Barbarian seems to have forgotten to explain why something created by a perfect Creator would not also be perfect, and why both "good" and "very good" would indicate something other than "perfect."
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Barbarian seems to have forgotten to explain why something created by a perfect Creator would not also be perfect, and why both "good" and "very good" would indicate something other than "perfect."
Don't be a troll, Barbarian.
If one is perfect, and another good, one is clearly better than the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfec..._enemy_of_good
Words mean things. If you don't use them as everyone else does, you're not going to communicate very well. "Very good" does not mean "perfect."
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
pretty sure when you're talking about God, "good", "pretty good" and "perfect" all mean the same thing
ie "without flaw"
I don't have to prove anything at all. the claim was that God said the earth was created "perfect". The text doesn't say that. Not did I say it was imperfect.
In tis one point you are correct. The snake was punished for encouraging the sin of Even and Adam.
1. I did. The fact that God threatened them with "death" implies that they knew what "death is".
2. Again, I don't need to prove anything. Those who claim that "death didn't exist" have no proof of that from the text.
Yes. Therefore?
It could have been, but that is reading a lot more into the text than is actually there.
And I suggest that you keep your childish insults to your self. You know nothing of me, how I study the Bible, or how many times a day I pray.
I'm ignoring the rest of your nasty post.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
False. And trite. Rather, persons mean things, by means of words--and not always, and not as a matter of course, at that. That someone says a word does not necessitate that he/she means something, thereby. Case in point: Darwin cheerleaders mean nothing by many of the words and phrases they are fond of saying, such as "evolve", "evolution", "the theory of evolution", and oh so many more.
If you use words the way Darwin cheerleaders (like The Barbarian, for example) use many words, you're not going to communicate anything, whatsoever--except, perhaps, an impression that you've a penchant for meaninglessly quacking like a duck, for noisily barking like a dutiful Darwin's bulldog.
Do you mean that, by the phrase, "very good", God does not mean "perfect"? And, would you say that, by "very good", God rather meant "imperfect"?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
In other words, you admit that there is no basis in Genesis for saying that what God had created was imperfect. Thank you.
Which would you say is the case?
- That which God had created was perfect
- That which God had created was imperfect
To which point you are referring?
Before, you had claimed that the serpent was "punished for disobeying God":
You have, thus far, been silent regarding my having pointed out the fact that you have no textual basis, in Genesis 1-2, for your saying that the serpent was punished for disobeying God, since, for the serpent to have been disobeying God would necessarily have been for God to have given to the serpent a commandment to be obeyed. To disobey God is to disobey His commandment(s). Yet, where, in Genesis 1-2, do you imagine you have a textual basis for saying that God had given the serpent a commandment to be obeyed? That's right: nowhere. And thus, you have no textual basis in Genesis 1-2 for saying that the serpent was "punished for disobeying God". So, when you say that the serpent was "punished for disobeying God", you do so as a hypocrite, because you say so sans textual basis, while you bark at others, claiming that they have no textual basis for things they say.
False.
The fact that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, and that He said they would die, does not imply that Adam and Eve had already known what death is prior to God's commanding them not to eat the fruit, and His saying they would die.
Translation: "I, chair, can't prove what I am claiming."
I hear that a lot from errorists like yourself.
You just got done telling us that you can't prove that anything died prior to Adam and Eve disobeying God's command.
Thus, you have admitted that there is no mention of death as having occurred prior to Adam and Eve disobeying God's command. Thank you.
False. Rather, it is reading nothing into the text, whatsoever.
Yet, your Bible-despising claim (which, as you admit, you can't even prove) that things died prior to Adam and Eve disobeying God's command, is rank, hypocritical eisegesis. Tell us where, in Genesis 1-2, you find it is said, or implied, that one or more things had already died by the time God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit. That's right: you can't do this, because it's nowhere to be found. Like you have already admitted, you can't even find the word "die" until Genesis 2:17.
I only know that you are fervently committed to your nonsense and falsehood, and to your shallow, irrational, Bible-despising ways of thinking--and I know this from the stuff you post. I don't know how many times a day you do whatever it is you call "praying", and I'm quite OK with not knowing that.
What's the difference? As is your custom, you pretty well ignored most everything in the parts of my post which you did quote.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Are you asking me: Is a Pug a wild carnivorous mammal of the dog family, living and hunting in packs, or not? If you're asking me that, I answer that a Pug is not a wolf. If you're not asking me that, then what (if anything) are you asking me?
Alate_One, The Barbarian, Stuu, chair, and User Name--now just as before--are avoiding questions.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
So, would you say that a thing that is good and perfect is clearly better than itself?
It would seem that whoever uses this phrase, "good and perfect", wants to tell us that good and perfect are two, different, distinct things--that good is not the same thing as perfect. I mean, if we consider that good IS perfect, then the phrase, "good and perfect" is nonsensical, for it becomes:
- "good enough to be perfect"
- "perfect enough to be good"
It's clear to anyone with a middle-school grasp of English that "very good" and "perfect" do not have the same meanings.
7d7 has a good grasp of English. He's chosen to deliberately twist and muddle things, as a means of attacking those he views as enemies of his personal version of god.
In gymnastics a very good score is 9.8 but a very good score would still lose to a perfect score of 10.
So very good and perfect are clearly different things.
So very good and perfect are clearly different things.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Your answers? Answers to what? Y'all are particularly keen to not answer the questions I ask you.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
So you would seriously be willing say that a perfect score of 10 is NOT VERY GOOD?
Now, which would you say God is, and which would you say God is not?
- perfect
- very good
Is God perfect, and not very good? Yes or No?
Is God very good, and perfect? Yes or No?
In Mark 10:18, Jesus states that there is none good but God. Jesus did not even say "very good"; He just said "good". Do you disagree with Jesus? Do you mean to say that God is not good?
No, you are arguing that a very good is perfect, and this is not the case.
Most people would not say a perfect score is a very good score, but would say it is the best score.
I would seriously be willing to say that a very good score of 9.8 is NOT PERFECT.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Ah, stealing from my post in a different thread, eh? Too bad you taxed your silly mind so hard, and yet nevertheless failed to come up with any analogy.
What (if any) rationale would you pretend you have for your having replacing the word, 'and' (in the phrase, "good and perfect") with your phrase, "enough to be"?
Your manifest rationale for creating your post, #951, was simply to try to direct attention away from the fact that you can't (without eating crow) honestly answer the question I asked you:
Is a thing that is good and perfect clearly better than itself?
No answer from you. Now, why might that be? Remember, you had said:
So, I'm asking you about one that is perfect and good. Aren't you gonna answer the question?
Is one that is good and perfect clearly better than itself?