the so fallible Bible

[Drich]

Drich,
You are reacting as if you are talking to a fellow theist and we are arguing over interpretation. I am not a theist, so I reject the biblical account. What I am trying, still to do it to understand YOUR interpretation. My pride doesn't really come into it.

Actually it does when 'my interpretation' is dismissed outright without an attempt to understand it, on the grounds that it is different from what you understand Christianity to be.

Now I have to be honest and say you have completely lost me on the creation story. Am I to understand that you have withdrawn the previous statement that the whole thing is from an "as viewed from the garden perspective"?

No, Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:3 is a chronological account of the creation of this world. God sat the writer of Genesis in the middle of all of what was being created, and the writer wrote down what he saw as he saw it happen.

Genesis two to the end of genesis three has been written from a garden perspective only and is not in series with what was written as an over view in Gen 1. Meaning it is not in the order genesis 1 and the first couple of verses genesis 2 set fourth. It is an account of man made in the image of God, and the creation of the garden apart from everything else that happened in the initial account. The Garden and Man happened seperatly than what took place on the rest of the planet. Which furthers my theory.

If I have understood any of your writings you have previously claimed that chapter one is chronological and chapter 2 a more detailed, but not chronological account. This now appears to have reversed.

Not at all two separate accounts of two separate things. One the creation of the world and again as Genesis 2 starts out between day 2 and day 3 man was created and the Garden was created, before everything else was 'made.'

Moving on:

If I have created a strawman of your position it was not deliberately. What would be the point?

to find my work in error as to dismiss what I have said without serious consideration.

I am trying to understand your beliefs - have you not understood that?

The questions and time spent asking them leads me to believe this but what you have understood and your final premature conclusion speaks differently. Let say your efforts are alittle bit confusing.

At the same time I don't want you to think you might be able to convert me - its academic interest.

I can't convert anyone nor do I seek to try here. That is all on the Power of the Holy Spirit and the condition of your heart. All I am looking to do is answer the questions you ask to the best of my ablity.

To be honest this is not an argument, at all really, but it is not one you can win.

Then debate, call it like you see it.

All you can really do is show me that you have a logically consistent basis for your faith.

which is enough.

If I am going to be more honest still - I can't fathom a reason for you to do this, other than possibly solidifying your own position.

I am trying to be faithful to what I have been given. Nothing more.

This is not the first time I have done this - its my curiosity more than anything. You might want to confer with Godschild as I did it with him too.

again I'm not looking for anything from you, just the next question. When you stop I will stop.

Now, some of your other points:

Mary's examination:

Yes - I was aware of the law regarding confirming virginity. Whether or not it was actually applied I have no idea, nor do I know the level of conformity, nor how people "got round" the problem but I'd guess money changed hands when needed.

The fact that she was not stonned means she was checked. Look at what they were willing to do to Christ when he claimed to be God:

53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Now, and here' the problem, there is no account in any of the gospels of Mary's examination. This means either, the gospel is guilty of the error of omission, or, Mary was not examined.

That was not needed in that society, for if two or more people gave the same account then it was established as truth. Details like hymen exam would have been omitted in that society. Again the fact that she claimed to be a virgin mother made her a blasphemer and would have been stonned to death if her story could not have been verified.

Your story is based upon Mary showing (the much mentioned bump), which she may not have been.

So what she took a home prego test and that is how she knew? Remember two thousand years ago there were very few ways to verify pregnancy.

If Mary was examined and found to be still a virgin why would God send the angel to Joseph with the explanation?

She would not have been check till they were married or to be married. Before that Joseph would not have been able to check himself (nor did it seem like he wanted anything to do with her after he found out.)

Surely, on the other hand, having received and believed the explanation Joseph would not require any further proof.

I can't speak to the mind of Joseph and neither can you, but God can and He Gave Joseph what he needed to get back with Mary.

At the same time if Mary were examined and found to be both a virgin and with child, word would have got out. Remember we have the story of Herod panicking and murdering babies to try to stop the Messiah being born - how hard would it have been for him to find Mary if she has been examined?

Read that account again, Herod did not start to murder babies till after the wise men came to him looking for the new 'king.' This did not happen till after Christ was born.

So - for you to be correct we have an introduced error in the gospel (omission - yours), a risk of word getting out (which apparently it didn't), a functionless visit by and angel and a heightened risk of Jesus being killed at birth.

-Or for this to be correct you and your understanding of the chronology of Herod's rampage must be in error. In that Herod's rampage did not happen till after Christ was born. again remember it was the wisemen who triggered this rampage, and it wasn't till sometime after did an angel appear before joseph and told him to get out of there.

Just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Because you have taken your version of Christianity and are holding to it as if it were the absolute standard in which all other versions are measured by.

Catholicism:

Nicely dismissed there. That's a billion Christians who you imply have taken a wrong turning. Kinda feeds into my comment on how easy you find it to dismiss other Christian belief's.

Ask any catholic and they themselves will tell you that the pope's authority as a living apstole gives him the authority to change the bible. If the pope changes the bible then that version of Christianity is based on the papacy and not the bible. I said I have not spoken out against Any Bible based version of Christianity. Catholoism is not a biblical based form of Christianity. It's bases comes from the pope not the bible.

"Again, where have I made myself an expert? "

Erm......the mechanic with 20 years experience and me the lowly owner - ring any bells?

That is a relative term. What is a mechanic with 20 years in relation to an engineer with 20 years? what is a simple engineer with 20 years, compared to someone who hold several doctorates in the field being discussed?

All I was say there is that a mechanic with 20 years knows alittle more than what you do, in his field, however when compared to everyone else involved in his field he is the furthest link in that chain from being an 'expert.' Or rather the top expert in the line of work he is in.

The rest:

I'll skip the part where you tell me how to discuss with you too. Suffice to say I really don't think there were any real ad hom's in there for you to complain about. I find you strange. If I say that its not a personal attack.

One thing I do have to pick you up on is the definition of madness. Would that it were so easy to show a sufferer the absence of " logical or realistic patterns."

Often delusions are finely crafter over decades - they can be very difficult to puncture logically in any sense. At other times logical flaws can be exposed - but getting the sufferer to recognise them as logical flaws can be almost impossible.

Again the goal is to simply get you to address the logical flaws with a decernable and defensiable standard, rather than a move to dismissal.

---

According to who's standard?

According to the bible, god's.

God gave mankind the knowledge of right and wring despite it being of poor quality. Adam and Eve immediately covered their nakedness because they thought it was wrong after eating the magical fanciful fruit. How it was "wrong" to be naked when god had them perfect and "right" to cover their naughty bits from god's view afterward is not explained. However it is said that the quality of morals obtained was equal to god's.

Gen 3 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Eat cake!

Adam and eve covered their nakedness because of what happens to a man when in the presents of a naked woman. Adam was covered to cover his errection and eve was covered to prevent Adam from having one. why? Because it would be difficult to say the least to pretend everything is as it was. They were trying to hide from God what they did.