15 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMF"You suggest that the Bible's Adam to Jesus lineage is corroborated by "other" accounts."
What you say is important in so far as it affects whether you can be taken at your word. You suggest that the Bible's Adam to Jesus lineage is corroborated by other accounts. Turns out this isn't true and you back pedal from it. You suggest that you have never heard of 'The Garden of Eden' story being seen as allegory before. Turns out this isn't true and you back pedal from it. What you say matters.
Not my wording at all. I said "all accounts" and was speaking of the Bible only as I explained in an earlier post. I guess you missed it, again.
And now for the third or fourth time I said I had not heard of his version as I keep explaining. I guess you keep missing that too?
So are you going to keep asking these same questions over and over or will you get it this time around? Well see huh?
15 Aug 14
Originally posted by galveston75You have never heard of 'The Garden of Eden' story being seen by many Christians as an allegory rather than literally true even after 40 years of discussing the Bible with Christians?
And now for the third or fourth time I said I had not heard of his version as I keep explaining. I guess you keep missing that too?
15 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterThe wages of sin is death, correct. So we know no dead people were
It's a genuine question for any Christian interested.
Considering that death had not yet entered and that soil is fundamentally decomposing dead stuff mixed in with minerals, water and a few microbes; where did the dead stuff and microbes come from?
there at that time. I'm not sure about plants or animals not dying before
the fall, someone else can speak to that.
Kelly
Originally posted by galveston75Your sloppy fib and clanger strewn writing is the product of a mind that also insists that the text of some Iron Age mythology must be taken literally. It may sound like an ad hominem to tackle you on your absurdity-riddled posts and constant passive aggressive backpeddling, but a key issue here is your credibility as some sort of self-appointed expert witness on the history of mankind.
Why would I not be serious? Yes I've talked to many who believe that to be so but all have a different take on it and I'm just asking him to hear his version.
As an allegory, 'The Garden of Eden' story at least has some semblance of philosophical relevance or interest as it tries to portray a relationship with a perceived God figure; as a supposedly 'literally true' story, there is absolutely no convincing reason to believe it without wholesale adoption of circular logic.
15 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Actually yes it does Galveston.
Lol. Does it really matter what I said or how I said it...?
On these boards you are what you post and people will assume you mean what you say. This is a concept you seem to consistently struggle with and clearly you have leant nothing from your experience in the "Forum Etiquette" thread a few months ago.
This incident here, now, is is an example of how readers may think you are being dishonest. I think you are being dishonest, but I also think you may not realise it, because if you did you would not do it.
Because of is personality trait I tend to find you difficult to converse with; you will hem and haw, move the goal posts, pretend that what you said doesn't actually mean what you said, put lots of "LOLs" in you posts implying that it's all very amusing to you and not important that other people find you evasive and disingenuous.
15 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterYour welome to your view. How about we just agree to disagree and avoid each other here on the forums? Deal?
Actually yes it does Galveston.
On these boards you are what you post and people will assume you mean what you say. This is a concept you seem to consistently struggle with and clearly you have leant nothing from your experience in the "Forum Etiquette" thread a few months ago.
This incident here, now, is is an example of how readers may think yo ...[text shortened]... s all very amusing to you and not important that other people find you evasive and disingenuous.
15 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFWell actually it can and does corroborate perfectly with it's collection of 66 books with each other as they were all inspired by God. No other book like it ever in existance on this planet so it can't be compared with any normal book.
The Bible cannot be corroborated by the Bible.
15 Aug 14
4 edits
Originally posted by galveston75My view on this matter will be held by many others here and your dismissive stance when called out on being dishonest yet again, mearly goes to underline the issue.
Your welome to your view. How about we just agree to disagree and avoid each other here on the forums? Deal?
As for avoiding you; I understood you were to be leaving the site and cancelling your subscription after your 'pants-off' meltdown in the "Forum Ettiquete" thread. If you stuck to your intentions, I wouldn't have to avoid you and have no intention of doing so anyway.
It seems you being here now misbehaving again and not leaving as so publicly advertised, shows your threats to be example of your childish tantrums.
Originally posted by galveston75Your fixation on the Bible is peculiar (and peculiarly Protestant, if I may presume to guess your affiliation).
Well actually it can and does corroborate perfectly with it's collection of 66 books with each other as they were all inspired by God. No other book like it ever in existance on this planet so it can't be compared with any normal book.
1. At the time of Jesus and for the first three centuries after his death, there was no such book as The Bible. There were innumerable sacred scrolls circulating round the Mediterranean in the first three centuries CE. Not everyone who thinks of himself as a Christian accepts that there were always exactly 66 books, never more, never less.
2. If I may suggest, read about how the Bible came to be; it didn't just drop out of the sky fully-formed, you know. (Unless you're a Mormon, in which case it _did_.) Find out why just those particular scrolls (or 'books' ) were canonized, by whom, when, and how often they were redacted over the last two millennia. For your info, the earliest _complete_ extant OT (known as the Masoretic Text) dates from 1524. That is very very far removed from the time of Jesus and the Apostles, and a huge amount of editing when on during the gap in between. Only fragments survive from earlier centuries.
3. The Bible is not the primary source for the revelation of God's will for man. As any Catholic, Greek or Russian Orthodox, or Anglican priest will tell you, the Bible is only the menu, not the meal.
And finally, the Bible is not the final word of God to man; God's will for man is being continuously revealed (updated, refined) through Ecumenical Councils. Ignore them at your (eternal) peril.
The Bible was suited to purpose at the time, but it is frozen in time. Now it's time to move on.
15 Aug 14
Originally posted by galveston75So, when it comes to the history of mankind, you reckon the Bible can be corroborated by... the Bible?
Well actually it can and does corroborate perfectly with it's collection of 66 books with each other as they were all inspired by God. No other book like it ever in existance on this planet so it can't be compared with any normal book.
15 Aug 14
Originally posted by moonbusJust the view of the bible that satan loves all to have....
Your fixation on the Bible is peculiar (and peculiarly Protestant, if I may presume to guess your affiliation).
1. At the time of Jesus and for the first three centuries after his death, there was no such book as The Bible. There were innumerable sacred scrolls circulating round the Mediterranean in the first three centuries CE. Not everyone who thinks of ...[text shortened]... The Bible was suited to purpose at the time, but it is frozen in time. Now it's time to move on.