Author Topic: how would you counter this, literalist post.  (Read 1807 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #174 on: August 22, 2014, 11:04:54 AM »
I just posted the whole creation story verbatim from the NIV where plants lived on land before organisms lived in the ocean... where day and plants existed before God created the sun and stars... and the sun and moon were simply tools for us to govern day and night.

You should carefully read what I just wrote. There is another "interpretation" of what's written in Gen 1, which is quite devious. You need to get your head around it.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1312
  • Darwins +102/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #175 on: August 22, 2014, 11:18:34 AM »
To clarify, I'm not commenting on whether or not Jst's reading actually works in the sense that it reflects what its original authors intended it to mean. I'm just happy that he's trying to make their explanation fit with what we actually know to be true, rather than poo-poo science because it doesn't fit with that explanation. For me, and I think I'd differ from a lot of you here, a Christianity that accepts an old earth, evolution by natural selection, woman and men as equals, the various races as equals, homosexuality as acceptable, etc is a Christianity that I really have no problems with. And I'm fine with whatever contortions that need to made to get believers there.
Nah son...

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #176 on: August 22, 2014, 11:32:19 AM »
I'm fine with whatever contortions that need to made to get believers there.

It sort of depends upon whether they believe in hell or not. You wouldn't want a bunch of Christians who reckon they've solved all the problems in the Bible, to go around preaching about hell.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1312
  • Darwins +102/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #177 on: August 22, 2014, 11:35:28 AM »
Why?
Nah son...

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #178 on: August 22, 2014, 12:10:10 PM »
Why?

Depends on what you mean by contortion. If a contortion is an irrational interpretation, which still has loads of obvious holes in it, that allow potential converts to see the obvious flaws in Christianity, then I suppose it's fine if they terrify people with hell.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1312
  • Darwins +102/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #179 on: August 22, 2014, 08:14:31 PM »
All I'm saying is that I like about interpretations like Jst's.  He isn't being rigid. He figures that if science contradicts scripture then he's not reading scripture correctly. I like that. And I don't even care if it's rational or not.

If he's also preaching hell, then I have a problem with that. That's actually one of those doctrines that hits me a little close to home. Intellectually I'm sure that when I die, that will be the end of my consciousness. And yet, if I'm being honest, there is some part of me that's sure that I'm going to hell. I can't quite shake it.
Nah son...

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1434
  • Darwins +26/-103
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #180 on: August 22, 2014, 11:41:59 PM »
Jst, I find your interpretation of Genesis 1 to be pretty interesting actually. I wish more Christians would do what you're doing, which is to interpret scripture in light of the best available science rather than the other way around.

What do you think about Genesis 2 and 3?  Is it intended to be read as a myth or something that actually happened in history? And why do you think that?

I believe they are historically accurate.  With the creation of Adam I don't know how he was created.  Jehovah could do it literally as the account says, but that doesn't mean he did and I don't think he did.  The creation of everything else was a long process.  Likely man was too.  And for the record, the belief in an older earth dates back at least to the time of the Church Fathers.  I don't know how popular the opinion was but some did hold that opinion at least as far back as that.  It is not a modern development, although modern science does give credence that that interpretation.

I do believe the account of the Garden is to be considered historical.  I just don't see any indication in scripture that it's not historical and I don't see a reason to view it otherwise. 

However these things are very low down on my list of things to know and understand from the scriptures.  One of the things that attracts me most is it's insight into human behavior, including my own.  For me, looking into the Bible is like looking into a mirror. 
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1434
  • Darwins +26/-103
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #181 on: August 23, 2014, 12:08:51 AM »
However in the revised view, the creation of "light" is nothing more than a perception, when the clouds get a bit lighter, so that some sun can get down to the surface of the water planet, and be perceived by an imaginary person.

Do you think when he said, "let there be light" that that means lighting up all of the heavens or just the earth?  It's clearly talking in relation to the earth and from the point of view of what an earthly spectator would experience.  He wasn't talking about light for outer space.

