The Flood

[Loudmouth]

1. Man made from dust of the earth? Check.

So that's the literal meaning whats the symbolic or underlying meaning?

It symbolizes man being part of the physical world.

2. Woman made from his body part? Check.

So that's the literal meaning whats the symbolic or underlying meaning?

That man and woman are a part of each other. Together they make a whole.

3. A Tree of "The Knowledge of Good and Evil?" Check.

So that's the literal meaning whats the symbolic or underlying meaning?

It's a coming of age story. It relates the transition between child-like innocence and adulthood where one understands the difference between good and evil.

4. A talking snake? Check.

So that's the literal meaning whats the symbolic or underlying meaning?

Satan is symbolized throughout the Bible, this is just another instance.

5. A flaming sword? Check.

So that's the literal meaning whats the symbolic or underlying meaning?

It probably had more significance in the original Hebrew culture. Not sure about this one.

Not to me

I love these merry-go-rounds. They're so .... merry!

If no one told you that the book "Animal Farm" was an allegory would you think the events really took place? You seem fine with talking animals in Genesis, just wondering if you extended this to other books.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, and just so ya know, I WAS a believer before I became an UNBELIEVER. How does that work in your one-way-street of gnosis?

Thaumaturgy, I'm sorry to have to hold the Sword over your head, but you keep bringing this up.

[bible]Hebrews 6:4-6[/bible]

Are you telling us that you want us to believe that you:

1. Were once enlightened.
2. Tasted of the heavenly gift.
3. Made a partaker of the Holy Ghost.
4. Tasted the good work of God.
5. And the powers of the world to come.
6. Then fell away???

Is this what you're telling us?

 

[AV1611VET]

Stick to the rocks. They fit your heart.

ouch

 

[Baggins]

You shouldn't put your answers to my comments inside the quote of my comments as it makes them difficult to answer.

You first point is

I'll use your phrase. I like it. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle!

I'll ask you to withdraw that or to post a comment where I revel in my own ignorance of anything.

I am embarrassed by my ignorance and would rather not parade it in front of the world. I either speak on matters about which I know something, or back up my comments with links that I have read.


For you to find the answering of a technical question "ostentatious" I find baffling. If it was me and I was ignorant, I would keep my trap shut, not boast about it.

Your second point:

I know what ostentation is and I was not referring to those who were being cogniscent of basic science.

Well that is how it comes across. You are always bellyaching about being misrepresented, perhaps it would be a good idea if you didn't make your statements so ambiguous. It certainly looked as if you were calling the simple answer to a technical scientific question ostentation.

I would be interested to hear what you really meant.

Your third point:

Tissues!!! Someone get the man some tissues! Even though his saddeness comes from his own delusion because no one has said they are proud nor ashamed of their ignorance of science. They have no need to be. Just as those who seem to be more erudite have no need to be.

You certainly don't appear to be ashamed of your ignorance, you parade it around enough. I makes me wonder why you haunt these threads, you don't seem to be here to either learn or engage in scientific debate.

I like the little pop at erudition at the end as well. As if there is something wrong with making yourself understood. Perhaps you need a little more erudition then we wouldn't have misunderstandings like the "ostentation" episode.

Final point:

What truly is sad, Baggins, is that you try to dabble in areas you have no idea about...such as, what other people are thinking or feeling. Stick to the rocks. They fit your heart.

Thanks for that. I don't think I have attempted to assign thoughts or feelings to you. I have attempted, to the best of my ability, to interpret your inane ramblings, I am sorry if I haven't been able to discern from them what you actually meant. But I believe that is a fault of yours rather than a fault of mine.

I will indeed stick to the rocks, they give me a lot of pleasure and a comfortable lifestyle.

You final line seems to be attributing things to me that you cannot possibly know about me. Something you just cautioned me against doing.

Mrs Pot meet Mrs kettle

 

[Baggins]

ouch

Sicks and stones AV, you can't be hurt by the insults of someone you don't respect. They just let you know that you have hit home.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thaumaturgy --- Post 603 --- please.

 

[Inan3]

[/color]

It symbolizes man being part of the physical world.



