For those who want proof of the exodus

[rexbeccarox]

Yes, myself for one.

Which is why i made the snow flake provision just for you.. I thought you might want to stand out from the crowd even though you find yourself standing in the same place.

Soo the flood is apart of the exodus???

Book Chapter and verse please

  You really are an ignorant clown, aren't you?

lol, your the one making a distinction without a difference.

(Atheist via science vs atheist via the will of the snow flake.)

And your the one moving the goal posts..

I'm going to put you out of your misery, here:

Apart:
: separated by an amount of space
: separated by an amount of time
: not together

A part:
: one of the pieces, sections, qualities, etc., that make or form something
: one of the pieces that are put together to form a machine
: one of the pieces or areas of the body of a plant or animal

I know you rail against using correct spelling, grammar, and syntax, but as you can see here, they are very important for communication.

[Cyberman]

Let me attempt to explain it this way: I personally don't buy into the idea the some all-powerful being created everything that we can see, etc. in six 24-hour periods, and then took a day off to rest. I mean, seriously?

But OTOH, the more common understanding of Genesis is that the author is trying to convey a message about the creation of all things as best he can. It seems to me that he can be dead on about the who (God) and the what (creation) without needing to understand the how (evolution v. creationism). Doesn't this seem reasonable?

Similarly, IF (and I'm saying this because I'm trying to PRESENT the argument rather than ASSUME it) the author was trying to convey the basics of a story about God's judgment of the wicked, etc., would it be possible for him again to have the Who and What correct without necessarily getting the details spot on?

Now, I get that SOME fundamentalist types accept the literal interpretation of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but not all Christians - heck, not even the majority of Christians - do. So, why are you so intent upon holding such a simple-minded interpretation of the flood when Christians themselves do not?

It's a strawman argument, Stimbo, and not a terribly good one at that.

Hey, it's not my story. I didn't write any of it. I'd've written a better one if I had.

[The Grand Nudger]

A literalist reading of genesis, for example, is required for the christian narrative.  No garden, no fall........nothing to be saved from. A person may decide that the vast majority is metapohor or incompetence.....but those parts which form the basis of the narrative of vicarious redemption -must be- literal...or vicarious redemption is also metaphor or incompetence.

A person may also see the deluge as metaphor or incompetence....but so too is the "judgement of the wicked" metaphor or incompetence in that case..and in the case of those who do not accept a literal interpretation of the above narrative as well.

At what point can we confidently state that god itself is metaphor, or incompetence...I wonder?

[Cyberman]

I know you rail against using correct spelling, grammar, and syntax, but as you can see here, they are very important for communication.

[Heat]

Then it is indeed "apart" of the Exodus.  Maybe if you'd bothered to understand the context, you'd have understood the relevance of my mention.  But don't let a lack of reading comprehension spoil your incessant need to say something.

Soo the flood is apart of the exodus???

Book Chapter and verse please

You never responded to me:

Can you reconcile Exodus 21?

Simple question really.

God said you could beat your slaves as long as they didnt die within a few days, pass them down to children, how to trick a fellow jew in to becoming a slave permenantly, and other horrific things.

And since you're so quick to jump to all of Exodus being correct, you should have no problem with this.

By the way, don't give me that law of the land bullshit or indentured servitude, it specifically states to "Buy slaves from the heathens around you", that is not "Oh you have some debt come work it off", that is Slave Trade.

[Minimalist]

athrock Wrote:

Let me attempt to explain it this way: I personally don't buy into the idea the some all-powerful being created everything that we can see, etc. in six 24-hour periods, and then took a day off to rest. I mean, seriously?

So you aren't even a very good xtian? 

Without the "fall of man" who needs jesus?

The fundies may be superstitious assholes but they at least understand the demands of the storyline.

[Drich]

Soo the flood is apart of the exodus???

Book Chapter and verse please

You never responded to me:

Can you reconcile Exodus 21?

Simple question really.

God said you could beat your slaves as long as they didnt die within a few days, pass them down to children, how to trick a fellow jew in to becoming a slave permenantly, and other horrific things.

And since you're so quick to jump to all of Exodus being correct, you should have no problem with this.

By the way, don't give me that law of the land bullshit or indentured servitude, it specifically states to "Buy slaves from the heathens around you", that is not "Oh you have some debt come work it off", that is Slave Trade.

What is their to respond to? You've correctly identified what is being said here. "What the problem is?"

[Drich]

Which is why i made the snow flake provision just for you.. I thought you might want to stand out from the crowd even though you find yourself standing in the same place.

lol, your the one making a distinction without a difference.

(Atheist via science vs atheist via the will of the snow flake.)

And your the one moving the goal posts..

I'm going to put you out of your misery, here:

Apart:
: separated by an amount of space
: separated by an amount of time
: not together

A part:
: one of the pieces, sections, qualities, etc., that make or form something
: one of the pieces that are put together to form a machine
: one of the pieces or areas of the body of a plant or animal

I know you rail against using correct spelling, grammar, and syntax, but as you can see here, they are very important for communication.

I don't rail against it... I simply like to point out if those who value grammar so much were to spend 1/2 as much time researching the topics in which they speak as they do grading papers for grammar 'missed-steaks'   They would not have to default to pointing out grammar errors as their only means of trying to save face, or is their only involvement in a given topic?

[rexbeccarox]

I'm going to put you out of your misery, here:

Apart:
: separated by an amount of space
: separated by an amount of time
: not together

A part:
: one of the pieces, sections, qualities, etc., that make or form something
: one of the pieces that are put together to form a machine
: one of the pieces or areas of the body of a plant or animal

I know you rail against using correct spelling, grammar, and syntax, but as you can see here, they are very important for communication.

I don't rail against it... I simply like to point out if those who value grammar so much were to spend 1/2 as much time researching the topics in which they speak as they do grading papers for grammar 'missed-steaks'   They would not have to default to pointing out grammar errors as their only means of trying to save face, or is their only involvement in a given topic?

That's interesting given your revulsion for admitting your own mistakes. Huh. Do you really not see how tough it is to communicate with you when you flout proper grammar, spelling, and syntax? "Apart" and "a part" have practically opposite meanings.

Also, just because people, or more specifically I, don't respond a lot to a topic isn't an indication they're not involved. There are a lot of people here who know more about history and geography than I do, and I'm reading what they write and learning stuff in the process, which is more than I can say for... well... you.

[Minimalist]

But it seems that everyone knows more about it than drippy. 

I mean, you'll never learn anything reading his stupid fucking bible.


It's amusing that so many jews are so far ahead of xtian morons on this issue.


http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/the-jewish...h-1.420844

The reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. Yes, there's the story contained within the bible itself, but that's not a remotely historically admissible source. I'm talking about real proof; archaeological evidence, state records and primary sources. Of these, nothing exists.

It is hard to believe that 600,000 families (which would mean about two million people) crossed the entire Sinai without leaving one shard of pottery (the archaeologist's best friend) with Hebrew writing on it. It is remarkable that Egyptian records make no mention of the sudden migration of what would have been nearly a quarter of their population, nor has any evidence been found for any of the expected effects of such an exodus; such as economic downturn or labor shortages. Furthermore, there is no evidence in Israel that shows a sudden influx of people from another culture at that time. No rapid departure from traditional pottery has been seen, no record or story of a surge in population.