Quote
However, you can tell from the statement "and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day", that it's got nothing to do with perception, because the creation of light is about day and night, not about sunlight getting through some clouds. Otherwise it would have been night, when it was dark, under the clouds.

There was no "Day" until light hit the earth.  It was always dark.  Here we are talking about daytime and nightime, not a calendar day.  Day 4 establishes that.  There is no daytime when it's always dark.  Ask people in Alaska.

Quote
Why can't we make Gen 1:1 a kind of summary for Gen1:1-5?

Because verse 2 begins with "and the earth".  There is no doubt what it's talking about.  Light for the earth, land for the earth, luminaries for the earth, vegetation for the earth, animal life for the earth.  Everything beyond 1:1 is about the earth.  The only thing we're told about anything else is God created it "in the beginning".  And there is no idication how long that was.

"I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was" (Proverbs 8:23).  This scripture indicates that the beginning goes back even further than the existence of the earth.

Quote
Clouds or something are compulsory, yet not mentioned. But that's not the problem.

Yes they are mentioned and I already posted a scripture from Job showing that was the case.  "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?.............when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness." (Job 28:9)"

I did not just pull the idea out of thin air.






Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
  • Darwins +65/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #182 on: August 23, 2014, 12:45:36 AM »
I just posted the whole creation story verbatim from the NIV where plants lived on land before organisms lived in the ocean... where day and plants existed before God created the sun and stars... and the sun and moon were simply tools for us to govern day and night.

You should carefully read what I just wrote. There is another "interpretation" of what's written in Gen 1, which is quite devious. You need to get your head around it.

Yeah I did.

I know that in Sunday School now, they're changing the order of the creation story to match up more with what we know actually happened, but they're not talking about changing it... they'll then claim that it was the "correct translation all along".

I'm not sure how anyone can read any of the old testament and feel like it's good, divinely inspired, or factually historical.

You have to get to... "well... snakes and donkeys can talk and it's totally fair for god to murder other people to punish their relatives or leaders because god can do anything"

And then you have to get to... "well... I know god is real because the bible is such a perfect and amazing book and it says he's real..."

The fact that there are chapters just devoted to how to sacrifice animals should put the book firmly in the "this is not an account of a timeless perfect god guys" category.
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #183 on: August 23, 2014, 12:48:54 AM »
However in the revised view, the creation of "light" is nothing more than a perception, when the clouds get a bit lighter, so that some sun can get down to the surface of the water planet, and be perceived by an imaginary person.

Do you think when he said, "let there be light" that that means lighting up all of the heavens or just the earth?  It's clearly talking in relation to the earth and from the point of view of what an earthly spectator would experience.  He wasn't talking about light for outer space.

Quote
However, you can tell from the statement "and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day", that it's got nothing to do with perception, because the creation of light is about day and night, not about sunlight getting through some clouds. Otherwise it would have been night, when it was dark, under the clouds.

There was no "Day" until light hit the earth.  It was always dark.  Here we are talking about daytime and nightime, not a calendar day.  Day 4 establishes that.  There is no daytime when it's always dark.  Ask people in Alaska.

Quote
Why can't we make Gen 1:1 a kind of summary for Gen1:1-5?

Because verse 2 begins with "and the earth".  There is no doubt what it's talking about.  Light for the earth, land for the earth, luminaries for the earth, vegetation for the earth, animal life for the earth.  Everything beyond 1:1 is about the earth.  The only thing we're told about anything else is God created it "in the beginning".  And there is no idication how long that was.

"I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was" (Proverbs 8:23).  This scripture indicates that the beginning goes back even further than the existence of the earth.

Quote
Clouds or something are compulsory, yet not mentioned. But that's not the problem.

Yes they are mentioned and I already posted a scripture from Job showing that was the case.  "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?.............when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness." (Job 28:9)"

I did not just pull the idea out of thin air.

