The problem with the Tree of Kowledge of Good and Evil.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 94
Topic's author
#61
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Humanity wanted to be like God, that is clear. 
I don’t think so. If We are to take this story at face value and literally, the only comprehension skills these two seemed to have understood was that they were servants to the gods. Like a dog to master, they relied on these gods for their survival because they knew nothing else.

Actually God is not bad. He is good. 

So Saddam Hussein was good then when he also ordered the unprovoked genocide guessing against Kurds in Halabja?

Is this not dissimilar to
“But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth”:Deu: 20:16.
But there again, we are created in their image and we did become one of them.

Your arguments - are weak. They are pathetic.
 
You keep saying this and I would expect nothing else. But you don’t seem to understand that I  highlight these things for you to explain not for me to explain. And none of your explanations’ stand up under scrutiny, what they do is highlight further biblical problems. .

You have not looked at the overall message;

 I take that to mean that ole’ chestnut of - ‘I Am not seeing the bigger picture’ – I was wondering when you was going to fallback on that excuse. Listen, the message is clear in the story, it is 'do as I Say or die' . The dictate wasn’t about free will or anything like that because it came with a very clear threat of death.
 
When I provide a plausible explanation.

But you only believe it is plausible until it is shown not to be so then you then come back with another explanation.
 
It seems to me that rather than suddenly having wisdom, every thing they did after they ate the fruit got dumber and dumber.

Then like I have said, you are completely denying what the gods themselves have said.

"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil": 

Your position seems to be suggesting that eating the fruit gave them knowledge to know the difference between good and evil. 

As does the bible.
“ For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”.
 
But I will admit, I find it quite amazing and puzzling that the day that their “eyes were opened” they were able to fashion needles for sewing and they actually started to sew. BUT then god took over the designing side of the operation and>>

3:21 "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them".????
We have come a long way haven’t we? Sewing has turned into a complete worldwide fashion industry.
 
 
  This God had to ask them:
"And God said “Who told you that you were naked”? 
 
So this tells me that these two were not even aware of what nakedness was, and somehow believed it to be sinful only after their eyes were opened.

You see the real story behind this nonsensical biblical story lies in the fact that this couple had become sexually active. As shown in detail, in the original mesopotamian epic of creation.

Topic's author
#62
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
You have not proved they were ignorant.You keep asserting it.
No. the bible itself asserts that. Unless the bible is wrong and you are right? which is it?

 ignorant
ˈɪɡn(ə)r(ə)nt
adjective
1.     1.
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

Surely you do not say they were ignorant of this command 
No, What I have said is that they lacked knowledge as per bible clearly suggests. They become to know good knowledge and bad knowledge.

Stop trying to rewrite what is clearly written there to be read by anyone with the slightest bit of , well .... knowledge.
Topic's author
#63
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
If they were ignorant,how could they possibly enter into a dialogue with anyone about the rights or wrongs of it.
 
 I can have a dialogue with my three year old granddaughter about very few and limited things because she is ignorant of thousands of things. I can give her  dictates such as - ' don't touch that iron it will burn you,' - that said, who's fault would it have been had she reached out and touched it? Mine or hers?


As for having“dialogue with anyone” <<< your words; I would myself have trouble having any sort of conversations with a reptile/serpent/snake, So it is clear then after all, that the dialogue was indeed with a being as I've stated from the beginning. The “serpent” was the Lord of creation along withhis spouse. who was opposed to his half brother.  Took your time but you got there in the end, inadvertently. Good lad.

This particular Serpent Lord was known in
 Akkad 
Assur 
Babylon 
Nimrud 
Nineveh 
Persepolis 

And take note of this one,
 
Uruk 
known to the Hebrews as Ur, it is where Abraham came from.

And this lord was also known as the Serpent Lord in Egypt.   Interesting then   (if we are to take this story at face value and literal) that Moses was instructed  specifically to wrap a Serpent around his staff which healed people just by looking at it, isn't it? I mean, of all the things in the world this god could chose to adorn this staff he chose the deceiving serpent, his opposer and adversary who by all accounts had caused man to suffer death. The irony.

