George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
The embarassing thing is that what they said actually disproves his point!
Shhh! Don't tell him.
Hello, Fundies! :)
- Thread starter Vulcan Logician
- Start date
The embarassing thing is that what they said actually disproves his point!
Shhh! Don't tell him.
Lon
Well-known member
Good enough. Look, 1) you are arguing in front of an atheist. He already said he isn't interested in your version. He already agrees with your version so you are just trolling this thread for an opportunity to hijack yet another thread for your uncontrollable urges. 2) The text doesn't really go into it. It could be the 'land of Eden.' The precedent is 'mist' not necessarily Adam and Eve. That too means you are interpreting 'figurative' off of a whim. 3) See that YOU are breaking thread rules:
Vulcan isn't INTERESTED in your opinion. He said so, so you are in a thread that doesn't belong to you and is NOT your business. He stipulated it wasn't your business, but you can't help yourself. These are your uncontrollable urges and tongue. James says you can't handle it, but you don't even look like you are trying
lain::doh: An incredibly LIBERAL and incredibly detached from the Bible nonChristian theory. It was posited by liberal nonChristians and there you are spouting it off as if it is 'theology' gold.... :nono: There is no reason for you to be here, Cobra. It is all garbage, rubbish, and useless, counted for naught and worse. You just love to argue, and debate and have your concept of pride stroked. Anybody that reads this and knows about it, knows you are in bed with liberal nonChristian heathen. John 15:5 --> Without Him, you can't do anything. NOTHING.
lain:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Well, you are both those. Quite the busy boy, aren't ya?
Apparently you did not read the translators notes.
Strange.
Apparently you did not read the translator notes either. The short version:
It is a way of saying: “back before anything was growing.”
15 tn The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.
Nope, you just see things that aren’t there. I am only me.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Right, and Evil Eye was only evil eye. :chucke:
Good enough. Look, 1) you are arguing in front of an atheist. He already said he isn't interested in your version. He already agrees with your version so you are just trolling this thread for an opportunity to hijack yet another thread for your uncontrollable urges. 2) The text doesn't really go into it. It could be the 'land of Eden.' The precedent is 'mist' not necessarily Adam and Eve. That too means you are interpreting 'figurative' off of a whim. 3) See that YOU are breaking thread rules:
Vulcan isn't INTERESTED in your opinion. He said so, so you are in a thread that doesn't belong to you and is NOT your business. He stipulated it wasn't your business, but you can't help yourself. These are your uncontrollable urges and tongue. James says you can't handle it, but you don't even look like you are trying
:doh: An incredibly LIBERAL and incredibly detached from the Bible nonChristian theory. It was posited by liberal nonChristians and there you are spouting it off as if it is 'theology' gold.... :nono: There is no reason for you to be here, Cobra. It is all garbage, rubbish, and useless, counted for naught and worse. You just love to argue, and debate and have your concept of pride stroked. Anybody that reads this and knows about it, knows you are in bed with liberal nonChristian heathen. John 15:5 --> Without Him, you can't do anything. NOTHING.
I would like for all atheists to know that the insistence on a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis is not a requirement of Christianity and it is not even consistent with the Biblical text.
You are arguing in front of an atheist, and you are arguing nonsense that makes Christianity look stupid. It turns people away from the gospel. It puts blood on the hands of its proponents.
As for arguing from pride, I don’t think I am a match for you.
I suspect you know George and genuineoriginal are wrong about the NETBible translator notes, but you won’t say so. Think about why that might be. Better yet, pray about it.
glorydaz
Well-known member
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yes, Mr. Innocent.....just like your Gospel thread. :rotfl:
Lon
Well-known member
He ALREADY said he knows that. He acknowledges that (as do almost all atheists on TOL).
DON'T try to apologize for God. I will defend whatever is right or true DESPITE what man thinks is right or true against God. You read INTO the text, not out of it.
Galatians 6:3-8 Philippians 3:4-11
Matthew 7:4,5
Why are you 'speculating' about what 'you' suspect? You jump the gun more often than not in guesses and assumptions. As you do me, you do the scriptures as well
Luke 4:23 I do pray, for you as well.
genuineoriginal
New member
Translator: "the first term, שִׂיחַ (siakh), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants"
It appears that the term הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה (haś·śā·ḏeh), which was translated as "of the field", contradicts the translator's supposition that the word שִׂיחַ (siakh), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants.
The translator's notes on the verse are misleading, but the words of the verse itself shows clearly that it is speaking about plants in cultivated fields.
Genesis 2:5 NET 5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. |
Lon
Well-known member
Here is a thought: If you really are interested in their salvation, start a thread for them "Atheists, you don't have to be, Christians are wrong." Or something along that line of thinking. You may be entirely ineffectual on TOL, but I can watch from afar. It'd think it'd be MUCH more effective than simply jumping in and arguing with 'fundies' every thread. I'd read that thread, at the very least, so it wouldn't be a waste of your time AND I'd find it interesting if not edifying personally. -Lon
He ALREADY said he knows that. He acknowledges that (as do almost all atheists on TOL).
DON'T try to apologize for God. I will defend whatever is right or true DESPITE what man thinks is right or true against God. You read INTO the text, not out of it.
Galatians 6:3-8 Philippians 3:4-11
Matthew 7:4,5
Why are you 'speculating' about what 'you' suspect? You jump the gun more often than not in guesses and assumptions. As you do me, you do the scriptures as well
Apologize for God? The nonsense some Christians post is not God speaking.
I understand you disagree with the five Hebrew scholars.
The text of the second creation story is quite clear: man was formed before plants and animals.
Lon
Well-known member
...
YOU are the one interested in trying to prove Christians wrong in thread.
lain:Try again. Don't you have ANY introspective ability??? That man is YOU!
Lon
Well-known member
There are altruistic posters on TOL. Even purportedly from some of our atheists on TOL.
:think: It has been almost a week. Did we lose you?
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I understand the five Hebrew scholars disagree with you that there are two creation stories.
Too bad.
Alan P. Ross - "What God created is here called “the heavens and the earth,” a poetic expression (merism) signifying the whole universe. Other examples of this poetic device are “day and night” (meaning all the time) and “man and beast” (meaning all created physical beings). “Heaven and earth” thus indicates not only the heaven and the earth but everything in them. Genesis 2:4 also uses this expression in a restatement of the work of creation throughout the six days."