I believe I have pretty much answered the assertion that God created the universe and the heavens in Gen 1:1. I recognise that your position is sophisticated and cunning, but the devil is in the details, which you have quite obviously ignored again.

Quoting random opinions in Proverbs, Pslams, Job and talking about Alaska, does not mean that the author of Genesis knew what he was talking about. In no way was a coherent picture of the universe, like you are trying to depict, divined from the scriptures. Instead, they came up with stories about the Earth being on pillars, and the world ending in an abyss, towards the north. You selectively quote Job, when you are not even sure if he is talking figuratively at the time.

When God creates light in Gen 1:3

[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

This is a cosmological statement. You can tell, because God admires his creation. It does not make sense to say that he admired the fact that a bit more light made its way down to the "surface" of an Earth that had no form. If what you say is true, then light and dark was already created in the cosmos. Therefore Day and night were already created.

Quote
"Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?.............when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness."  (Job 28:9)

You've even used the same elipsis, again, to avoid addressing what is in between your two statements.

It seems like you almost believe what you are saying, but sorry, there is no way I can read that text and go to your cunning contrivance.




Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #184 on: August 23, 2014, 12:59:22 AM »
I know that in Sunday School now, they're changing the order of the creation story to match up more with what we know actually happened, but they're not talking about changing it... they'll then claim that it was the "correct translation all along".

This issue is not about lying about the order of creation. It's about lying about Gen 1:1, to fix up the problem that the sun was created on Day 4.

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

1:1, traditionally seen as a summary of what happens next, is changed to being another creation. However, once you have wrecked the intent of the text, you are left struggling in a mass of created problems. The next line is a problem, because it says everything on/in the earth is in darkness. So, they pretend that the sun and heaven, created in 1:1, is shining on the surface of the planet, but not mentioned by God, because he is deep inside the abyss, under the water, so doesn't see the light.

3-4 then say he created light and was happy about it. That becomes God letting some more light down to where he was hanging.

I won't say it's idiotic, but it's obviously wrong.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1434
  • Darwins +26/-103
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #185 on: August 23, 2014, 01:00:08 AM »
JST - I'd encourage you to try to role-play and pretend you're an atheist and go post on believer forums and see the kinds of awful insults you get.   For the most part, here, even if people think your arguments are stupid, they will try to logically address your points... to be fair to you, you are pretty cool yourself when it comes to not making personal attacks.  It's appreciated.

I don't need to.  I am not an atheist but we do have some things in common.  Jehovah's Witnesses are a minority.  Jehovah's Witnesses are highly unpopular among other professing Christians.  I assure you they are no better to me than they are to you.  Just saying that I am associated with JWs is probably enough to get me banned from some sites.  We are often quite outspoken about the hypocricy of Christendom and it's Greek doctrines.  This earns us many enemies among them.

But I do not represent them and I do not worship their trinitarian god.  "As for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah." (Joshua 24:14) 
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #186 on: August 23, 2014, 07:34:28 PM »
skep glad to see you are an adherent of empiricism, can we expect data to support all your future posts?

your beliefs are based on what data again?

Well, it certainly does appear that I walked right into that one.

However, my information comes from the Bible, which I believe is inspired by God. If you ask me for clarification on something jesus said, I can show you the verse. However, if you ask "What was Jesus doing when he said this?" then that answer would be speculation.

How does anyone know what Jesus said? Was there always someone following him writing everything down, even before he was well-known? I am especially interested to know who was there taking notes when Jesus was being tempted by Satan.

Or maybe that story was a poetic metaphor.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #187 on: August 23, 2014, 07:44:15 PM »
JST - I'd encourage you to try to role-play and pretend you're an atheist and go post on believer forums and see the kinds of awful insults you get.   For the most part, here, even if people think your arguments are stupid, they will try to logically address your points... to be fair to you, you are pretty cool yourself when it comes to not making personal attacks.  It's appreciated.