#64
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Thanks for the concession.

It has been a pleasure instructing you to a more plausible interpretation. 
Topic's author
#65
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Thanks for the concession.
Oh please stop it and get over yourself.  I have conceded nothing. You lost an argument. Get over it.
Or did you miss this>
"I can have a dialogue with my three year old granddaughter about very few and limited things because she is ignorant of thousands of things".
Topic's author
#66
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Now it has been established that this story actually concerns flesh and blood beings, one that is not a reptile of any kind and one that is not omnipresent or omnipotent,we can move on to the more pertinent questions and see what our resident theist have to make of them.

It clearly states the Adam was punished for his defiance. But look at the punishment>>

Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Genesis 3:23
 
But this,to the close reader, shouldn’t make absolutely any sense at all and make  no difference to Adam either!  Because this  "punishment" of  labour in the fields was  what this god had intentionally and specifically had created Adam for,  if these scriptures are to be believed.As chapter 2 of Genesis makes perfectly clear:

Genesis 2:5"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God Has not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground".?????


And we also don't know, and the bible doesn’t explain which couple had listened to the flesh and blood Serpent Lord ?

Was it the first pair of Genesis 1:27 “So God Created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”?

Or was it the other two, the male /female pair that was created at Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:22?

 Why did god create two pairs?

 Had this  god forgot  that he had created the first pair so just went  about creating a second pair?

 Why in the second and third creations was themale created out of the dirt and one created via a complicated operation where the male was put to sleep and a part taken from him to create the female?
 
These are questions the theists are frightened to address because they are complicated if these scriptures are to be believed and taken seriously.


#67
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@Goldtop
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...you are a fool. That verse was written for you. Sorry, but it's the truth. There are countless people smarter than you, who have studied Scripture most of their lives. I'm pretty sure they would also call you a fool. Continue your one-man crusade, if you must. But know this. You will die, bitter and disillusioned. Then you will meet your Creator, and you will be asked why you rejected Him. That is one possible future. The other is to set aside your sinful pride and ask God to forgive you. It is the simplest thing to do yet also the hardest. And it's because of your stiff-necked pride.
Topic's author
#68
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Grugore
Never mind your threats to members. just start answering some of the questions raised above. Or go away.
#69
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@Stephen
Uhh...people have been answering your questions, but you refuse to listen. Your suffering will be great in hell.
#70
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@Stephen
And I haven't made any threats. Don't know where you got that idea.
Topic's author
#71
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Grugore
.people have been answering your questions
Stop telling lies and address those questions I have raised at post 66 above.



#72
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Oh please stop it and get over yourself.  I have conceded nothing. You lost an argument. Get over it.
Or did you miss this>
"I can have a dialogue with my three year old granddaughter about very few and limited things because she is ignorant of thousands of things".

Nope, I did not miss it. I just don't think it is relevant to the topic. 

The points have been explained - yet it appears that you simply have made up your mind and are closed to considering other views. Hence the fact that you can have a dialogue with your three year old daughter might be more relevant than I had thought because that is about how it seems in discussing this with you. 



Topic's author
#73
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
The points have been explained -
The trouble with you being the pompous fool that you are, is that you are so used to people asking you questions because they have not even read the scriptures for themselves maybe since school or never read them at all. You are used to feeling superior over anyone who you believe has not a clue. But when you do come up against someone who has studied these anomalous biblical half stories, you are taken off guard, are unprepared, and simply lack the knowledge to respond to depth questions. This because you are so used to the everyday  bilical queries about god and his actions or inaction, that most people have and ask about, especially when they are in grief, despair and down and discouraged, It is here you take full advantage to fill their heads with gospel untruths.

Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; comes to mind


Now you have nothing left but resort to barefaced lies. You have address absolutely nothing at post 66 above .

God, the bible states clearly  created two pairs of humans.

