Conflicting statements in the bible

[A_Nony_Mouse]

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.

As the first man you would have noticed her presence, but it's doubtful you would notice the absence of something that had never as yet existed.

One story says created at the same time. The other says at different times. She was either there or not there. If the former she was there with Adam. In that latter not there. Trust me. A guy would notice a hot chick.

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

See above.

Pay closer attention. This is about two versions of the same myth which differ in significant details. It is still not clear to me why believers have such an issue about two different versions of the same myth. Who would expect the to be the same in the first place?

You believers are so fucking stupid!

Er, you're the one who thinks people should notice the absence of something that never existed, and you're calling us stupid?

You have never read both stories have you.

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.

Red herring much?

Knowing the two stories are about mythical people and events is hardly a red herring.

---

Remember what I said about mutually exclusive and contradictory? If not scroll back.

I will take your poorly thought out excuse fact. The OTHER children which you think you were clever to invent, living outside the garden, had already been expelled from the garden for no know reason.

Your problem is now to reconcile being kicked out, voluntarily leaving with the Tale of Two Trees. Please impress me with your creativity. I need something to keep my attention after all the lame crap so far.

Huh? Ch 5 tells us A&E had other sons and daughters beside the few who were named after being expelled from the garden.

The Cane and Abel myth is separate from any additional mythological details added later in a different story. The issue is solely the consistency among the myths. It has nothing to do with they nonsense assumption any of it is other than myth.

---

I can't be bothered to read through any thread where bible quotes are likely to abound. But, out of curiosity, can anyone tell me if someone has actually argued that the bible is devoid of conflicting statements? Or is this more a thread to share your favorite ones?

The believers are arguing there are no contradictions in the bible fiction. One of the most obvious things is that the authors who created this anthology were in desperate need of several good editors.

---

It appears the dropping brain damage includes your inability to comprehend time. C&A are AFTER being kicked out. Every bible hugger declares they were the first children of A&E -- you are stuck with that story else you can claim to be a new prophet with a new revelation. If so I demand to know your authority.

Yes, Cain and Able are after the fall, how is that relevant to who Cain had children with? Did I miss something here? Are you getting your conversations confused?

The myth has it they were commanded to fuck like bunnies. But there is no mention of fruit eating children so Eve was not pregnant at the time the snake explained the lie of their god. (Your god would not expel an innocent fetus would it? It was conceived before there was sin to be passed on.) Therefore all children were conceived after expulsion. Some of them must have traveled off to a place they named Nod before the C&A myth supposedly occurs.

In Nod there were nothing but degenerate inbred people from the same parents. So maybe the author didn't know anything about breeding animals which is always a possibility. However this was not described as a contradiction but rather a remark in passing.

But since you agree to LATER ON lets run with that. Do you have the least comprehension of the consequences of totally inbred incest? I assume you are not.

Do you know why incestuous relationships can sometimes lead to birth defects? Obviously not if you think it would have led to them back then.

It always happens if one constantly inbreeds the offspring of the same to parents. It will take a few generations but they will all eventually die out. So the story was not created to reflect any kind of reality but of myth only. You can run further with the "mark of Cain" and note his brothers and sisters and his own children would try to kill him. But as he is described as the son of A&E he is first generation only his parents might also join in the administration of justice. And of course the god in the story appears to have no problem with murder. So clearly the storyteller had no intention of even attempting to recite other than a myth.

sons and daughters of A&E must have migrated to Nod many generations before Cane was born.

Why? The text never says Cain was not married when he left to go to Nod. It simply says he conceived his first child while in Nod.

Lands do not get names until people go there and name them. He is first generation. Who else is the story suggesting might have been there to marry?

[quotes]

WHEN did they migrate from Eden to Nod? There are many other problems which your explanation must address although the absence of a breeding population that applies to A&E also applies to Nod.

…only if you do not actually know why incest can cause birth defects; it would not have been an issue for them.[/quote]

I could explain it to you but you can as easily google it. Look for minimum sizes of breeding populations.

Is this not enough for you crazy young earth creationists?

No, your displayed ignorance of basic genetic principles is not enough for me to change my position.

Perhaps you could suggest some URLs which support your apparent belief that a breeding population of two will lead to a stable population instead of dying out.