I don't need to.  I am not an atheist but we do have some things in common.  Jehovah's Witnesses are a minority.  Jehovah's Witnesses are highly unpopular among other professing Christians.  I assure you they are no better to me than they are to you.  Just saying that I am associated with JWs is probably enough to get me banned from some sites.  We are often quite outspoken about the hypocricy of Christendom and it's Greek doctrines.  This earns us many enemies among them.

But I do not represent them and I do not worship their trinitarian god.  "As for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah." (Joshua 24:14)
And how does that make you feel.just like Jesus? persecuted? Good? Smug? You are in a minority because other Christian cults interpretation of the Bible does not match your interpretation. You are just an off-shoot cult of Christians who think(like all other cults of Christianity)that you are right about how you read a book of myths.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #188 on: August 23, 2014, 07:47:03 PM »
skep glad to see you are an adherent of empiricism, can we expect data to support all your future posts?

your beliefs are based on what data again?

Well, it certainly does appear that I walked right into that one.

However, my information comes from the Bible, which I believe is inspired by God. If you ask me for clarification on something jesus said, I can show you the verse. However, if you ask "What was Jesus doing when he said this?" then that answer would be speculation.

How does anyone know what Jesus said? Was there always someone following him writing everything down, even before he was well-known? I am especially interested to know who was there taking notes when Jesus was being tempted by Satan.

Or maybe that story was a poetic metaphor.
If Jesus had a biographer following him around,the Gospel of Thomas,must be true. In the Gospel of Thomas,young Jesus was an ass,and was far from perfect. This is why it was omitted from the group of NT books
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1434
  • Darwins +26/-103
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #189 on: August 24, 2014, 10:42:49 AM »
And how does that make you feel.just like Jesus? persecuted? Good? Smug?

I feel bad for those that don't treat others with dignity and a bit angry.  It often stems from low self-esteem.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #190 on: August 24, 2014, 12:58:35 PM »
And how does that make you feel.just like Jesus? persecuted? Good? Smug?

I feel bad for those that don't treat others with dignity and a bit angry.  It often stems from low self-esteem.
what are you saying?,don't worry I'm not offended,my self esteem does not need validation,or the promise of a reward at the end of my life. I do not agree with your views on a god,it does not mean you can't have them.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1434
  • Darwins +26/-103
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #191 on: August 24, 2014, 03:35:57 PM »
And how does that make you feel.just like Jesus? persecuted? Good? Smug?

I feel bad for those that don't treat others with dignity and a bit angry.  It often stems from low self-esteem.
what are you saying?,don't worry I'm not offended,my self esteem does not need validation,or the promise of a reward at the end of my life. I do not agree with your views on a god,it does not mean you can't have them.

Who said anything about you?  Do you not treat others with dignity?
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1298
  • Darwins +44/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #192 on: August 24, 2014, 05:14:51 PM »
I think some Christians look for ways to feel persecuted, serves some psychological religious based need. just my opinion.
Signature goes here...

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #193 on: August 24, 2014, 05:27:14 PM »
And how does that make you feel.just like Jesus? persecuted? Good? Smug?

I feel bad for those that don't treat others with dignity and a bit angry.  It often stems from low self-esteem.
what are you saying?,don't worry I'm not offended,my self esteem does not need validation,or the promise of a reward at the end of my life. I do not agree with your views on a god,it does not mean you can't have them.

Who said anything about you?  Do you not treat others with dignity?
thanks for the clarification
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1312
  • Darwins +102/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #194 on: August 25, 2014, 02:39:42 AM »
And for the record, the belief in an older earth dates back at least to the time of the Church Fathers.  I don't know how popular the opinion was but some did hold that opinion at least as far back as that.

