Questions about Cain...

[dad]

I have no reason to believe a god exists. But that's a story for another discussion. Besides, that wasn't my question.

So, your answer to - "Is there any independent verification and validation of this claim?" - is no.

Independant verification of pre split, pre flood lives? What kind of dumb question is that? If the bible is true, there could be no such thing! Try asking an educated question sometime!

 

[dad]

...
I'm going to have to go with the slime/monkey idea. It's not very flattering, but there actually seems to be HUGE amount of scientific evidence for it -

No none at all actually! Just old age spinning of evidence.

as opposed to the dirt/incest idea - which is equally disgusting, PLUS there is NO scientific evidence for it whatsoever.

What a physical only view. God breathed the breath of life into the man He formed, the dirt was just what the housing material was fashioned from. Science is too limited to have a thing much to say one way or the other about it.
Claiming men came from Granny is truly vile, and is a beastly philosophy that has resulted in hell on earth, and untold millions dead. (Example, communists, Stalin, etc). It has men related to insects!

 

[dad]

But you do assume that God actually said what you think He said, that it was recorded accurately and that you have interpreted it correctly. All totally unfounded assumptions.

F.B.

No, all extremely well founded truths. We know it was recorded accurately, we have the ancient records that have been checked! It really says He made things in a week, get over it. Jesus talked of the flood as well, you have no point. So did others in the New Testament. You can't make it go away hiding your head, try to deal with it.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

no, the people who wrote decades after the fact claim that jesus said these things... we don't even have conclusive evidence that he ever lived

 

[dad]

The Vedas in their current form are around 3,500 years old.

Ok, then they fall within the safety time margin. Take em or leave em for what they are worth.

Sumerian and Egyptian myths, in writing, date back ~5,000 years at the earliest in cuneiform and heiroglyphics, respectively.

As I say, how do you think you know they are that old, exactly? Based on what?

The Old Testament is 3,000 years old at the very earliest, more likely ~2,500 years old.

OK, so many centuries after the flood, is as far back as our known written record goes. Fine with me. So what?

They are both physically impossible. One is not "more impossible" than another.

No, one actually happened. Not impossible at all.

But if it makes you feel better, what about god making the sun stop in the sky, ignoring that the sun doesnt actually move? That is also ridiculous.

No it is not, because we have a known merged universe in the past and future. This likely was simply a localized manifestation of the spiritual reality/

By the way, would you mind telling me which myth this sun-eating one is?

A poster named Caphi brought it up, I have no idea.

And you know this how? You simply believe that the Bible is right and therefore it is more historical than any other mythological text. You have no evidence.

Because I read the ridiculous lengths they went to to preserve the very sacred texts.

Archaeological evidence that Ur existed is not evidence Abraham was a real person. As that is exactly the sort of argument you were making, consider it refuted.

It is evidence that the naysayers were wrong, consider yourself corrected. It is evidence that the bible is not some baseless fairy tale. We're talking real places and people and events here.

I know as much or more on the subject than you, who I find rather lacking in actually information. You seem to think having faith in spades makes up for not knowing what you're talking about.

If you did know about Bethlehem, and the virgin birth, you would be patting yourself on the back, and telling me I know not what I speak of. Are you just trying to sound like an iritating, intloerable braggart, with a huge ego? I can judge for myself if you know what you are talking about, I don't need your opinion of yourself.

Some prophecies in the Bible were written after the fact,

Name a few.

some are so vague anyone with half an imagination could interprate them to fit any event,

Many many are precise, and specific. The ones that are a little misty are still usually fairly easy to determine what period, for example, the millenium, or post millenium, or tribulation, or time of Jesus, or kingdoms before or after Rome, etc etc. They are a symphony of perfection covering all toimes, and 100% accurate. You strike out here.

and many are seen as prophetic when they are merely overly-poetic translations of translations,

Says know little perceive less little old you.

as in the case of the King James Bible. Some, especially those dealing with the messiah are believed to be genuine among scholars. However, I don't remember any Old Testament prophecies regarding the naming of Bethlehem itself. Could you kindly give me the passage?

I referred to Jesus being born there, not naming the town.