From post 66 above questions you have ignored and not even attempted to answer

Which pair were expelled from the garden?

The punishment for Adams defiance was to be sentenced to till the land. But this was the reason he was created for in the first place. Explain that.

 Why did god create two pairs of humans?

Had this  god forgot  that he had created the first pair so just went  about creating a second pair?

Why in the second and third creations was themale created out of the dirt and one created via a complicated operation where the male was put to sleep and a part taken from him to create the female?


Just to add, the biblical patriarch Abraham worshipped Mesopotamian gods thousands of years before MOSES DECIDED there was only one god. because as you WELL KNOW  his homeland was Ur of the Chaldees, the ancient city of Mesopotamia.



But I will keep that argument for another entire thread.

And you still have some catching up to do on this thread you are now giving a wide berth.


#74
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Now it has been established that this story actually concerns flesh and blood beings, one that is not a reptile of any kind and one that is not omnipresent or omnipotent,we can move on to the more pertinent questions and see what our resident theist have to make of them.

I don't concede this at all. Adam and Eve were flesh. God is omnipotent and omniscient. If the first chapter does not picture the power of God for you, then nothing will. I certainly  have seen no evidence from you that the serpent was not a reptile or a snake or a crafty beast. 

It clearly states the Adam was punished for his defiance. But look at the punishment>>

Yes Adam was cast out of the garden and forbidden from partaking of the tree of life. 

Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Genesis 3:23

Yes, so what? The curse of course made this quite different from before the fall. Now it had thorns and it would mean that Adam would need to fighting the land rather than working with it. 
 
But this,to the close reader, shouldn’t make absolutely any sense at all and make  no difference to Adam either!  Because this  "punishment" of  labour in the fields was  what this god had intentionally and specifically had created Adam for,  if these scriptures are to be believed.As chapter 2 of Genesis makes perfectly clear:

Genesis 2:5"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God Has not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground".?????

All of that is conjecture based on a false premise. God made man to til the ground. Yet he also made man to protect and steward the earth and the way this was going to occur was by doing it according to the will of God and as God determined was right and wrong. God cursed Adam with death - covenantal death and separation from the tree of life. God also cursed the ground before he sent Adam out. Similarly, Eve was cursed with problems during childbirth and the desire for feminism (authority). And the serpent was cursed with eating dust. 

Chapter 2 does not contain a second couple but is a zeroing on what God had done in the first chapter. Chapter one is describing the point that God made everything including humanity in broad and general strokes. In Chapter 2 we are given the finer details of the beginning of humanity - being God's high point in creation. It is not two couples but one couple. The first is a general picture and the second is specific. It was this same couple thrown out of the garden. 

And we also don't know, and the bible doesn’t explain which couple had listened to the flesh and blood Serpent Lord ?

Well you might know - but the bible is pretty clear there was only one couple - Adam and Eve. 

Was it the first pair of Genesis 1:27 “So God Created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”?

Or was it the other two, the male /female pair that was created at Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:22?

 Why did god create two pairs?

 Had this  god forgot  that he had created the first pair so just went  about creating a second pair?

 Why in the second and third creations was themale created out of the dirt and one created via a complicated operation where the male was put to sleep and a part taken from him to create the female?
 
These are questions the theists are frightened to address because they are complicated if these scriptures are to be believed and taken seriously.

Theists are not frightened to answer these questions - there was only one couple - and the answer is quite simple. Most people reading this book - Christian or non- Christian come to the same conclusion whether they have been steeped in tradition or not. Your conjectures are just that - conjectures which are at odds with literature and the general understanding of the text. The first chapter has one particular point which is that God made everything including humans. This is why there are no specifics of how the humans respond to God. It is a chapter about God. From v. 4 in chapter 2 we then have the specific story of how this first couple was made. It is like we are zoomed in to see what God has done.