That man and woman are a part of each other. Together they make a whole.



It's a coming of age story. It relates the transition between child-like innocence and adulthood where one understands the difference between good and evil.




Satan is symbolized throughout the Bible, this is just another instance.




It probably had more significance in the original Hebrew culture. Not sure about this one.



If no one told you that the book "Animal Farm" was an allegory would you think the events really took place? You seem fine with talking animals in Genesis, just wondering if you extended this to other books.

Firstly, it really doesn't matter what someone tells me. I can find my own answers and make up my own mind and decisions.

Well if Animal Farm was a series of 66 books over a time frame of 1500 years and was penned by 40 different writers all of diverse backgrounds giving credit of their writngs to the One true God, and there were no contradictions or errors. Also, knowing that it was kept intact for 15 centuries, with all those who believed in it and commited themselves to the God that it spoke of, were changed and delivered from all manner of ailments and lifestyles and would lay down their lives for Him and it. Yes, I would believe the events really did take place for then, it would be the Bible rather than a story written by modern man.

Do you know any other book that has done that over the ages?

 

[Loudmouth]

Firstly, it really doesn't matter what someone tells me. I can find my own answers and make up my own mind and decisions.

Well if Animal Farm was a series of 66 books . . .

We are talking about Genesis, not the Bible cannon.

over a time frame of 1500 years and was penned by 40 different writers all of diverse backgrounds giving credit of their writngs to the One true God, and there were no contradictions or errors. Also, knowing that it was kept intact for 15 centuries, with all those who believed in it and commited themselves to the God that it spoke of, were changed and delivered from all manner of ailments and lifestyles and would lay down their lives for Him and it. Yes, I would believe the events really did take place for then, it would be the Bible rather than a story written by modern man.

Do you know any other book that has done that over the ages?

You forgot about the Q'uran and the Book of Mormon which also mention the same God you believe in.

 

[AV1611VET]

You forgot about the Q'uran and the Book of Mormon which also mention the same God you believe in.

Um ... no.

 

[RedAndy]

Well if Animal Farm was a series of 66 books over a time frame of 1500 years and was penned by 40 different writers all of diverse backgrounds giving credit of their writngs to the One true God, and there were no contradictions or errors.

Allow me to contest this point. The 66 books of the Bible were compiled from a much larger set of writings, pretty much around the same time, by men with vested interests and beliefs. It's no surprise that by and large they agree with one another, as those books pertaining to different viewpoints were obviously not included. It's not as if the Council of Nicaea were sitting around and thought, "Well, let's throw in a few Gnostic texts just for balance," is it?

Also, "no contradictions or errors" is stretching credulity a bit. What of the four-legged locusts, the contradictory Creation accounts, the differing genealogies in Matthew and Luke? There are many portions of the Bible that have been identified as contradictory or erroneous, why cherry-pick the bits that are defensible?

 

[AV1611VET]

Allow me to contest this point. The 66 books of the Bible were compiled from a much larger set of writings, pretty much around the same time, by men with vested interests and beliefs. It's no surprise that by and large they agree with one another, as those books pertaining to different viewpoints were obviously not included. It's not as if the Council of Nicaea were sitting around and thought, "Well, let's throw in a few Gnostic texts just for balance," is it?

Also, "no contradictions or errors" is stretching credulity a bit. What of the four-legged locusts, the contradictory Creation accounts, the differing genealogies in Matthew and Luke? There are many portions of the Bible that have been identified as contradictory or erroneous, why cherry-pick the bits that are defensible?

You want this one, Inan --- or you want me to take it?

 

[NailsII]

What truly is sad, Baggins, is that you try to dabble in areas you have no idea about...such as, what other people are thinking or feeling. Stick to the rocks. They fit your heart.

Now this is something I really don't understand.
Why is my heart made of stone because I don't believe in god/jesus/whatever?
Surely it is slander to assume that I don't know love because I don't have a religious bone in my body?
And why would it make any difference?

 

[Inan3]

I'll ask you to withdraw that or to post a comment where I revel in my own ignorance of anything.