 

[TheBear]

Independant verification of pre split, pre flood lives? What kind of dumb question is that? If the bible is true, there could be no such thing! Try asking an educated question sometime!

Don't play coy. You made the claim that a character named Cain 'actually lived'. I asked for independent validation and verification. Then you throw in a red herring question.

Do you have anything other than the bible and your belief system to back up any of your remarks in these forums.

Here. I'll answer it for you. NO!



I would have a little more respect for you, if you just said, "The bible says it, and that's all I know and believe." Because that's the bottom line in all this. You know horse-hockey about science, so just stay out of it.

How's that for an educated reply?

 

[dad]

no, the people who wrote decades after the fact claim that jesus said these things... we don't even have conclusive evidence that he ever lived

Christians do. Even today, deathbed testimony is valued. There were many who died to testify to the bible, and Jesus being true! Also, He works today, for those that try Him. Alive and well as we speak.

 

[dad]

Don't play coy. You made the claim that a character named Cain 'actually lived'. I asked for independent validation and verification. Then you throw in a red herring question.

He can't be independantly verified, being pre split/flood, you ought to know this. He was real though.

Do you have anything other than the bible and your belief system to back up any of your remarks in these forums.

Here. I'll answer it for you. NO!

Thats a hec of a lot more than you got! Hey, no problem, any more questions, just ask-yourself.

I would have a little more respect for you, if you just said, "The bible says it, and that's all I know and believe." Because that's the bottom line in all this.

Where do you think we even know about Cain from, some biology book!? Of course it's the bible. I say what I want, you read em & weep.

You know horse-hockey about science, so just stay out of it.

I know enough about it to realize that it is limited. More, apparently than you can attain. Keep your falsely so called science, the old age beliefs out of it.

How's that for an educated reply?

Hey hey Boo Boo, it's not exactly a picnic lunch.

 

[Dannager]

I know enough about it to realize that it is limited.

No, you don't.

Also, the first books of the Bible are not historical texts, as they were not written by anyone who actually witnessed the events described (and God doesn't count - he didn't write the Bible no matter how much you might think he influenced it).

The Bible is not evidence, dad. It is testimony. They are two different things. Testimony is valued less than evidence. Your hypothesis on a physical-only past is supported by testimony. Evolutionary theory and an old earth are supported by evidence. Of the two, the one with support from the evidence is the more sound.

 

[Morallyangelic]

One big orgy of incest in the Garden I guess. Funny that the Bible never mentions that or that Adam and Eve and dozens of kids and grandkids were thrown out of the Garden. Was Adam mating with his daughters as well as with Eve? Was Eve mating with the unmentioned sons? Or was it just brothers and sisters getting it on? What was going on in dad's bizarro fantasy garden? Once again we see additions to Bible as required to attempt to match the myth.

4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.



4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.


Cain doesn't say "My brothers and sisters and their kids will try to kill me." He says everyone. Further it is pretty clear that Cain and Abel are the first male children so who was living in the land of Nod?

This really belongs in appologetics. Now if you want to discuss how all the varied genetics in the human race could have arisen from two individuals with only 4 allels for each gene in 6,000 years that is part of the science that shows the story of Adam and Eve to be a myth.

F.B.

If you said to me " How was your Christmas? " and I said to you " It was great, everyone was there. "

Do you assume that none of my family was there?

eve·ry·one Every person; everybody.

I didn't know family was excluded from being classified as ' everyone '

 

[Morallyangelic]

Being part of a debate does not add any credibility to a claim. Is there any independent verification and validation of this claim?

Is that a real pic of you Bear?

lol so off topic!

 

[TheBear]

Is that a real pic of you Bear?

lol so off topic!

LOL No. It's Carl Sagan.

 

[Morallyangelic]

LOL No. It's Carl Sagan.

hahahaha, was gonna say your quite the handsome fella! lol

 

[TheBear]

hahahaha, was gonna say your quite the handsome fella! lol

You still can.

 

[Morallyangelic]

You still can.

Your quite the handsome fella bear!

LOL

 

[JGL53]

No none at all actually! Just old age spinning of evidence...

This is either correct or an expression of ignorance. But from all that I know of the subject I'm going to have to assume that gross ignorance of evolution's evidences is your particular problem.

