Freethought & Rationalism Archive

06-15-2001, 09:13 AM

Jaliet,

Using the word challenge and affirming my word, trap, tells me and others that you are not innocently asking questions to find the truth. You think you have all the knowledge necessary and are challenging others to a duel.

I have no interest in a duel in which evidence (like what the actual Hebrew text says) is ignored (been through that too recently...). When you can come to the table with an open mind then you will glean understanding, if that's really what you want.

Ish

06-15-2001, 09:43 AM

The first post in this topic clearly states my two objectives.
None of them is "to find out the truth".
If you do not admire my intentions, dont sweat it, relax.
In the process of making game of christians, I hope to learn a few things. But its not my main objective.

06-15-2001, 09:47 AM

Ish,
My mind is more open than you can beleive. Try me.
You see, there is one more thing:
This topic is not really about "the truth" - that is too subjective an issue.
Its about the bible - and how christians understand it.
So, you call my challenge a duel now? Again, think positive - spar with me. Be a sport.

06-15-2001, 10:28 AM

Sous son vrai jour...

Quote:

jaliet:
In this thread, I intend to dissect the bible and leave it to waste.

Quote:

jaliet:
In the process of making game of christians...

Quote:

jaliet:
This topic is not really about "the truth" - that is too subjective an issue.

Quote:

jaliet:
My mind is more open than you can beleive. Try me.

Quote:

jaliet:
If you do not admire my intentions, don't sweat it, relax.

Ce n'est pas grand' chose...

Ish

06-15-2001, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ish:
Sous son vrai jour...

Ce n'est pas grand' chose...
Ish

j'ai ne comprend pas le francais mon ami. parle vous l'anglais?

06-15-2001, 10:53 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Are we to presume that historians are more credible than Ish? Each reader can decide for him/herself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Ah... But there are many scholars who know just as much or more and are at least as credible as the scholars you quote, yet they don't agree.

Incorrect. There are many Christian scholars who disagree with the historians I quoted. Ish has yet to present the opinion of any scholar who is more credible than the ones I quoted. Also, does anyone really want to hear from another Christian scholar who has a vested interest in the text of the JC Bible?

Ish: If others happen to perceive that I know more about the languages, then maybe I also know more about which scholars incorrectly represent the facts.

Then those who perceive that Ish knows more than the historians I quoted are most likely biased Christians. Ish has yet to demonstrate that he knows that any of the scholars I quoted "incorrectly represented the facts."

Ish: You're right though, Rodahi, everyone must decide for themselves... Either they choose sides out of faith, or they investigate the facts completely for themselves.

Pfeiffer, Kramer, and Smith investigated the facts. Who is more credible, the historians or Ish?

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 15, 2001).]

06-15-2001, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaliet:
Ish
I think history is much more important and all-encompassing than semantics. Let it go.

Truethinker
I am waiting for you. make your closing arguments before we lay your arguments to rest. In pieces.

Or should I terminate this thread - my first purpose having been achieved and my second purpose being evidently achieved - without me trying my hand at it, thanks to Marduck, rodahi and the way christians have handled this topic?

I wish I could find a christian who claims he/she undestands the bible and who would also be able to explain what the bible means. Itd be real fun. I could even pay for it.

This (the pathetic way christians do not even understand the bible) is one of the reasons so many people are becoming atheists - besides a host of a hell of a lot other reasons.

I will get to your questions later, probably next week. As of right now, I am very busy. The questions you ask are good. The passages in the chapter are often misinterpreted. People are also too quick to listen to the critics without evaluating what they say. Don't worry, I haven't gone anywhere. I am just a little pressed on time. You seem to have a lot more than I do.

I just hope you are willing to honestly listen to what I have to say rather than ridicule. Otherwise I am not going to waste my time. As of right now it is very precious.

06-15-2001, 11:05 PM

Truethinker,
I can understand your being busy. I will wait.

06-16-2001, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaliet:
In this thread, I intend to dissect the bible and leave it to waste. I invite anyone who beleives he can contribute to do so. My intention is to demonstrate two things:
1. That the so-called christians do not understand what the bible says.
2. That by and large, the bible is not what christians think it is: A word of God, divinely revealed
I will be firing questions to a well-balanced, open-minded, once-almost-an-atheist christian by the name of Andrew and you, my friends can watch with glee, or can contribute anytime.

Let the games begin.

Andrew
Please answer the questions as simply as you can, if you feel the need to elaborate, feel free. I know I have a lot to learn from you. Personally, I am willing to convert to a christian if you help me to make sense out of some simple verses of the bible (of course I know your purpose is not to convert)

Andrew isnt the only one who has to answer.

