Originally posted by Sir Stevie Stoopid a Lot

A simple response to what I just posted to Crystal would be nice numb nut!!

Why? I'm still waiting for responses of any sort from you on about 2 dozen other issues. I mean responses other than "duh" which is one of your favorites.

You didn't really think you could get away with trying to disguise things by giving them a coat of paint Did you Jack??

Why? Did you want to go inhale some of the fumes again?

You must think everyone is as simple as you are. Can you get that medication you are on over the counter, or would I need to see my local Doctor?? Those delusions of yours are history in the making.

There's nothing quite as poetically rhapsodic as the deluded confidence of an absolute idiot like Stevie.

Come on...just ONE change by Consty that is IMPORTANT and made any change to Christianity as a system. Not dumb stuff like people couldn't name their kids Samson until he popped in. Give us a change to CARE about.

Originally posted by stevec

Like Jimbo is trying to tell you Crystal, you lack comprehension skills, and James is trying to sell something that just is not true.

Translation: "I disagree, since I'm always right JPH must be wrong!" Nice Steve fallacy you have going on there. Now are you going to provide some real answers or will you keep pouting that we don't accept your viewpoint or will you do this strange thing called a rebuttal.

Crystal

Originally posted by stevec

Just when I thought you were going to start leaving short replies, you go and do this.
Time to make a big cup of coffee and respond to this tripe from Crystal, one at a time.

Took you that long? How does it take to say, "I'm right, you're wrong." or "You're stuoopid and not as smart as me." You even screwed that up too, I'm beginning to wonder if you can do anything right. When you worked on your car, you did put new pads in right?

Once again, the Flap Jack wannabe is at her uninformed best. These web sites are not the ONLY ones I agree with, and I don't only find web sites i AGREE with.

So far that is your source material. I see you still haven't offered a rebuttal for JPH's article, shoot I can show you a whole bunch of articles from various books/web sites that would call your 'two genesis creation account' an absurd and invalid

The answer for Flap Jacks article is that he does not understand or comprehend the wording of the bible as it is written in English and tries to justify wording fallacy's as the reason for the 'confusion' about the 2 creation accounts.

Translation: "I have no answers." Now dummy, tell us all why you think JPH is wrong (along with the scholars he uses). I'm sure you'll provide a real answers someday and stop with these red herrings and avoidance responses eh?

What a load of crap. If he wants to write his own version of how the bible should read, tell him to go and do so. I'm sure that would be an interesting read.

Oh yeah... credentialed bible scholars who study the Bible for a living are wrong! You do love to make excuses about your own lack of skills eh? Tell you want, why don't you follow his chicken challenge and prove him wrong. This is why people think you're an idiot Stevie, you seem to think a rebuttal is, "I'm right you're wrong." Now tell us why you think we're wrong and that Genesis really has 2 creation accounts. Are you saying you know more then scholars who have written this off as nonsense?

You still don't seem to understand that it is not about the individual words, but the whole sentence in which they are used and the contextual meaning of that paragraph. You keep asking about the Hebrew word for Earth, all the while ignoring the other words in the paragraph. "ALL" and "EVERY" are used to give the meaning, but you don't want to see those words.

The Bible wasn't written in English dip it was written in Hebrew and you need to understand the Hebrew. Why do you keep using these strawmen? Because you can't prove me wrong and you'd rather attack a strawman then offer a rebuttal to my argument? The English Bible says All and Every, that's nice, what does the Hebrew say?

Just like JPH, you are blind to the usage of words in an entire paragraph.

Translation: "I don't want to do my homework." Tell you what, why don't you study the Hebrew words and all the possibilities of what this flood could be referring to and maybe then you can offer a sound rebuttal to my argument other then, "Other's disagree, so you're wrong!" Remember, that sword is double edged because we can say the same about any group and that would not work to prove them wrong.

Consider your first point above answered, unless you would like to refute word usages in paragraphs and the contextual meanings of WHOLE sentences.

Please all you did is use a string of strawmen, red herrings, and ad hominems to make everyone think you answered. I sure hope you're better at fixing cars then at debate because if you are not... well you're in a rolling deathtrap. You did put the tire on the hub and not the hood right?

