the so fallible Bible

[Searching4truth]

No you don't. Don't eat this was well within their intellectual comprehension.

Tell me, John Vile, how you can conveniently make assumptions on the text to justify some points but defend the text over other people's assumptions when neither situation specifies YOUR side?

[John V]

Tell me, John Vile,

No, and if you keep up the vile you're on ignore.

[FallentoReason]

umm... *taps mic* hello, John, can you hear me?

Normally I give theists the benefit of the doubt, but not this time. You're begging the question John and I can only assume you're dodging my posts because you can see how it's absurd to expect A&E to make ANY meaningful choice to eat or not eat an apple without having the capacity to understand such a choice *in the first place* i.e. have the knowledge of right and wrong.

[Searching4truth]

You do that anyway when your arguments fall through. Besides, you didn't seem to mind the stabs when you were calling Brian37 dishboy. Aint so fun when the rabbits got the gun, huh John? Typical hypocritical xtian.

[John V]

I apologize for my lapse in accuracy. However, the qualifying phrase changes absolutely nothing about the evidence for my basic contention that the biblical narratives of the patriarchs contain unhistorical details. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were supposed to have lived ca. 2000-1800 BCE. Finkelstein and Silberman say that the camel was not domesticated as a beast of burden until late in the second millennium, ca. 1200 BCE, and was not used as such in the ancient Near East until well after 1000 BCE. The majority of other scholars cited in the discussion agree with them.

And Bulliet, who has written books specific to camels, says they were used for transport in the 3rd century BC.

I am at a loss to understand the point of John V's argument.

It was that you were wrong when you said camels weren't domesticated until 1,000 BC. Now that you've backed off that general claim and limited it to use as a beast of burden, I've noted an authority who disagrees.

Does he think that if he shows an atheist is not infallible, he has proved the Bible is?

No, I think that the experts disagree regarding dates of various uses of camels, with some assigning dates that do not conflict with Genesis.

He has made no attempt to refute any of the examples of biblical errors,

Incorrect - I've refuted the asserted error regarding camels.

and "elephant-hurling" (whatever that may be) is a pathetic cop-out.

No, the side with more time to type up crap doesn't win.

---

You do that anyway when your arguments fall through.

I mean the ignore function, i.e. I won't even see your posts.

Besides, you didn't seem to mind the stabs when you were calling Brian37 dishboy.

He's free to put me on ignore. Won't bother me one bit.

Aint so fun when the rabbits got the gun, huh John? Typical hypocritical xtian.

No hypocrisy, as I have no problem with people putting me on ignore if they choose.

---

You're begging the question. What's stopping them from eating it?

Practical consequences. Have you ever read the passage? God told them there would be negative consequences for eating the fruit.

[Searching4truth]

Then block me if it hurts your feelings. It's still hypocritical if you call someone names but block others who do the same. Besides, you've never corrected me nicely. Do you have one of those WWJD bracelets to remind you how to act? You can have my old one

[John V]

Then block me if it hurts your feelings. It's still hypocritical if you call someone names but block others who do the same. Besides, you've never corrected me nicely.

No, I don't tend to nicely correct people who call me vile.

Do you have one of those WWJD bracelets to remind you how to act? You can have my old one

You're showing your ignorance. Jesus wasn't always nice to his opponents.

[Brakeman]

You're begging the question. What's stopping them from eating it?

Practical consequences. Have you ever read the passage? God told them there would be negative consequences for eating the fruit.

So to one who has never experienced "negative consequences" nor had any understanding of these "negative consequences", and had no sense of right or wrong about avoiding these "negative consequences", would have reacted correctly to the threat?

If Adam and Eve had been sufficiently warned by god in a manner that they then 100% understood the consequences, they wouldn't have eaten the fruit. Generally healthy adults even today would not make the mistakes they do if they were completely aware of the consequences. But Adam and Eve only had a warning, they did not have full knowledge and understanding of what the crazy god would do to them if they disobeyed his threat.

---

Jesus wasn't always nice to his opponents.

Matthew 5:44

John V Version (JVV) Jeebus speaking..

44 But I say unto you, denigrate your enemies, belittle them that curse you, do annoying things to them to make them hate you, and persecute them which point things out to you, and try to educate you;

[John V]

So to one who has never experienced "negative consequences" nor had any understanding of these "negative consequences", and had no sense of right or wrong about avoiding these "negative consequences", would have reacted correctly to the threat?

You avoid negative consequences out of self interest, not right or wrong.

If Adam and Eve had been sufficiently warned by god in a manner that they then 100% understood the consequences, they wouldn't have eaten the fruit. Generally healthy adults even today would not make the mistakes they do if they were completely aware of the consequences. But Adam and Eve only had a warning, they did not have full knowledge and understanding of what the crazy god would do to them if they disobeyed his threat.

You can warn someone as much as you like, but if they don't believe your warnings it will have no effect.

We're told that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't.

---

Matthew 5:44

John V Version (JVV) Jeebus speaking..

44 But I say unto you, denigrate your enemies, belittle them that curse you, do annoying things to them to make them hate you, and persecute them which point things out to you, and try to educate you;

Try Matt 23.

[Brakeman]

So to one who has never experienced "negative consequences" nor had any understanding of these "negative consequences", and had no sense of right or wrong about avoiding these "negative consequences", would have reacted correctly to the threat?

You avoid negative consequences out of self interest, not right or wrong.

If Adam and Eve had been sufficiently warned by god in a manner that they then 100% understood the consequences, they wouldn't have eaten the fruit. Generally healthy adults even today would not make the mistakes they do if they were completely aware of the consequences. But Adam and Eve only had a warning, they did not have full knowledge and understanding of what the crazy god would do to them if they disobeyed his threat.

You can warn someone as much as you like, but if they don't believe your warnings it will have no effect.

We're told that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't.

So you claim that Adam knew full well what was to befall him for eating the fruit? So why would a sane person do that? Could someone bribe you with an apple to commit murder if you knew perfectly well that your were going to get caught and viciously killed for it? If you knew perfectly that there was no chance whatsoever that you could avoid the resultant fate? This is not a "likely get caught scenario, this is a 100% pure choice. What balanced in the favor of eating the fruit in Adam's mind? What could have been so worth it if he knew full well the full and complete consequences?

Secondly, the "sense of right and wrong" includes understanding what is right and wrong according to your own interests. You have to know whether or not it is right or wrong to act in your best interest or someone else's.

---

Matthew 5:44

John V Version (JVV) Jeebus speaking..

44 But I say unto you, denigrate your enemies, belittle them that curse you, do annoying things to them to make them hate you, and persecute them which point things out to you, and try to educate you;

Try Matt 23.

Cool, so you're saying you've found another contradiction in the bible?