This is why your questions will remain unanswered because they are not the questions of the text. If you ask the correct questions then the answers are clear and the text is straightforward. It is the same thing I say to those who advocate a literal 24 hour day. Don't read into the text things which are not there because the questions you are asking are not being addressed. Interestingly, if you were to read the Hebrew text in chapter one you would notice that some things are created  - and others are made (or recreated - changed). This is how humanity's making is described. God did not make humans out of nothing - but took what he had created and remade or changed it. Hence when we get to the picture in chapter 2 we are not at all surprised that God took the earth and made man. We are not expecting God to make man out of thin air.  



#75
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Grugore

You will die, bitter and disillusioned. Then you will meet your Creator, and you will be asked why you rejected Him.
And you base this claim on the folk tales written by primitive, ignorant, superstitious bronze/iron age savages. You'll need a much sounder basis for your claims if you want to be believed.
Topic's author
#76
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 Well you might know - but the bible is pretty clear there was only one couple - Adam and Eve. 

LIAR!!!!!
 


So. the FIRST creation according to "THE BIBLE"of male and female humans goes like this:>>

Genesis 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion etc etc. 
 Genesis 1:27   So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It then continues with a chapter further on Chpt 2 informing us that god needed labourers “to till the land” . So a God sets about a second creation of man but giving the reader more details of how he went about creating this second human male.
 
 
The SECOND couple were, according to THE BIBLE , created separate and from different materials. Read for yourself and deny away until your heart's content.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord god Formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. It goes on to say heathen put this man into the garden, 
 
Then!  
This  God  decides that because the man shouldn’t be alone without a mate/helper so he goes to a third creation of a human, this time a female. But this creation is like no other.
 
Genesis 2:21 Andthe Lord God Caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 Andthe rib, which the Lord God Had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
 
 So to deny these separate accounts of creation  and say that the bible  "makes it pretty"  clear there is "only one couple" is you simply lying again. It is there for all to read, and there is no getting away from it.

This is why your questions will remain unanswered because they are not the questions of the text. 

So are you now saying that I have not produced text from the bible are you saying those verses I have posted are fake and are not even in the Bible? 

They are from the bible and anyone can check them out . They are exactly as I say they are and you can't get around them without admitting the bible is at fault. So stop lying! The truth is that two writers of the creation are giving their separate and different accounts which make the whole story debatable if not totally unreliable , you know that is the the truth. 

 Now either the bible and it's writers who are at fault and mistaken,  which throws doubt on the whole story or there were as the bible CLEARLY shows that there are indeed two couples created. WHICH IS IT? 


#77
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6

Now either the bible and it's writers who are at fault and mistaken,  which throws doubt on the whole story or there were as the bible CLEARLY shows that there are indeed two couples created. WHICH IS IT? 
Either your poor reading comprehension, or your loony anti-theist agenda. Take your pick.

#78
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
The GoE story was concocted by an ignorant, primitive, superstitious bronze age savage. No reason to believe it at all.
#79
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

LIAR!!!!!
 


So. the FIRST creation according to "THE BIBLE"of male and female humans goes like this:>>

Genesis 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion etc etc. 
 Genesis 1:27   So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It then continues with a chapter further on Chpt 2 informing us that god needed labourers “to till the land” . So a God sets about a second creation of man but giving the reader more details of how he went about creating this second human male.
 
 I have answered your question - the fact that you refuse to understand is not my problem. the first chapter is about God. It provides a general picture of how God created things. And then from chapter 2:4 we zoom into see how God made the humans. I care less how you wish to distort what all the commentators say - both Jewish, Christian and others. You don't accept my view - well so what? That does not make me a liar. I am not lying. 


The SECOND couple were, according to THE BIBLE , created separate and from different materials. Read for yourself and deny away until your heart's content.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord god Formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. It goes on to say heathen put this man into the garden, 
 
Then!  
This  God  decides that because the man shouldn’t be alone without a mate/helper so he goes to a third creation of a human, this time a female. But this creation is like no other.
 
