Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hello, Fundies! :)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
    I used to be a six-day fundamentalist. Then I read the Bible and realized that it specifically contradicts that position.Have you noticed that there are two creation stories with different orders, methods, and time periods of creation? They also have different conclusions.The first is Genesis 1.1-2.4a, which has:Order — plants, animals, man and womanMethod - God told the earth to bring forth plants and animalsTime period — six daysConclusion — man is to rule over and be the steward of natureThe second begins in Genesis 2.4b, which has:Order — man, plants, animals, and womanMethod - God formed with His handsTime period — one dayConclusion — man is be dedicated to his wife, as she is the perfect partner designed by GodThe fact that there are two radically different creation stories in the first two chapters of Genesis is proof from the Bible that we are not to take these stories as literal history. Fundamentalists rarely read the second creation story, and if they do, they ignore what it actually says.


    Darwinists.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
      I used to be a six-day fundamentalist. Then I read the Bible and realized that it specifically contradicts that position.

      Have you noticed that there are two creation stories with different orders, methods, and time periods of creation? They also have different conclusions.

      The first is Genesis 1.1-2.4a, which has:
      Order — plants, animals, man and woman
      Method - God told the earth to bring forth plants and animals
      Time period — six days
      Conclusion — man is to rule over and be the steward of nature

      The second begins in Genesis 2.4b, which has:
      Order — man, plants, animals, and woman
      Method - God formed with His hands
      Time period — one day
      Conclusion — man is be dedicated to his wife, as she is the perfect partner designed by God

      The fact that there are two radically different creation stories in the first two chapters of Genesis is proof from the Bible that we are not to take these stories as literal history.

      Fundamentalists rarely read the second creation story, and if they do, they ignore what it actually says.
      You are mistaken, there is only one creation story and you don't know how to read very well if you think there are two.
      Learn to read what is written.

      _____
      The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
      ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
        You are mistaken, there is only one creation story and you don't know how to read very well if you think there are two.
        You are denying what the text says, but that is a common problem with fundamentalists.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Stripe View Post


          Darwinists.
          I am a Christian. You simply deny what the text says.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
            I used to be a six-day fundamentalist. Then I read the Bible and realized that it specifically contradicts that position.

            Have you noticed that there are two creation stories with different orders, methods, and time periods of creation? They also have different conclusions.

            The first is Genesis 1.1-2.4a, which has:
            Order — plants, animals, man and woman
            Method - God told the earth to bring forth plants and animals
            Time period — six days
            Conclusion — man is to rule over and be the steward of nature

            The second begins in Genesis 2.4b, which has:
            Order — man, plants, animals, and woman
            Method - God formed with His hands
            Time period — one day
            Conclusion — man is be dedicated to his wife, as she is the perfect partner designed by God

            The fact that there are two radically different creation stories in the first two chapters of Genesis is proof from the Bible that we are not to take these stories as literal history.

            Fundamentalists rarely read the second creation story, and if they do, they ignore what it actually says.
            Which one was the ancestor of Cain, Abel, and Seth?
            And who were the descendants of the other guy GOD created?

            We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
            They already know monsters exist.
            We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Tambora View Post
              Which one was the ancestor of Cain, Abel, and Seth?
              And who were the descendants of the other guy GOD created?
              They are not meant to be taken as literal history.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                They are not meant to be taken as literal history.
                So you are just saying that GOD created two imaginary men that never existed.
                You're loony and you need to stop telling folks that you know anything about the bible, because you don't.

                We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
                They already know monsters exist.
                We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Tambora View Post
                  So you are just saying that GOD created two imaginary men that never existed.
                  You're loony and you need to stop telling folks that you know anything about the bible, because you don't.
                  No. Why would you make up such falsehoods?

                  The first creation story is there for a purpose. Its moral is that man is the guardian and steward of nature:

                  God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 29 God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.


                  The second creation story is there for a purpose. Its moral is that man is to be faithful and dedicated to his wife:

                  Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.


                  The first is about man’s relationship to the earth. The second is about man’s relationship to his wife.

                  There was not a literal good Samaritan who travelled the road to Jericho and rescued the beaten man. Jesus did not say “this is a story.” He said:

                  “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”


                  If you declare the first creation story is literal history, then you contradict the second creation story. The two stories have different orders and methods of creation.

                  If you fall into the error of “if it doesn’t say it’s a story, then it’s literal history,” then you have forced an erroneous interpretation method onto a text that is incompatible with your interpretation method.

                  Feel free to deny what the text says, if you can justify that in your mind, but an honest reading of the early chapters of Genesis rebukes your position.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                    No. Why would you make up such falsehoods?
                    Simple.
                    Because you said it wasn't history.

                    We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
                    They already know monsters exist.
                    We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Tambora View Post
                      Simple.
                      Because you said it wasn't history.
                      You made up a falsehood about me, misstating my position, because I made a truthful statement?

                      You should reconsider such actions.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                        You made up a falsehood about me, misstating my position, because I made a truthful statement?

                        You should reconsider such actions.
                        Were the two different men that you say were created in Gen 1 and Gen 2 real living breathing fellas, or not?????

                        We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
                        They already know monsters exist.
                        We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                          I am a Christian.
                          Did someone say you weren't?
                          You simply deny what the text says.
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                            You are denying what the text says, but that is a common problem with fundamentalists.
                            Genesis 1:1-2:3 is the story of creation, and focuses on what God did.
                            Genesis 2:4-6 is a summary of the first five days of creation.
                            Genesis 2:7-2:25 is a detailed account of God creating man and Gan Eden and focuses on man's place in God's creation.
                            Learn to read what is written.

                            _____
                            The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                            ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 2003cobra View Post
                              There was not a literal good Samaritan who travelled the road to Jericho and rescued the beaten man.
                              How do you know this?
                              Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

                              It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                                Genesis 1:1-2:3 is the story of creation, and focuses on what God did.
                                Genesis 2:4-6 is a summary of the first five days of creation.
                                Genesis 2:7-2:25 is a detailed account of God creating man and Gan Eden and focuses on man's place in God's creation.
                                In your reading of the text, the summary says man was created after the plants and the animals while the detailed account says man was formed before any plants or animals.

                                That is better called a misreading or a denial of the text.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X