the so fallible Bible

[max-greece]

---

Oh boy Drich - you have so gone off into the deep end on this one its just impossible to know where to start.

Now the story of creation is not the story of creation but the account as it would have been seen from the garden.

I have not gone anywhere this has been my position from the beginning.. and here we go again. Because what I say does not fit your idea of theology you say I am the crazy one, rather than even considering questioning your own understandings. If the roles where reversed and you knew the God of the bible, and you said something like this to me, and it that totally altered my understanding of a foundational belief of what I thought Christianity was based on (whether I was a believer or not) I would ask you why you thought this.

Then you would reply: Read Genesis 2 starting at verse 4 'blessed one.'

Then I would ask why not start from verse 1?

You would reply: Because Genesis 2 1-3 is still speaking from the initial seven day account started in verse one. Verse 4 starts back over and then branches creation off into a Garden account, meaning everything written from that point on refers to what happens in the Garden.

Then I'd be like; you so stupid, because when I went to sunday school they didn't teach me this.

Then you: Again that is the difference between biblical Christianity and religious christianity. READ Chapter 2 starting at verse 4:
4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

(What is about to follow is a detailed account of when the Lord made the Earth and sky, but before He made plants. so some time on Day two.)

6 So water[a] came up from the earth and spread over the ground. 7 Then the Lord God took dust from the ground and made a man. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nose, and the man became a living thing. 8 Then the Lord God planted a garden in the East,[c] in a place named Eden. He put the man he made in that garden. 9 Then the Lord God caused all the beautiful trees that were good for food to grow in the garden. In the middle of the garden, he put the tree of life and the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil.

So before God made plants on the earth He created the Garden. Which means everything that happened in the Garden was separate and apart from what happened on the rest of the planet.)

Now continue reading, everything else described is from a garden perspective.

Then me, but I though you said everything (including chapter 1) was written from a Garden perspective.

Then you, I misspoke, please forgive me.
What I meant was, all that was recorded in chapter one was still from a single man's perspective. In otherwords it was what the writer of Genesis saw, as it happened during the creation of the world. And then the Garden perspective is underscored in Chapter 2.

Aside from this meaning that the garden would have to have existed prior to the creation of anything else its just not supported in the text.

Again chapter 2

I know this doesn't bother you - we've been down this road before

Actually we haven't. To prove it seriously take a look at what you thought/represented what I said, verses my actual explaination of what I said. You have created a strawman of everything we have discussed inorder to 'walk down this road.'

(Mary's examination,

Mary's examination was based in deu 22 and the law concerning the verification of her virginity, or the persecution of joseph, and of her (Which did not happen which means her virginity was verified.)

special bricks used for Babel,

Not special bricks. I simply said we do not know what the bricks were made of.
Then I provided proof that until this year we did not know what 2000 year old roman cement was made of, so how could we possiably know what was in the bricks of a tower that was never built?

billions of years for the garden to run alongside evolution...)

Not billions of years. Simply that there is no time line between Genesis 2 and 3. Which again could have been a day or a trillion years.

but I'd say its pretty obvious you are leaving the Bible behind in your belief.

Again everything I have said is backed by the bible and by history. You have recreated my arguments in your own mind and changed them ever so slightly to invalidate me without having to question anything. This is pride my friend. To simply assume that I am wrong because what you believe must be correct.

Well all power to you in that but it does kinda remove you from Christianity, not just as I know it, but as it presents itself to the outside world.

Other than that.

You do know that everyone of your examples that supposedly 'removes me from Christanity is actually based in Judaism right?

OK - show me where you got Mary's examination from.

We've done this already. it starts with establishing the the fact that having sex with a girl before marriage is a terriable sin in that time, with very severe consenquences per deu 22:18-30.

Then we established that they were not married. This is done for us in
Mat 1:18

Then we establish they went before the proper authority to be married (Some priest had to sign off that the marriage was legal)
Mat 1:24 says He married her as the angel to him to do.

Which again means they went before someone to validate their marriage. At which time this priest would have seen her baby bump.
"But before they married, he learned that she was expecting a baby."
is what I am calling her baby bump.

This would have lead to a question of who the father was. Why? Because one or both would have been in serious violation of the OT law at this point. To which we can rightly assume that Mary would have told her story of virginity to the priest, as She told everyone else. This escaliates things. Why? because they went from public disgrace to open blaspheme. Which makes her a candidate for stoning as virgin conception was a well known precursor to the Messiah.
Isa 7:14

This forces someone to check her story.
Mary knew full well what this all meant when she told her story, and she knew that because of the seriousness of her claim she would have to stand behind what was said.
She lived in a time where men looked to persecute and oppress one another and anything that challenged the authority they had to do this through the law would have been carfully scrutinized and examined, as per how Christ was treated.

Nice dodge on telling me what nice stories I tell - but Ireland is an example of people going to war over Christian interpretation - which was the point.

Which was lost on me because I had no idea what you were talking about.

Pride has nothing to do with thinking you are in error, and error doesn't necessarily mean you haven't tied up all the lose ends - which you are very good at, but more and more I see pride in you that has seen you append to your own religion things that are your own inventions.

It is not pride that has you question me. What makes you proud is the assumption that you are right and I am wrong simply because our understanding of the bible does not match. The fact that you are not willing to question and research, but just jump to the conclusion I am wrong makes it a matter of pride.

Questions in of themselves are why I am here. It is when the questions stop because you can not defend your personal version of Christianity, and start name calling is what make this a discussion of your pride.

Again - no skin off my nose, but as we exchange messages your personal religion appears to get more personal by the minute. In other words - from what you have described so far you must be the only person that believes exactly like you do.

Which is what? what do I believe? and again to further the point I was making about your pride, why do you assume I must be the only person on the planet that believes this??? It is simply based on the fact that if you were a Christian you would not think this way?

Again there is a huge difference between Christianity as the bible describes it and the traditional stuff based off of catholisim. about the 13th century the pope at that time made a sharp left turn from the bible and every pope since then never looked back.

That, my friend, is ego, you even now regard yourself as an expert....and I'm the proud one?

Again, where have I made myself an expert? I have underscored a critical flaw in your logic. In that when I make a statement that you can not readily defend with traditional atheist properganda, you default to a personal attack to try and dismiss me without having to address content.

That is what this whole last post is about. You are moving to dismiss everything I have said, because you are trying to not have to address the content of my message.

I have defeated enough arguments over the last 8 years to know the easiest way and the most effective/complete way of doing so. The easy way is to call the messengers intergrity into question that way the whole message can also be dismiss without having to address what he or she says. However this only works when the persons are so radical and so basless that nothing can ever hope to be verified, OR the audience you are pandering to is also looking for a reason to condemn said person with out having to produce any evidence as to why you/they are defaulting to pride.

The most effective way to defeat someone is to disprove everything stated line by line with proof and or reason. This is how most of you start out, but when the goto atheist arguments end, the personal attacks begin...

Now if I were some crazy person then why not just focous on content. would that be the easiest way to show a person crazy? that their content does not follow any logical or realistic patterns? Then why skip that and move to discrediting a person with nothing to back anything up?
Or better yet why is a crazy person able to take the vast majority of the arguments presented and disprove them with proof or reason?

Take an honest survey of who actually engages in discussion, the content they use, and how long they stay in the conversation before hitting the panic stop button and makes a personal accusation.

Most people here are afraid to try, until a dog pile starts then members I though were no longer on this forum anymore, come out of the wood work to get their pound of flesh.

---