Doesn't warrant a response.

Translation: "I have no answer." Let's all power to the master of debate! Now when you can answer myself or JPH's article (in which he uses scholars and not some source that ignores context and pretends it's correct) come back and try this again, ok?

If you're talking about your little mate's attempt to smudge over the 2 different accounts, yes, I have had a look and he mostly goes on about word usage and it's mis-interpretation when translated from Hebrew, and does a terrific job of taking focus off the rest by quoting much later sections of the bible.

Translation: "I don't want to have to study and learn things I don't want to know, so I'd rather create strawmen and ignore rebuttals to my position then offer a sound reason why I think their are 'two creation' accounts. LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" See isn't it so much easier when you are more honest about what you say? Again, going to give a rebuttal or will you keep with this avoidance game?

Also using words like field takes away the meaning of BEFORE IT GREW.
Who cares where it grew, the fact was that it had not GROWN yet. So for all I care, it could have been referring to the top of his head, it says BEFORE IT GREW. Diversive tactic used to try and confuse a reader into thinking the key word is field. And the diversions continue throughout his whole post.

You do know that Genesis 2 takes place after plants and animals were created right? Can you do anything right? You did put the rotors back on before you put the tire and brakes on, right?

These 2 passages are separated in the bible for a reason, if they had continuity, they would be interpreted as the red indicates. It's very clear that the man who he had FORMED already was placed into the garden once IT was created. Man first, garden second.

Wow, it couldn't be that planets already existed, but this garden didn't exist at that point, but came after man. . Nope, rather then using some common sense let's make up some silly 'two creation account theory.' Preschool translation: "Plants already existed and the garden didn't." You understood that or do I need to go down to 2 year old level?

Very cleverly disguised, but disguised none the less. Now I don't much care to spend hours going over his whole page, because as soon as it is found to contain errors, more are sure to follow. I'm not here to make a career out of this crap, just to clear up some of the misconceptions and misuse of the wording of the bible. So consider that one answered unless you would like to argue the point on the above pieces that are highlighted in purple Crystal??

Awww, he's trying to act smart, isn't that cute? Now dummy tell us all why you think it's impossible that planets came first, but the garden in Genesis 2 came latter. How would that be a contradiction? Do people plant gardens Stevie? Did plants exist before they planted a garden? Could it be possible that the garden was planted after plants were created? Now JPH already answered your objects in his article, are you going to offer a rebuttal or will you keep showing us all that you are too stupid/ignorant to understand what was written?

Why does that not surprise me. There are different translations of anything to do with religion.
And obviously if they provide different translations, they are too stupid Crystal!!

If that sword cuts at all Stevie, it cuts both ways. There's different ways to view evolution, so therefore evolution is wrong! Sorry that would not be a rebuttal of evolution, so why does that work for Christianity or anything else?

You're short, nonsense answers are not helping you. Here you are ASSUMING that a scribe made a mistake. Now let's look at the logic in that. Here we have the most important book in history and no one proof reads it or checks it. Do you know how absolutely ludicrous that sounds????

Translation: "I have no answers, so I'd rather make excuses for it." Ever copy a book as big as the Bible by hand Stevie? Hebrew and Arabic are quite a bit harder to transcribe then English, a singe line being longer or shorter can throw off the entire word and make it mean something different. Why do you say such stupid things? I've find typos in books almost all the time do you really think a scribe can copy down a thousand page books without a single minor error? Goes to show that you're an idiot who really thinks this is a rebuttal. Editors miss things in newspapers, books, magazines, etc quite often, you really think the same isn't true with the Bible? Gosh, you must be even dumber then I thought...

But I should have expected a comment from you to be no better.
So it appears to be you who is still showing her ignorance, blinded by the passion to try and discredit me, while all the time actually helping my argument. Good work!!

As usual he says something stupid that shows us all he's an idiot. Now Stevie, copy the entire Bible (In Hebrew) by hand without a single error. Do you really think a book that is over a thousand pages long isn't going to have some transcribe errors?