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

My questions are as follows
1. What is "the deep" as mentioned in Genesis 2?
2. What "light" did God create in Genesis 3?
Bear in mind that Genesis 1:14-19 says that God created the "...two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also." on the fourth day of creation.
3. Genesis 1:5 says "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. What does "day" mean in Genesis 5 (first day) since the sun and the heavenly bodies were created on the fourth day?
4. Genesis 1:5 says "And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.""
What was this "firmanent"? What waters were being separated from the waters?

Four tiny questions. I would like to know how you interpret the passages in Genesis before I can share with you my interpretation.

Hello jaliet

Genesis 1 is an account of creation, adaptation and salvation and explains evolution.

Genesis 2 is also an account of creation, adaptation and salvation but here that which was created in Gen. 1 takes form and begins to evolve.

Gen.3 is also an account of creation and here the tabula rasa is created to make involution possible as the first step of evolution.

1)The "deep" is the vacuum needed for the creation of life.

2) The "light" created in Gen.3 is life.

3)The "day" is knowledge and the "night" begs the question for knowledge in effort to enlighten the omniscient mind of the intelligent designer.

4) The "firmament" is the mind of God and the mind of Lord God is the division of the waters from the waters to make evolution possible between the generations without losing continuity between the generations.

06-16-2001, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos123:
Hello jaliet

Genesis 1 is an account of creation, adaptation and salvation and explains evolution.

Genesis 2 is also an account of creation, adaptation and salvation but here that which was created in Gen. 1 takes form and begins to evolve.

Gen.3 is also an account of creation and here the tabula rasa is created to make involution possible as the first step of evolution.

1)The "deep" is the vacuum needed for the creation of life.

2) The "light" created in Gen.3 is life.

3)The "day" is knowledge and the "night" begs the question for knowledge in effort to enlighten the omniscient mind of the intelligent designer.

4) The "firmament" is the mind of God and the mind of Lord God is the division of the waters from the waters to make evolution possible between the generations without losing continuity between the generations.

I get it. If the Genesis account of creation was a painting, it would be a Salvadore Dali, or maybe a Jackson Pollack.

rodahi

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-15-2001, 09:13 AM	#61
Guest Posts: n/a	Jaliet, Using the word challenge and affirming my word, trap, tells me and others that you are not innocently asking questions to find the truth. You think you have all the knowledge necessary and are challenging others to a duel. I have no interest in a duel in which evidence (like what the actual Hebrew text says) is ignored (been through that too recently...). When you can come to the table with an open mind then you will glean understanding, if that's really what you want. Ish

06-15-2001, 09:43 AM	#62
Guest Posts: n/a	The first post in this topic clearly states my two objectives. None of them is "to find out the truth". If you do not admire my intentions, dont sweat it, relax. In the process of making game of christians, I hope to learn a few things. But its not my main objective.

06-15-2001, 09:47 AM	#63
Guest Posts: n/a	Ish, My mind is more open than you can beleive. Try me. You see, there is one more thing: This topic is not really about "the truth" - that is too subjective an issue. Its about the bible - and how christians understand it. So, you call my challenge a duel now? Again, think positive - spar with me. Be a sport.

06-15-2001, 10:53 AM	#66
Guest Posts: n/a	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rodahi: Are we to presume that historians are more credible than Ish? Each reader can decide for him/herself. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ish: Ah... But there are many scholars who know just as much or more and are at least as credible as the scholars you quote, yet they don't agree. Incorrect. There are many Christian scholars who disagree with the historians I quoted. Ish has yet to present the opinion of any scholar who is more credible than the ones I quoted. Also, does anyone really want to hear from another Christian scholar who has a vested interest in the text of the JC Bible? Ish: If others happen to perceive that I know more about the languages, then maybe I also know more about which scholars incorrectly represent the facts. Then those who perceive that Ish knows more than the historians I quoted are most likely biased Christians. Ish has yet to demonstrate that he knows that any of the scholars I quoted "incorrectly represented the facts." Ish: You're right though, Rodahi, everyone must decide for themselves... Either they choose sides out of faith, or they investigate the facts completely for themselves. Pfeiffer, Kramer, and Smith investigated the facts. Who is more credible, the historians or Ish? rodahi [This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 15, 2001).]

06-15-2001, 11:05 PM	#68
Guest Posts: n/a	Truethinker, I can understand your being busy. I will wait.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.