Your ignorance is of other peoples thoughts and feelings which you seem quite smug in pointing them out.

I am embarrassed by my ignorance and would rather not parade it in front of the world. I either speak on matters about which I know something, or back up my comments with links that I have read.

For you to find the answering of a technical question "ostentatious" I find baffling. If it was me and I was ignorant, I would keep my trap shut, not boast about it.

You keep saying that, prove that my allegations of ostentation was regarding the answering of a technical question. I deny that.

Well that is how it comes across. You are always bellyaching about being misrepresented, perhaps it would be a good idea if you didn't make your statements so ambiguous. It certainly looked as if you were calling the simple answer to a technical scientific question ostentation.

That is not how it comes across that is how you WANT it to come across. You want to find fault and insult creationists. Saying we have a "fear of knowledge" or that we are "proud of our ignorance". Those are all made up by you.

I would be interested to hear what you really meant.

Well I would have to point out specific individuals to do that and though "some" may revel in doing that, I don't so I won't.
Just keep your eyes open and you'll see it. For those who do it they will know who they are.

You certainly don't appear to be ashamed of your ignorance, you parade it around enough. I makes me wonder why you haunt these threads, you don't seem to be here to either learn or engage in scientific debate.

I'm not ashamed of my ignorance. I admit it but I do not parade it around. That would seem to imply that I constantly applaud my ignorance. Or are you saying.....No, you tell me, What do you mean and give me an example please.

I like the little pop at erudition at the end as well. As if there is something wrong with making yourself understood. Perhaps you need a little more erudition then we wouldn't have misunderstandings like the "ostentation" episode.

There was no "pop" at erudition, I was simply contrasting that with ignorance. I have very often complimented several of you for your erudition and I don't retract that now. I, like anyone, could use more erudition but it would not prevent the misunderstandings regarding ostentation, for as you see, your erudition has not helped you regarding this matter has it? You still got it wrong.

Thanks for that. I don't think I have attempted to assign thoughts or feelings to you. I have attempted, to the best of my ability, to interpret your inane ramblings,

Let me point out for you a few thoughts or feelings you assigned to me. Without going back too far:

"proud of ignorance"

"fear of knowledge"

"inane ramblings"

I am sorry if I haven't been able to discern from them what you actually meant. But I believe that is a fault of yours rather than a fault of mine.

Of course not.

I will indeed stick to the rocks, they give me a lot of pleasure and a comfortable lifestyle.

No ostentation there!

You final line seems to be attributing things to me that you cannot possibly know about me. Something you just cautioned me against doing.

Mrs Pot meet Mrs kettle [/quote]

Just a little what's good for the goose is good for the gander but you guys can't seem to handle that. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

 

[Inan3]

Now this is something I really don't understand.
Why is my heart made of stone because I don't believe in god/jesus/whatever?
Surely it is slander to assume that I don't know love because I don't have a religious bone in my body?
And why would it make any difference?

Nails, was I talking to you? Every post is not about every poster.

 

[Inan3]

You want this one, Inan --- or you want me to take it?

LOL

I'll step aside for you.

 

[Inan3]

[/color]

We are talking about Genesis, not the Bible cannon.



You forgot about the Q'uran and the Book of Mormon which also mention the same God you believe in.

No comparisons.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL

I'll step aside for you.

Thank you ---

 

[AV1611VET]

The 66 books of the Bible were compiled from a much larger set of writings, pretty much around the same time, by men with vested interests and beliefs. It's no surprise that by and large they agree with one another, as those books pertaining to different viewpoints were obviously not included. It's not as if the Council of Nicaea were sitting around and thought, "Well, let's throw in a few Gnostic texts just for balance," is it?

Andy, the council's job was not to create an authoritive list of books. Its job was to create a list of authoritive books. There's a difference.

In other words, the books that they included in the canon were already authoritive.

I explain it this way:

Suppose you were put in a room with all different denominations of currency, and told to separate them into legal and non-legal tender.

Could you do it? Sure you could!