There you go, you got an answer. I'm not concerned about Tacitus or anybody else you might want to drag around in your cave, I'm only interested in the bible and it's errors and contradictions.

So you just want to be free to special plead. Now stupid, tell us all why Tacitus is allowed to have transcribe errors by the Bible isn't. You'll tell us all one day, right?

And you keep throwing REAL bible scholars on the table, are they supposed to be the aces in your deck of cards??

Gosh, and you throw 'independent scholars' on the table, are they the aces in your deck? See Stevie, I can play that game too.

You've been caught with your pants down and now you're trying to cover up all the time by trying to continually discredit me. It just isn't working Crystal.

And he avoids... gosh anyone else not surprised? What's the problem, can't answer?

You lost before you hit the first key on your keyboard, you were just too blinded to see it.

Translation: "I have no answers." See isn't that so much easier?

Give me the question you want answered and I will !!!!

Ok Stevie, answer these ones:

Why do you say Genesis 1 and 2 are two different creation accounts when the evidences proves you wrong?

Why will you not give a point by point response to JPH's article I linked you to?

Why are you so incompetent?

Why do you throw out the bias card without realizing that can just as easily apply to your sources too?

And what was his belief, Christianity per chance?? So he would really be an unbiased source, eh Crystal.

That card again? Ok, why are your sources so bias? Stevie is proven wrong by his own standards. Are you going to offer some real answers or will you keep throwing the same cards that can apply to anything you say too?

When are you going to find independent links as I have done and not just those that fit YOUR religious preference. If you want, I can find some Jewish scholars who would be more than happy to tell you why you are wrong. Would you like some links to those??

Ok, go find those 'scholars' and prove myself or JPH as wrong, I dare you. If it's the quality I'm seeing so far it should take 15 minutes or real research to prove you wrong.

The research you did.HAHAHAHAHA, what a joke, I was researching this stuff when you wer but a glimmer in your fathers eye. So don't come here and profess to be some kind of expert on any subject other than stupidity, OK!!!!

You mean you were this stupid back in the 80's? Most of your 'research' can be discredited by spending an entire 5 minutes with these strange inventions called 'books' (you know what those are right?) Are you going to give a rebuttal or just keep saying, "your stoopid and not as smart as me!" I linked you to JPH's article on this issue plus gave you a bit of a lesion in how errors in transcribing can occur. Will you answer this time or are you going to do what you often do? IE change the subject, pretend you're right I'm wrong, etc.

And you have enough trouble with English, let alone trying to confuse you with Hebrew.

Oh yeah, even though a spell checker hardly catches anything (yet it lights up a few of your mis-spellings) I somehow don't know English eh? Tell you what, prove that spelling has anything to do with intelligence. So far I can't find the research that says it does.

So you would still try and convince us that this mistake went unnoticed by those who were watching the translations of these wordings?? You must really believe that everyone has the same problem with comprehension as you do.

Ok Stevie, take a book that is as long as the Bible and copy it word by word by hand. Are you really saying you can do a better job then scribes who did that stuff for a living? Do you even know how hard it is to copy something like that by hand? Pretty much anything in ancient history with the same length as the Bible has the same issues, yet we don't throw out Plato, Homer, or Tacitus. Why are you special pleading?

There's one of those fallacies again. And bias doesn't make you wrong nitwit, you're biased towards the bible, so you are wrong. Gee, that makes sense.

My my... remember, if that sword cuts at all it cuts both ways. Stevie is just bias against the bible, so he's wrong. Opps, Stevie proven wrong by his own standards again. Can you do anything right?

Blah blah blah...

Yep, the same cards he threw above are repeated again... Try again Stevie, you might get some right someday. But not today.

Crystal

Upon reading this thread from the start and taking a closer look, I see that James has led the debate away at points from it's intent.
Here's the first example, me in red, he in blue, with his diversions highlighted in green:-

Do a Google on the "Worlds Oldest Religion" and have a read.

Been there. Done that. Stupid or irrelevant stuff. Next?

No answers here, just a statement of his personal belief.