Genesis 2:21 Andthe Lord God Caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 Andthe rib, which the Lord God Had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

and I heartily agree with the events as they have unfolded. God made man first and then made woman. He did this on day 6. Male and female. There are not two couples - just one set. You can inject another couple in - but it is just that - you injecting into the text what is not there. 
 
 So to deny these separate accounts of creation  and say that the bible  "makes it pretty"  clear there is "only one couple" is you simply lying again. It is there for all to read, and there is no getting away from it.

This is why your questions will remain unanswered because they are not the questions of the text. 

So are you now saying that I have not produced text from the bible are you saying those verses I have posted are fake and are not even in the Bible? 

I did not say you produced fake texts. don't tell lies. I said you are asking questions are being answered by the text, like those who believe in 24 hour literal days. You are worse than the fundamental literalists. At least they give credence to the underlying Hebrew and Greek.  And they also understand metaphor. 

They are from the bible and anyone can check them out . They are exactly as I say they are and you can't get around them without admitting the bible is at fault. So stop lying! The truth is that two writers of the creation are giving their separate and different accounts which make the whole story debatable if not totally unreliable , you know that is the the truth. 

No one is trying to get around them. there is no need to get around what is not there. Your repetition might fool the ignorant - but it has no support for it from the underlying language, from the literature and the genre involved, from the commentators, nor from logic. You like it - good for you. I hope you enjoy it.  

 Now either the bible and it's writers who are at fault and mistaken,  which throws doubt on the whole story or there were as the bible CLEARLY shows that there are indeed two couples created. WHICH IS IT? 

You have not thrown doubt on the bible. The only thing that you have managed to throw doubt on is your ability to interpret and understand the literature. I suspect, although I may be wrong, that your starting basis is with another book somewhere and are using that to interpret this text. You certainly are not starting with this text in its genre. 

#80
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I remember years ago, the first time I came across the loony idea that Genesis had two creation accounts. I was fascinated that anyone could be that clueless.

Then I found out that many of these people also believe silly things like each gospel being an additional and separate account of Jesus' life. For these geniuses, any flashback or more detailed account is comprehended as a separate new account.

Luckily, such beliefs are so obviously absurd, debunking isn't necessary.
#81
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
I have to admit I cannot recall anyone using this type of view before. I have myself asked lots of questions about the text - and often get myself into trouble from those of a more conservative position. I think there are more interesting questions in the first three chapters that provide more of a difficulty. I am hopeful that Stephen might actually get to some of those parts. So far he managed to avoid the difficult parts. Still one might be hopeful that he will and who knows, perhaps he might have an interesting perspective. Still, given his current track record, this will probably require some independent thinking of his own, and not just utilising the pet topics of his favourite authors. I am not sure he is capable of that yet as even now he simply refuses to engage with me on the questions I raise. He just repeats himself - asserts that he is correct and then repeats himself a bit more - usually with a couple of slurs on me and Christians in general ignoring his questions. I think I have answered all of his questions. Yet, I don't actually recall him engaging with my questions. Yes, once he answered one question about whether or not God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit. But with his very bland assent, he took it no further.  After all, a command to do something or not to do something implies certain things. He chose to move onto a different topic rather than engage. Hence my conclusion, that he is simply using someone else's material without any independent thinking of his own. 

I don't particularly care if he agrees with me or not. I have an opportunity to present the traditional view (the correct one in my opinion) and he can throw whatever he likes. So far, he has not put anything remarkable. 
#82
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
If he does, alert me, that would be interesting.

Unlike you, I have a different take. There are posters I call spray painters. Stephen is one. Why?

When a spray painter spray paints something like "God is a liar!" On a church wall, do you think he's looking for dialogue? No. His rush is the actual spray painting. Cover it up and he will just do it again.

Look how often he just ignores what is said and just reposts (resprays) his message? Anything countering what he says is a paint over and gives him the chance at the "high" of posting it again.

I just change his graffiti into "God is a living and loving God! Jn.3:16" and then watch him go into a tantrum.