• One-dollar bill goes here.
• Two-dollar bill goes here.
• Three-dollar bill goes there.
• Five-dollar bill goes here.
• Eight-dollar bill goes there.
• etc.

Notice that the tender is already legal or non-legal, and it's just a matter of recognizing them and separating them.

Also, "no contradictions or errors" is stretching credulity a bit. What of the:

1. four-legged locusts
2. the contradictory Creation accounts
3. the differing genealogies in Matthew and Luke?

Here are the fast answers:

1. These insects went extinct. God created the animals, and the animals that we see today are not necessarily the animals that existed back thousands of years ago. The satyr, the unicorn, the hare that chews its cud, the bat that flys like a bird, the behemoth, and the leviathan are examples of animals that are no longer with us.
2. The Creation accounts are not contradictory - as Genesis 2 is not an account of the Creation --- Genesis 1 is the account. Genesis 2 is placing emphasis on how Adam got his wife, and the passage that appears to be out of chronological order is actually parenthetical.
3. If you trace the two accounts backward, they both merge at David. David had Solomon [Matthew 1:6] and Nathan [Luke 3:31]. It's beyond the scope of this post to explain all the reconciliations here, but you can certainly check them out for yourself online. The point is, you cannot call two passages of Scripture a contradiction, unless they truly contradict according to the Law of Non-Contradiction, which says that something cannot be both A and non-A at the same time, and in the same context. Therefore any [logical] reconciliation at all will effectively destroy any effort to prove a contradiction.

There are many portions of the Bible that have been identified as contradictory or erroneous, why cherry-pick the bits that are defensible?

Because there are no contradictions at all in the Bible. A contradiction is a very serious accusation, and must be treated only as a last resort. People shout, "Contradiction" at almost every little thing, and that is not the way to properly critique the Scriptures.

In fact --- we Christians have something that non-Christians don't have --- the "ministry of reconciliation."

[bible]2 Corinthians 5:18[/bible]

And we are to use it wisely.

 

[Inan3]

Andy, the council's job was not to create an authoritive list of books. Its job was to create a list of authoritive books. There's a difference.

In other words, the books that they included in the canon were already authoritive.

I explain it this way:

Suppose you were put in a room with all different denominations of currency, and told to separate them into legal and non-legal tender.

Could you do it? Sure you could!

• One-dollar bill goes here.
• Two-dollar bill goes here.
• Three-dollar bill goes there.
• Five-dollar bill goes here.
• Eight-dollar bill goes there.
• etc.

Notice that the tender is already legal or non-legal, and it's just a matter of recognizing them and separating them.

Here are the fast answers:

1. These insects went extinct. God created the animals, and the animals that we see today are not necessarily the animals that existed back thousands of years ago. The satyr, the unicorn, the hare that chews its cud, the bat that flys like a bird, the behemoth, and the leviathan are examples of animals that are no longer with us.
2. The Creation accounts are not contradictory - as Genesis 2 is not an account of the Creation --- Genesis 1 is the account. Genesis 2 is placing emphasis on how Adam got his wife, and the passage that appears to be out of chronological order is actually parenthetical.
3. If you trace the two accounts backward, they both merge at David. David had Solomon [Matthew 1:6] and Nathan [Luke 3:31]. It's beyond the scope of this post to explain all the reconciliations here, but you can certainly check them out for yourself online. The point is, you cannot call two passages of Scripture a contradiction, unless they truly contradict according to the Law of Non-Contradiction, which says that something cannot be both A and non-A at the same time, and in the same context. Therefore any [logical] reconciliation at all will effectively destroy any effort to prove a contradiction.

Because there are no contradictions at all in the Bible. A contradiction is a very serious accusation, and must be treated only as a last resort. People shout, "Contradiction" at almost every little thing, and that is not the way to properly critique the Scriptures.

In fact --- we Christians have something that non-Christians don't have --- the "ministry of reconciliation."

[bible]2 Corinthians 5:18[/bible]

And we are to use it wisely.

WOW I'm glad I left it to you. Good night.

 

[AV1611VET]

WOW I'm glad I left it to you. Good night.

Good night, Inan --- sleep well!