If you had studied Constantine and Theodosius vigilantly, you would realise that the bible was written in about 400 AD.

The WHOLE Bible???? Uh, gee, so what about the copies of the OT found at Qumran? I guess they sorta snuck those in and fooled scholars into dating them first century and earlier, huh?
What about the Chester Beatty papyri, P66, Codex Sinaiticus, etc all dated earlier than 400? What about all the quotations and allusions in patristic writers prior to 400, from which we could virtually reconstruct the NT? I guess you're too smart for all those scholars who disagree.


Again, he misses the point and makes statements, rather than asks questions.
But I will answer the above statements, just to satisfy his so called requirements of a debate.

1. The whole bible??
No, he took the best selection of folk legends at the time and had 50 copies made.

2. Uh, gee, so what about the copies of the OT found at Qumran?

The manuscripts that have been recovered, several of which are only partially preserved in fragments, contain a wide variety of literature that was copied or created between the third century B.C. and the first century of the Christian era.
Source:- http://www.ctsfw.edu/online/pilgrim/5-1/gieschen.php

So how does this equate to complete copies of the OT and in fact to the OT itself, considering the dating of these docs?? Once again they are only small parts of a legendary story, not the WHOLE bible!!!! Doesn't move away from my argument one iota.

3. Chester Beatty. The Chester Beatty Papyri is the name of a group of biblical manuscripts acquired mainly in 1930 by A. Chester Beatty, an American collector. The had been discovered at Aphroditopolis, N. of Memphis in Egypt, probably originating from the library of a Christian church. Source:- http://www.bible-history.com/quotes/..._harris_1.html

Same deal, only snippets of the folk legends of the time. Not the WHOLE bible.
Still doesn't detract from my argument. Collated by Constantine, and ordered as complete, book form, copies.
Bettter wipe that egg off your face Jack, you look pathetic.

4. What about all the quotations and allusions in patristic writers prior to 400, from which we could virtually reconstruct the NT? Like I already said, they were all from different sources, and would have to be assembled together to create the NT. Done by Constantine.

Did you know that there is not one single shred of proof to the existence of any of the characters in the bible?

Did you know that's a pile steaming pile of bovine excrement and that you're exceptionally stupid? OK, let's pick one from each testament: 1) Jesus, 2) King Jehu. Tell us why they didn't exist.

It was never said that they didn't exist, therefore for me to justify why they don't exist doesn't require an answer. The statement is clear, THERE IS NO PROOF OF EXISTENCE, not THEY DID NOT EXIST,SO SHOW ME SOME PROOF. No back flip, no nonsense. Nice try Jack.

Find me one grave and some DNA. You can't and won't because it doesn't exist.

Golly, you think graves and DNA are required to show someone existed? OK, now, where's that DNA for the Emperor Nero then? How about the grave of Josephus, where's that at? Did you put it in your pocket?
Wait, lemme guess -- all history is bunk, right? No one actually existed until 1877.

Once again, a cleverly diversive maneuver. I asked him to find me some evidence, and he asks me to provide it. Try again Jack. It's not me who hasn't been answering questions, it's you who asks questions of questions as a means of diversion.

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls??

What about 'em? Quit spilling mustard on them, you slob!
To save you time,I'll even answer the above for you, as you would:
"Duuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....what?"

I'm after info on the dead sea scrolls, and he resorts to no type of comment as usual, the typical trademark of this charlatan. So right from the outset of this forum, his aim has been to avoid any of my questions and try to throw me off balance, and it almost worked, until he kept insisting that I answer HIS questions. So I thought I'd have a read from the start of the post.

JPH, you are a gem of wisdom. You take my responses and cut them up into the smallest pieces so that no one can follow them. You then throw really big insults at me when you don't have answers.

I see. You have no answers to what I wrote, so you try to change the subject to something a) I've already said is not my bag; b) others are already taking you on about.
Not only stupid, but cowardly and not good at hiding it either.

So here I'm not only accused of not answering his questions, he asks me to answer questions before he offers the same courtesy and I'm labeled stupid and a coward as well. Where is the "not my bag" bit in this thread?? It doesn't exist!!! Just another diversion. I think you were laid off as a prison librarian because you wanted to become a salesman.