Indeed. We had ourselves a little discussion about that. My position is that the stories in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2 contradict and that fact would have been just as obvious to ancient readers as it is to modern ones. With respect to the early church fathers, there's an oft-quoted bit from Origen that I believe destroys any argument about acceptance of an old-earth being somehow antithetical to Christianity...or some modern invention.

I do believe the account of the Garden is to be considered historical.  I just don't see any indication in scripture that it's not historical and I don't see a reason to view it otherwise.

I do. If I recall correctly, there is only one other story in the Bible where animals talk. There's a story about a donkey that I don't feel like looking up. We also see God portrayed in a way that's completely different from the way He's portrayed elsewhere in the Bible. (I guess if you want to take the Biblical criticism seriously then it's all good old fashioned Yahwehism though.) I mean, He walks around in the cool of the day. And then there's the creation of the animals. In the Genesis 2 story God is portrayed as haphazardly attempting to find an acceptable companion for Adam  before settling on creating a woman from his "side." I don't know bro, this all reads to me more like a myth that's intended to be read as such.

Also, if you've got a story about the primordial man who's name means literally "a man" then I don't think it's all that unreasonable to surmise that maybe, just maybe we're dealing with myth.

But that's me.
Nah son...

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: how would you counter this, literalist post.
« Reply #195 on: August 29, 2014, 08:28:39 AM »

 With the creation of Adam I don't know how he was created.  Jehovah could do it literally as the account says, but that doesn't mean he did and I don't think he did.  The creation of everything else was a long process.  Likely man was too.

The inventor of Christianity Saul/Paul disagrees with you. He believed the creation account in the bible, and the basic idea of Christianity that Jesus came to take away sins is based on it. So for Christianity to be true the creation account must be true or else the inventor of Christianity was just talking through his hat.

Here is what Saul/Paul says,

Quote
Rom 5:12-19 It was through one man that sin entered the world...and Adam foreshadows the Man who was to come...Just as through the disobedience of one man, the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one man, the many will be made righteous.

Quote
1Tim2:12 I do not permit a woman to be a teacher, nor must a woman domineer over a man. She must be quiet, for Adam was created first, and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was deceived, it was the woman who yielding to deception, fell into sin.

Today we know that the creation story is wrong so the basic reason for the existence of Christianity is wrong. There are still too many people who won't accept that Christianity was based on the ideas of gullible peasants who were willing to believe anything. The author of 2Peter shows how gullible early Christians were.

Quote
2Peter2:14 They have followed in the steps of Balaam son of Beor, who consented to take pay for wrongdoing, but had his offence brought home to him, when his dumb donkey spoke with a human voice and put a stop to the prophet's madness.

This is the story of the talking donkey in Numbers 22:28 and it is repeated by a Christian in the New Testament. Does anyone need any more proof that early Christians were gullible peasants? They really did believe the creation story too. This is the author of 2Peter again,

Quote
2Peter 3:5 In taking this view they loose sight of the fact that there were heavens and earth long ago, created by God's word out of water, with water.

Quote
Gen1:1 (from the original Hebrew not the Greek) When god(s) began to create the heavens and the earth, there was no earth which was unformed, and darkness was on the face of the chaotic waters, and the breath of god(s) came hovering over the face of the waters. God(s) said "let there be light".....and god(s) said "let us make man in our image, like us."

Did the early Christians care that there is more than one creation story or that the creation involved more than one god? People see what they want to see. Gullible and deluded people don't see contradictions.

Quote from: Foxy Freedom
The idea of the firmament is not my idea. I did not draw that diagram.

And I have shown that it does not fit the scriptures.  Whether or not that diagram is what the Jews believed is irrelevant.  It doesn't match the scriptures.

I am still waiting to see which of your comments have shown that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Where have you shown anything? Do you know anything about the effects of delusion? You should find out. One effect of delusion is that when you are refuted, you return to the delusion as though it had never been refuted, and you believe you have shown something to be true. Does that sound familiar?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 09:01:22 AM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V