Bible I don't understand that bother me, its the parts I do understand!"
-Mark Twain

First of all you should actually read and understand what you've read before crying contradiction.

Sorry - but to claim that there are NO contradictions in the bible is just as MUCH a LIE as to claim some are - when there are explanations.

Now - there are a number of Major Contradictions of the bible- that cannot be explained away -

Among them - the two blood lines of the christ - in Matthew and Luke - BOTH cannot be true.(ANd worse - neither are true if you believe the christ is the son of god) But - it requires that we understand how the people of that time understood procreation. At that time - the bloodline ONLY went through MALES - father to son - because it was believed that the Father supplied the SEED of the male son - and the mother was only the "dirt" that the seed was planted in - and had no direct BLOOD relation to her son. This was to recognize that a babies blood supply is separate and can even be different type - than the mother.

Problem #1

The genealogy of Matthew descends through a CURSED line -Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and his father Jehoiakim were both cursed by God himself, who said that neither of these men would have any descendent on the throne of David. - so this line CONTRADICTS the curse from the Old Testament. (Jeremiah 22)

Problem #2

Both lines end in JOSEPH - who we KNOW by the story had NO blood relation to the christ at all. (The bible specifically states that they had NO marital relations before the birth of the christ) Even if you claim that one of them is really the blood line of MARY - the Jews did not consider a woman to be in the bloodline. (And of course - since MARY is not mentioned - that is another addition theists like to add)

Problem #3

Even if the blood line of Luke - is the blood line of MARY - then Jesus would have descended through Nathan, not Solomon, making the prophecies in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles 22:10 false.

Problem #4

If, using the genealogy in Luke, Jesus's claim to descent from David, of the tribe of Judah, is through Mary rather than Joseph then how can it be that Mary's cousin, Elizabeth, was descended from the house of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5)?

Problem #5

However - the biggest problem is that the christ is claimed to be the son of the god - and has NO bloodline connection to any male human.

There are many others

Why does the christ misquote the Old Testament - when it is supposed to be "his" word (One god supposedly)? 22 Matthew 4:10 versus Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 11:10 versus Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:16 versus Psalm 8:2; Luke 4:17-21 versus Isaiah 61:1-2.

Why are there clear conflicts in the bible stories (Especially genesis) - with reality?

How about the Luke and Matthew stories of the christ supposedly in the desert - and the devil took him to a HIGH place where he could see ALL the kingdoms of the world. As we know - and the christ would have to know - that is NOT possible. In fact - there is no such place on earth from where you could see all the kingdoms mentioned in the bible before that.

And the problem with those two stories is - where did Luke and Matthew get the story from - there were only two supposedly there.- the christ and the devil. Both of them would have known that there was NO such place.
IF the story came from the christ - why did he LIE about it. IF the story came from the devil - then we question the source of the bible as being the word of god.

(May 2, 2013 at 4:19 pm)ThomM Wrote: Sorry - but to claim that there are NO contradictions in the bible is just as MUCH a LIE as to claim some are - when there are explanations.

I hope to God you knew I was being sarcastic!
Those problems you listed were well spotted, however, they are only problems for people that view the bible as something to be taken seriously. Kinda like those Trekkies at comicon that point out in inconsistencies with the Klingon language and plot points on TV shows!

(May 2, 2013 at 11:45 am)John V Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 11:05 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: 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.

---

(May 2, 2013 at 11:45 am)John V Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 11:05 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: 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?

---

(May 2, 2013 at 11:39 am)Tonus Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 10:20 am)John V Wrote: 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.

---

(May 2, 2013 at 12:14 pm)John V Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 11:05 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: 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?

---

(May 2, 2013 at 12:38 pm)Minimalist Wrote: 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.

---

(May 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: 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.

---

(May 2, 2013 at 1:00 pm)John V Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: 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.

---

(May 2, 2013 at 2:52 pm)Godschild Wrote: Friedrich Nietzsche is dead ... GOD

But Nietzsche knows it.