He's not a convert parroting his guru, he's more like a junkie shooting up. He couldn't care less about doctrine or dialogue. Test it and you'll see.
Topic's author
#83
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Learn to use you quote icon. 
Topic's author
#84
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Well you might know - but the bible is pretty clear there was only one couple - Adam and Eve. 
This is not true. There are clearly TWO creations of two males and two females written in the Genesis story  you are trying to tell us there isn't'. That is a blatant LIE.

CREATION OF THE FIRST COUPLE>.


Genesis 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion etc etc. 
 Genesis 1:27   So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


CREATION OF THE SECOND COUPLE>

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord god Formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. It goes on to say heathen put this man into the garden, 
 
Then!  
This  God  decides that because the man shouldn’t be alone without a mate/helper so he goes to a third creation of a human, this time a female. But this creation is like no other.
 
Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God Caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God Had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

THAT IS NOT, AS YOU INSIST, THE BIBLE MAKING IT "PRETTY CLEAR"  THAT THERE WERE ONLY ONE COUPLE..

  It is there in front of your own damn eyes and yet you deny it with lies. 

This is why your questions will remain unanswered because they are not the questions of the text. 
At least you admit that you won't answer them.
BUT they are questions about the CONFUSING biblical text, What are they if not about the biblical text?
This is just another piss poor way of avoiding prickly questions that have you on the back foot. You resort to lies and blatant denial in the face of the facts. Someone of your caliber should be ashamed of yourself. But you won't be. Because your a pompous clown with his head stuck tight up his own dirt box.


Stop intimating that I am lying. 

 and please have the decency to use the quoting  icon facility. It is there for a good reason. 

Topic's author
#85
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I think there are more interesting questions in the first three chapters that provide more of a difficulty.
There probably are. But if you can't even manage to square away some of the “minor” problems with honesty instead of filibustering your way through a problem and blatantly denying certain verses do not exist , then you/we are not going to get far.

I am hopeful that Stephen might actually get to some of those parts. 
There isn’t much chance of that while you keep implying parts of the bible don’t even exist. While you keep insisting one words means something completely different and insisting everything is down to one  interpretation or another. And presenting your own opinions and theories as FACT!.
 
I have told you before.I do have supporting evidence for my opinions but I rarely have to produce them,because you spend so much time answering  me with opinions, your own opinions. I simply challenge your opinions. I have made it quite clear that,Is all I do is highlight what I believe to be anomalous and puzzling with these scriptures, then give my opinion why I believe what I believe about them to be anomalous and puzzling, or simply ask a question about them and then leave the rest up to clowns like yourself and ethang5. 
 

 I have an opportunity to present the traditional view (the correct one in my opinion)

Just as I said, your opinion presented as fact.

Topic's author
#86
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I think there are more interesting questions in the first three chapters that provide more of a difficulty


DO YOU! Then start a thread of your own, why wait for me?

I am hopeful that Stephen might actually get to some of those parts.

Don't wait for me to do that for you. What's stopping you starting your own threads on these  

more interesting questions in the first three chapters

Then let's hear them. Start your own thread on the "more interesting questions" that you say there are in the bible.  AND STOP TRYING TO GOAD ME DOWN A PATH THAT YOU WANT ME TO TAKE.
#87
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Learn to use you quote icon. 

Ok. 


#88
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Well you might know - but the bible is pretty clear there was only one couple - Adam and Eve. 

This is not true. There are clearly TWO creations of two males and two females written in the Genesis story  you are trying to tell us there isn't'. That is a blatant LIE.

Creation of the  first couple in Genesis describing how God created everything generally. 

Genesis 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion etc etc. 
Genesis 1:27   So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Creation of the first couple as zoomed in, in chapter 2. 

