The quote thing is turning into a nightmare. I'll start afresh:
"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."
Well whichever it is it does not agree with physics/astronomy etc. so I'll pass. Its obvious you are happy with it - fine.
In response to:
"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."
You wrote"
"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."
Again, based upon the assumption that it was obvious she was pregnant. As far as I know they wore mainly loose fitting clothes (no Lycra) and we don't know how pregnant she was anyway.
PS - not a very impressive story of Jesus - hid and ran away?
Anyway - remember this is a Jewish society, not a Christian one so the assumption of guilt is not yet valid.
So if she didn't show she was assumed not to be pregnant (unless marrying someone important).
In response to:
"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."
You wrote:
"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."
Which society? There is no reason to believe they had Victorian morals when the story was written. It wouldn't have to be pornographic - just a statement that she was examined, by a midwife for example, and found to be still a virgin.
If it was common practice no-one would have batted an eye-lid. Doesn't seem reasonable.
In response to:
Your story is based upon Mary showing (the much mentioned bump), which she may not have been.
You wrote:
"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"
I missed off the smiley - glad it was there. Are 2 men really now going to discuss how a woman knows she is pregnant before she shows? Suffice to say my wife knew she was pregnant almost instantly and we only confirmed it with a test (and a visit to a gynaecologist). She also didn't start to show until about the 4th or 5th month.
4 missed periods are more than enough evidence, actually 2 are.
The next 2 points refer to Joseph. I can't be bothered with all the copying now.
Anyway - you are saying God's angel came to Joseph before the test. Again - if he was convinced the test wasn't necessary. As far as I know it would only have been him, or his family that would have been able to raise the issue of her not being a virgin.
Judaism is like that - only the interested parties have a claim.
"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."
The timing is not the issue. Herod is looking for the son of God. He asks around to find out anything of interest. An account turns up of a virgin being pregnant. I think he would have found his man/woman/baby.
There is no way Mary would have wanted to call attention to herself. Again - doesn't make sense.
This addresses the chronology and leaves the issues you didn't address:
"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..."
Continuing
"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."
I can only reply "whatever" to that one. That's a billion Catholics left on the side plus, I guess the Jehovah's Witnesses and whoever else.
Getting much smaller your Christianity isn't it. Its starting to look like atheists actually outnumber you.
At this rate those 144,000 Jews in heaven will have the majority.
Skip the clever switch to a lowly mechanic and we get to my dismissal of your arguments which seems to cause so much upset.
There are 2 levels to this:
The first - where I dismiss the lot is that I don't believe in God so none of it makes any sense.
The second is when I don my "Pretend to be a Christian" cap and go off what I have read, understood (or otherwise) and experienced from other Christians.
Now the former shouldn't upset you - it goes with the territory.
The latter - well its got to be a fairly useful exercise for you. You never know I might highlight an error you recognise here or there.
Oh - and you didn't write this to me but:
"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."
Clever, but as the plan was always for them to have sex (Adam's speech to Eve after she was created) its unlikely that sexual attraction was in the fruit. He probably walked round with a boner most of the time.
"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."
Well whichever it is it does not agree with physics/astronomy etc. so I'll pass. Its obvious you are happy with it - fine.
In response to:
"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."
You wrote"
"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."
Again, based upon the assumption that it was obvious she was pregnant. As far as I know they wore mainly loose fitting clothes (no Lycra) and we don't know how pregnant she was anyway.
PS - not a very impressive story of Jesus - hid and ran away?
Anyway - remember this is a Jewish society, not a Christian one so the assumption of guilt is not yet valid.
So if she didn't show she was assumed not to be pregnant (unless marrying someone important).
In response to:
"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."
You wrote:
"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."
Which society? There is no reason to believe they had Victorian morals when the story was written. It wouldn't have to be pornographic - just a statement that she was examined, by a midwife for example, and found to be still a virgin.
If it was common practice no-one would have batted an eye-lid. Doesn't seem reasonable.
In response to:
Your story is based upon Mary showing (the much mentioned bump), which she may not have been.
You wrote:
"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"
I missed off the smiley - glad it was there. Are 2 men really now going to discuss how a woman knows she is pregnant before she shows? Suffice to say my wife knew she was pregnant almost instantly and we only confirmed it with a test (and a visit to a gynaecologist). She also didn't start to show until about the 4th or 5th month.
4 missed periods are more than enough evidence, actually 2 are.
The next 2 points refer to Joseph. I can't be bothered with all the copying now.
Anyway - you are saying God's angel came to Joseph before the test. Again - if he was convinced the test wasn't necessary. As far as I know it would only have been him, or his family that would have been able to raise the issue of her not being a virgin.
Judaism is like that - only the interested parties have a claim.
"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."
The timing is not the issue. Herod is looking for the son of God. He asks around to find out anything of interest. An account turns up of a virgin being pregnant. I think he would have found his man/woman/baby.
There is no way Mary would have wanted to call attention to herself. Again - doesn't make sense.
This addresses the chronology and leaves the issues you didn't address:
"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..."
Continuing
"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."
I can only reply "whatever" to that one. That's a billion Catholics left on the side plus, I guess the Jehovah's Witnesses and whoever else.
Getting much smaller your Christianity isn't it. Its starting to look like atheists actually outnumber you.
At this rate those 144,000 Jews in heaven will have the majority.
Skip the clever switch to a lowly mechanic and we get to my dismissal of your arguments which seems to cause so much upset.
There are 2 levels to this:
The first - where I dismiss the lot is that I don't believe in God so none of it makes any sense.
The second is when I don my "Pretend to be a Christian" cap and go off what I have read, understood (or otherwise) and experienced from other Christians.
Now the former shouldn't upset you - it goes with the territory.
The latter - well its got to be a fairly useful exercise for you. You never know I might highlight an error you recognise here or there.
Oh - and you didn't write this to me but:
"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."
Clever, but as the plan was always for them to have sex (Adam's speech to Eve after she was created) its unlikely that sexual attraction was in the fruit. He probably walked round with a boner most of the time.