What a physical only view. God breathed the breath of life into the man He formed, the dirt was just what the housing material was fashioned from. Science is too limited to have a thing much to say one way or the other about it.

Claiming men came from Granny is truly vile, and is a beastly philosophy that has resulted in hell on earth, and untold millions dead. (Example, communists, Stalin, etc). It has men related to insects!

This is the "moral pragmatism" argument for a god and has utterly nothing to do with scientific evidence for or against anything. So your musings are off topic.

In any case, there are as many acts of horror associated with god belief in the history of humans as there are without, so your proposition is unfounded.

Do you want to have a "dueling atrocities" contest regarding this? Then start another thread addressing the question "Does god belief inevitably lead to ethical behavior, and atheism to unethical, or visa versa, or is it a draw?" (Here’s a hint of my viewpoint – I’ve nothing more to do with Stalin than you do with Pope Innocent III).

 

[dad]

No, you don't.

Of course I do, don't be childish. WE can't see any event horizons beyond our universe, or anything else out that far. That is a limitation, you must admit. We know nothing of what supposedly was 'here' before the singularity, do you? You don't know much about most of the PO universe even, the dark energy or matter. You don't know what time is, really, in any depth. You don't know how Granny happened to come about, supposedly. You are so limited, it isn't funny. And that is just of the PO which you think you know something about. Calm down on the insults, O little man.

Also, the first books of the Bible are not historical texts, as they were not written by anyone who actually witnessed the events described (and God doesn't count -

How do you know? Some books they don't really know who wrote. Solomon was thought to write some, he witnessed plenty. You are just evo hypothesizing baselessly here. Get a grip. God does count, like it or lump it.

he didn't write the Bible no matter how much you might think he influenced it).

You know nothing about it, why even talk?

The Bible is not evidence, dad. It is testimony.

It contains evidence, like the witnessed ressurection, and fulfilled prophesy.

They are two different things. Testimony is valued less than evidence.

Espescially by evo atheists, when the testimony talks of evidences galore.

Your hypothesis on a physical-only past is supported by testimony.

Thank you. Too bad Granny and the Speck will never be.

Evolutionary theory and an old earth are supported by evidence.

Not a speck, just interpretaion and assumption of the same evidence that supports my case.

Of the two, the one with support from the evidence is the more sound.

Old age has no evidence at all in any way and is belief based! It is an alternative to sound doctrine, not sound itself in any way, except for making noise.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Adam and Eve's children were the only ones on earth...so how did they create man kind?

By bionking their sisters ofcourse, and after God sets the world right again we can resume boinking them...

Pardon my while I throw up now.

 

[dad]

This is either correct or an expression of ignorance. But from all that I know of the subject I'm going to have to assume that gross ignorance of evolution's evidences is your particular problem.

It isn't. I know it's a shock to the sytem, but you've been had, conned, hoodwinked, and sold a phoney bill of goods.

This is the "moral pragmatism" argument for a god and has utterly nothing to do with scientific evidence for or against anything. So your musings are off topic.

Granny has nothing to do with evidence, just the belief based interpretations of it, mixed with dreams of a non existant past that was only physical.

In any case, there are as many acts of horror associated with god belief in the history of humans as there are without, so your proposition is unfounded.

Whether there are other criminals or not, I identified a mass murderer there.

Do you want to have a "dueling atrocities" contest regarding this? Then start another thread addressing the question "Does god belief inevitably lead to ethical behavior, and atheism to unethical, or visa versa, or is it a draw?" (Here’s a hint of my viewpoint – I’ve nothing more to do with Stalin than you do with Pope Innocent III).

I'd be interested to see the millions killed numbers stacked side by side, but it was a sidenote.
There is always danger having leaders pretend to be christian as well. Even worse, be christian, and so deceived, that they think they are suppose to kill opponents, and other nations.
Sorry, Bush, and gang, I'd prefer a peaceful deluded evo in there any day.

 

[dad]

By bionking their sisters ofcourse, and after God sets the world right again we can resume boinking them...

Pardon my while I throw up now.

The time for boinking relatives ended thousands of years ago, quite clearly. It shows you imagine the present world only in the wonderful past. Want to find an upchuck aid? Try someplace like San Fran, or Vancouver.