Ok. You don't seem to like to quote my complete replies so that people see the whole conversation.

Um, I quoted every word. And answered. So, where's your replies?

I don't see a single answer in those first sections, can you point an answer out for me Jack.
Didn't think so. Because there are none. This whole post has been geared to diversify the debate into a mudslinging contest, very clever Jack.
This is just the tip of the ice berg. The responses I have put to you above do not remove my argument at all, in fact YOUR comments strengthen it. Because you yourself admit that the writings Pre-Constantine were never collated into a single edition. So my argument stands, his bible copies that he had made were collections of fiction and legend of the time which he liked, and that became your bible. You just don't see it because it makes sense, and that's something you have always had trouble with. Common sense.

Now I've answered a few of your questions, how about you answer some of mine, like your belief in YEC and how dinosaurs fit into your big picture and answer the 2 creation accounts, on the info I have put forward, and don't bother linking me to your web page for refutation, I have already shown your web page is in error.

Translation: "I disagree, since I'm always right JPH must be wrong!" Nice Steve fallacy you have going on there. Now are you going to provide some real answers or will you keep pouting that we don't accept your viewpoint or will you do this strange thing called a rebuttal.

Crystal

I've already pointed out the first error on Jack's page Crystal, so either you aren't reading my posts, or you can't. But just for you because your special here it is again:-

Genesis {1:11} And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. {1:12} And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. {1:13} And the evening and the morning were the third day.


Here we see grass and herbs and trees, all on day 3, well before man came along.

Genesis {2:4} These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, {2:5} And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. {2:6} But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. {2:7} And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.{2:8} And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Man first {2:9} And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; Garden Second. the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Here we see that the plant wasn't in the earth and the herb had not grown. Man was created from dust and then God watered the world to make the plants grow.
And God put his 'man' whom he had formed into the garden and then made the plants come out of the ground.
Simple stuff Crystal, even someone as simple as you should be able to comprehend that.
So this in itself makes Jack's refutation of the 2 creation accounts null and void without having to go any further!!!!

Was English good enough for you, or would you like it in Hebrew, Egyptian or some other translation!!!!

Sure seems easy to cheer someone on who you hope will do what you were never able to do yourself I suppose.

It's not abbout inability, it's about different vantage points. There is nothing to say that I would not have tripped over that info that Jimbo pasted at some stage, although I do thank him for a fresh viewpoint to help me see the errors contained within the Genesis accounts.

Keep talking. There's a space still waiting in the sign-up sheet area. Until you go there, you have no grounds to say I can't answer someone.

OK. I'll rephrase that to 'unable' to answer him!!

There are 2 definite, separate creation accounts, both contradictory to one another.
Read the replies to Flap Jack and Little Pixie Of Error.
If you don't understand plain English, there is no debate I can have with you that will make sense.
And did Moses write the bible in Egyptian or Hebrew??

Oh yeah... credentialed bible scholars who study the Bible for a living are wrong!

Indeed they may well be. After all, the Earth was once flat, wasn't it Crystal!!
And I'm sure the scholars of the day couldn't have possibly been wrong about that, now could they.

The Bible wasn't written in English dip it was written in Hebrew and you need to understand the Hebrew.

Was it?? I thought at 3 months of age Moses was sent down the river in a little boat to Egypt, so wouldn't he have written it in Egyptian?? You know, the language that people in Egypt use!!!
And you think you're switched on about this stuff, what was it written on?? You know, what material did he use to record it on??

You do know that Genesis 2 takes place after plants and animals were created right? Can you do anything right? You did put the rotors back on before you put the tire and brakes on, right?

Would you like to paste and highlight where it says that Crystal?? I can't seem to see it in there at all.

Wow, it couldn't be that planets already existed, but this garden didn't exist at that point, but came after man.

What have planets got to do with the price of fish?? I'm talking about vegetation which did not yet exist in the earth.

Now dummy tell us all why you think it's impossible that planets came first, but the garden in Genesis 2 came latter. How would that be a contradiction?