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God Formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 

 
Then!  
This  God  decides that because the man shouldn’t be alone without a mate/helper so he goes to a third creation of a human, this time a female. But this creation is like no other.
 See, I am not denying the verses, despite your opinion. I am simply explaining how the chapters follow on one from another. It is the same story but more specifically. Please don't be so naïve to think that every book  written pre-Gutenberg always attend to a chronological manner. If you were to look at Revelation for instance it repeats the same picture seven times throughout the book, from a slightly different angle. It is not my fault if you are ignorant of how people wrote prior to the Gutenberg. 


Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God Caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God Had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

THAT IS NOT, AS YOU INSIST, THE BIBLE MAKING IT "PRETTY CLEAR"  THAT THERE WERE ONLY ONE COUPLE..
Well yes, it is quite clear. God created Adam and from Adam he made Eve. This is the same couple he described generally in chapter one. 

#89
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen


  It is there in front of your own damn eyes and yet you deny it with lies. 

Yes, it is there. Exactly as I have described. I have also suggested that it is quite common stylistic language for books prior to Gutenberg. 

This is why your questions will remain unanswered because they are not the questions of the text. 


At least you admit that you won't answer them.
BUT they are questions about the CONFUSING biblical text, What are they if not about the biblical text?
This is just another piss poor way of avoiding prickly questions that have you on the back foot. You resort to lies and blatant denial in the face of the facts. Someone of your caliber should be ashamed of yourself. But you won't be. Because your a pompous clown with his head stuck tight up his own dirt box.

I have obviously missed your point here. The only thing I stated was that you were distorting the text because you were reading things into the text that are not there. I have not avoided any prickly questions. I disagree with you and I have all of the experts agreeing with me. What have I denied? I have only denied your distortions of the text. I see how God created humanity in the first chapter. I do not deny this. I see how this first couple was created more specifically in the second chapter. I do not deny that either. I only deny your distortion that it is two couples when clearly it cannot be. Genesis 2:5 states that "there was no man to till the ground". How can it be a second couple when it says there was no man there at the time? You fail either recklessly or intentionally to take this on board and then say there are two couples. 

Stop intimating that I am lying. 
Well when you show some decency and stop telling me that I am lying then I may well apply your standards. 

#90
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I think there are more interesting questions in the first three chapters that provide more of a difficulty.
There probably are. But if you can't even manage to square away some of the “minor” problems with honesty instead of filibustering your way through a problem and blatantly denying certain verses do not exist , then you/we are not going to get far.

I am hopeful that Stephen might actually get to some of those parts. 

There isn’t much chance of that while you keep implying parts of the bible don’t even exist. While you keep insisting one words means something completely different and insisting everything is down to one  interpretation or another. And presenting your own opinions and theories as FACT!.
 I  have not once denied that any part of the bible does not exist. Nor do I insist that one word means more than it says. I do however take the view that the Hebrew or the Greek word underlying an English word is more authoritative and I don't accept that the translation of the word is more valuable than the original. As for my theories, I unlike you have a professional right to provide an opinion as I am a professional theologian with appropriate and recognised qualifications. I also stand behind and beneath other eminently qualified professionals in the discipline of theology. In any event, my opinions are not difficult to find. I am not necessarily speculating or conjecturing. 

I have told you before.I do have supporting evidence for my opinions but I rarely have to produce them,because you spend so much time answering  me with opinions, your own opinions. I simply challenge your opinions. I have made it quite clear that,Is all I do is highlight what I believe to be anomalous and puzzling with these scriptures, then give my opinion why I believe what I believe about them to be anomalous and puzzling, or simply ask a question about them and then leave the rest up to clowns like yourself and ethang5. 
 You don't produce evidence. You produce a verse and then comment on it. That is not evidence. You don't exegete the passage or the verse. You don't parse the verbs or provide even a semblance of the meaning from the underlying language. You do what fundamentalists do, you look at the verse (out of context mostly) and then provide a comment on it and then say it is evidence. Well it is not acceptable as evidence. 

 I have an opportunity to present the traditional view (the correct one in my opinion)

Just as I said, your opinion presented as fact.
You use the word opinion and fact like you are using them, not at all like they meant to be.