Genesis interpretations - how many are there?

[Drich]

I;m not sure why that should bother you.

Because you still don't get it.. my way We can have the bible word for word and still accept darwin's BS if we need that as well to pass to intolerant science class. This way no one is made to choose one or the other we can literally have a seven day creation and change absolutly NOTHING in the bible only the way we read it or the way we were taught to read it. the words stay the same the meaning and artificial time lines are removed.

  Nothing you have to say on the subject "jives with science" either..

Hey dummy everything CAN. with no time line between the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3 all of 'science' can fit well with in the garden narritive.

.but the rabbinic interpretation does have the benefit of stating that god is neither so stupid he would get this stuff wrong, nor so malicious that he would intentionally mislead the faithful.

 God no, but his well intentioned teachers? Jesus pointed out that was their biggest fault.. not understanding scripture.

Much of genesis is intentionally metaphoric...but of the rest....if we find that some item in the stories did not or could not have happened..what sense would it make to deny reality? 

we have historical documentation from secular sources for many of the things written in the bible. the king of babylon reordes sending armies to mine all of the bricks left over from the tower of bable to short cut his own building projects.

The ark is definitely doable if you honor how it was written and not add scientific narrative to change the flood events. Plus again you have to stick to what was written and not assume. we haven't had a walk through in recent month on noah.. want to know why? because the last time I shut you clowns down with plausible scientific truth... before you say something stupid look it up.

On that count..their interpretation "jives with science" to an immeasurably greater degree than your own..because it simply concedes that the world is at it is..regardless of how some poet chose to express the relationship between god, man, and the universe.  

God you are blind. my side does not change ANYTHING on EITHER SIDE!!! I do not change the 7 day literal account nor anything written in darwinism... The only thing I do is remove the unwritten time line. that's it. I also then show it is possible because the tradition reading of gen 1-chapter 3 is a chronological order. I obliterate that bad understanding by simply making chapter one include the 7th day of creation and allow chapter two to speak for it self meaning it start out by saying these events happened on 3 three after dry land but before day 4 when God made plants.. which means everythin in chapter two is the garden account that happened right after dry land and before plants, which can not be chronologically correct with the fall and chapter 3 as the fall would have happened during creation before day 6 man was ready to receive Adam's people. Once you can admit that the traditional reading and time lines are wrong anything can be place between the end of chapter 2 and the fall of man. Again not one word of either accounts need to change, only wrongly taught perception handed down by no thinking traditionalists. who value tradition over actual active worship of God.

You;ve failed to give me any reason not to accept that their story means what they say it does, or that it should be read in the manner they suggest. 

No i didn't .. if you were wanting to frame your words accuratly you should say i do not like or want to agree with your reasons.. You can not say I did not offer a reason. I did, in that the current understanding of this passage from a jewish perspective was hand down by a system the Jesus Christ Himself condemned and reviled. If again not good enough for Jesus Christ, not good enough for anyone who seeks to worship the God of the bible as Christ outlines. If that is not a reason for you personally so what... You are not being courted here. it is to those who have this question but do not ask it that seek the truth that i am responding to.

Airing your own personal grievances with the rabbinic tradition isn;t going to meet that bar.  

Do you wrongly ascribe the title Son of God to me? because again that is who had grievances with the rabbinic teachers of his day, which save a few customary differences teach the same thing today. Again to prove the point I gave you a whole chapter of Jesus railing on those who taught what you seek to preserve as the gold standard..

Why do you do it? because it s easy to google and find arguments that over turn the rabbinic explanation or they have compromised themselves so much in going with 'science' they have forsaken their worship of God. My way... your not smart enough to break my way. you can't google a easy argument, dawkins or carrier hasn't youtube a crap argument on what I've said. so you need the traditional explanation or you are left without a defence, at best you have to take a idk approach least you have me break you BS down and consume your beliefs with mine.

You;re a loon.  You have loon beliefs over and above the contents of magic book.  They are unnecessary, they are wrong, and it is foolish to saddle yourself or your  faith with them.

if I am sooo crazy (which ad hoc attack is the last desperate act of a failed intellect) why can't you meet me on the simple terms I've laid out here? again all I did was expose and remove an artificial time line the church places on said event which makes everything you want to believe fit the 7 day creation narrative. what the problem is fool? you get everything you want and the christian get to hold on to the 7 day creation.. Thought morons like you would be happen about this... you no longer have to try and take away someone's deeply held religious beliefs in order for them to be apart of your 'science club' that means more members for you!

---

wow all the dishonesty I pointed out and you feel your reputation will not suffer? what does that say about your peers? or what does it say about your honor here?what does it say about the level or desire to obtain truth? how can I repeatedly demonstrate a lack, or intentional failure of understanding like your supposed finding that God created Adam outside the garden and there was no need for a second narrative, when just two or three lines later he is laced right back in the garden you allude he had nothing to do with? yet that attempt at decite does not degrade you before others?

It is obvious you read everything how did you miss that? answer is you didn't.. you are intentionally trolling or grounding the topic.. Again that is a deceitful and dishonest practice that has been repeated at least 4 or 5 times this week!

I once held you to a higher standard than that. this puts you in line with some of the scummier people here. you don't care abot the topics or seeking the truth you are just looking for weakness.

what does it say to your peers when your accused weaknesses are beaten back and are forced down your throat by a person you hold in such little regard? 
you: Ooo Ooo Drich Adam was created outside the garden so your whole garden narritive is moot..

Me: DENIED Troll! Read verse 15 forward! Adam was placed in the garden hence the need for the second narritive!

You: Ooo Ooo I don't understand the term "head of the church to mean the authority of God so even though it is clear the nazi's sought to make hitler the head of the church I have this loop hole and will press it to make you look stupid.

Me: DENIED TROLL! Your failure to understand common Christian vocabulary points to your lack of basic christian understanding. The Nazi's know more of what the head of the church signifies Here are two book chapter and verses that show what the head of the church means to all of christendom. here is a vatican example of the acknowledgement of what the head of the church means.. your loop hole just became a noose

Even if you rep is not hurt by being dishonest you peer must look at you last two failures against someone like me. Someone looked down and reviled upon someone you all constantly portray as not meeting the education standard for being seen as a rival intelect. as a BIG fail on your part. after all if you can't hold you own against a stupid christian, then how can you claim the intellect you pretend to have?

Or.....  it could be that you're a deluded moron who thinks things that are not reasonable to believe.  Gee.  I wonder which is more reasonable?

senseability or a reasonable belief has to do with experience no? Do you honestly think I have live a mirror to your life, but simply unreasonably come to a different conclusion about God?

IDK what if EVERTHING I ever shared with you all was 100% to the best of my ability true? would it not then be reasonable FOR ME if I keep getting input and stimuli from what the bible describes as the Holy Spirit, to believe in God?

Reason/sensibility are variables which yield different levels of understanding and belief. if you have no exposure to God then yes it is reasonable for you to go down a certain path. however if you choose to ignore what God offers us/share with you the Holy Spirit, then that becomes the unreasonable bit

---

God didn;t write magic book, loon.

I'm the one that keeps telling you that. there is no magic here, it is only magic to those who do not understand the processes God used. I'm the one that says God is a being afar advanced from us and his efforts to dumb people look like magic. Your the moron who need God to be magic, inorder to keep your life's work in tact! I can have a magic God or a God of superior technology and science I don't need to think of God as a grand pa who trades wishes for good deeds. My god can be that if he wishes or he can be a trans dimensional alien who tech far exceeds our own and to mullet wearing retards it looks like magic when ever he does something. You are the magic man your the one who need to battle the idea of sorcerers. I don't. The God of the bible is the alpha and omega that is all the description we get, which means we can potentially fill in the blank as to who god is to us with anything. You however are locked in the bronze age because you can get your little mind around a magic sky daddy build by shepherds. and when corrected you literally keep returning to this specific well... look at yourself douche bag! seriously I am moving this conversation past your antiquated little man version of God and you keep coming back to it... is this the only way you can stay relevant? Is the goat herder god the only one you can refute? what happen doesn't dawkins or anyone else have a you tube video on how to mock a god any bigger than the magic man you keep referring to?