Do planets come later in Genesis 2. Well it really is contradictory, isn't it??

As usual he says something stupid that shows us all he's an idiot. Now Stevie, copy the entire Bible (In Hebrew) by hand without a single error. Do you really think a book that is over a thousand pages long isn't going to have some transcribe errors?

So you think you can pick out the errors when you can't even notice your own?? Try harder Crystal!!

The "final clue" as to when the Pentateuch was written is found in 2 Kings 25:27 which mentions the release from prison in Babylon of the Jewish monarch King Jehoiachin by the Babylonian monarch King Evil-Merodach (Babylonan: Amel-Marduk). Scholars date Evil-Merodach's reign to circa 562-560 BC. A number of scholars have suggested that Genesis-2 Kings is a _unified history_ of Israel from the beginnings of the world to her exile and the last "datable clue" reveals this _unified history's_ composition is circa 562-560 BC and the Exile.

Source:- http://www.bibleorigins.net/HebrewDatesPentateuch.html

Here's just another page that has a refutation as to the dates of the writings by our little fictional friend, Moses.
And you never did tell me why Christians have the right to take the original writings from 1500 BCE and turn them into something they are not. If I was 'God', I'd be pretty upset about you lot taking the words I gave to Moses and corrupting it like you have!!!

Now stupid, tell us all why Tacitus is allowed to have transcribe errors by the Bible isn't.

If you make the above sentence comprehensible, I'll try.

Why do you say Genesis 1 and 2 are two different creation accounts when the evidences proves you wrong?

Done.

Why will you not give a point by point response to JPH's article I linked you to?

Because if the opening lines are in error, as they are, there is no need for a point by point refutation.

Why are you so incompetent?

Personalisation, doesn't count.

Why do you throw out the bias card without realizing that can just as easily apply to your sources too?

Because you don't understand the word independent.

Oh yeah, even though a spell checker hardly catches anything (yet it lights up a few of your mis-spellings) I somehow don't know English eh? Tell you what, prove that spelling has anything to do with intelligence. So far I can't find the research that says it does.

Obviously you use the same research sources on the subject of spelling and intelligence as you do on the bible, errant ones!!

Ok Stevie, take a book that is as long as the Bible and copy it word by word by hand. Are you really saying you can do a better job then scribes who did that stuff for a living? Do you even know how hard it is to copy something like that by hand? Pretty much anything in ancient history with the same length as the Bible has the same issues, yet we don't throw out Plato, Homer, or Tacitus. Why are you special pleading?

And just how many literate people do you think existed back then Crystal??

In finishing, you seem to think you're good at something, would you mind posting that something here. I haven't seen it yet. Although I have seen a lot of ducking and weaving.

Why? I'm still waiting for responses of any sort from you on about 2 dozen other issues. I mean responses other than "duh" which is one of your favorites.

Translation:- "I don't have the ability to back up what I've said on my web page now that I've been shown it is in error."

Why? Did you want to go inhale some of the fumes again?

No, I'm not interested in the fumes of a dung beetle.

There's nothing quite as poetically rhapsodic as the deluded confidence of an absolute idiot like Stevie.

Oh yes there is, the delusions of an errant numb skull who is actually stupid enough to show his errors on a web page to the rest of the world. 2 creation accounts Jack, plain and simple.
You can't run from it, you can't hide from it and you can't ignore it!!!!
Straight off your page.

Gen. 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen. 2:4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Genesis 1.11 here we have fruit trees with fruit already on them and bearing seed, along with grass and herbs with seed in them.

Puts Genesis2.4-5 here, but conveniently leaves out:-
{2:6} But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. {2:7} And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. {2:8} And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. {2:9} And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree
of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

So here we have a 'man' put into a garden and then the garden is made to grow, but in the first account, it had already grown before 'man'. It's pretty hard to hang fruit on trees that aren't there.

Come on...just ONE change by Consty that is IMPORTANT and made any change to Christianity as a system. Not dumb stuff like people couldn't name their kids Samson until he popped in. Give us a change to CARE about.

OK, but just because you begged me for it.

The Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great (274-337 CE) sought to unite the Church leaders in order to help him unify the remains of his Empire. A single canon based on a consistent Orthodox doctrine was central to achieving this objective. The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE clarified the Orthodox position on the divinity of Christ, which had previously been a sticking point for the leaders of the Church. The people and scripture that threatened the new doctrine of the church were removed. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible. Through a series of decisions made by the early church leadership, all but 80 of those books were purged from the work, with a further reduction by the Protestant Reformation bringing the number to 66 in the Authorized King James Bible. Over 80% of the original biblical works were disregarded in favour of accepted Church doctrine at the time. The New Testament was standardised by Jerome on Pope Damascus’ orders in 384 CE and his version, the Vulgate, remains the accepted authority by the Roman Catholic Church.

Whatever the motivations for spinning, be they political expediency, theological unity or personal insecurity, we must open our eyes. An informed and balanced opinion must take all the key issues into consideration. Was military action morally and legally justifiable without a second UN resolution? Did Saddam's twelve years of nonconformity with the UN and the weapons inspectors warrant an attack? If this was a war against terror, should Iraq have been the coalition forces' first target? This balanced approach is particularly relevant regards the question of whether the Bible is a "dodgy dossier."

Biblical criticism is a broad and complex subject, but it is clear that the contents of the Bible have slightly dubious origins. Constantine, the theological spin-doctor, purged biblical books and ensured the remaining books were in keeping with his interpretation of his religion. The process was deemed necessary for the unification of the Roman Empire and the future status of Christianity.

Source:- http://www.adamandeveit.net/article-viewer.asp?id=40

Have fun!!!!

Originally posted by stevec

It's not abbout inability, it's about different vantage points. There is nothing to say that I would not have tripped over that info that Jimbo pasted at some stage, although I do thank him for a fresh viewpoint to help me see the errors contained within the Genesis accounts.

Which I already answered sufficiently.....

Originally posted by Stevec

OK. I'll rephrase that to 'unable' to answer him!!

There are 2 definite, separate creation accounts, both contradictory to one another.
Read the replies to Flap Jack and Little Pixie Of Error.
If you don't understand plain English, there is no debate I can have with you that will make sense.
And did Moses write the bible in Egyptian or Hebrew??

lol. You're just asserting yourself. Here's what to do. Answer the points I made in reply to Jimbo which he apparently hasn't been able to do.

Until then, this is just being used as an excuse so you won't debate me. Odd. I figured the opponent who didn't understand plain English would be a perfect one to debate. Easy win after all.

Originally posted by stevec

I've already pointed out the first error on Jack's page Crystal, so either you aren't reading my posts, or you can't. But just for you because your special here it is again

Wipe that droll off your chin... are you going to provide a real 'answer.' I know you can't do that, because you are too busy finding 'this word does not match CONTRADICTION!!!" of course you are too stupid to study the original language, but that's ok... Now get to work on proving what JPH said was wrong, clearly you did not read the article because he answered that objection in the article. Try again stupid.

Crystal

Originally posted by Sir Stevie Stoopid a Lot

Upon reading this thread from the start and taking a closer look, I see that James has led the debate away at points from it's intent.

Translation: Now that your head's been bitten off, you need a new distraction.

Is this how you tried to get out of a spanking when your mum caught you raiding the cookie jar?

No answers here, just a statement of his personal belief.

As if a mere command to "Google 'world's oldest religion' was an argument that deserved any more reply than that!

No, he took the best selection of folk legends at the time and had 50 copies made.

Sounds like a humungous backpedal from your embarrassingly erroneuous claim that it was the WHOLE Bible he had copied! That's what happens when your home page for Bible research is "toysrus.com"!

Doesn't move away from my argument one iota.

Other than that you said the BIBLE was copied, which is an obvious and blatant error!

Same deal, only snippets of the folk legends of the time. Not the WHOLE bible.

SEE? You're saying it AGAIN! You can't get your argument right even NOW!

So what are you trying to say, Stevie? That those copies of stuff we have from pre-Constantine JUST HAPPEN to be things he did NOT change or mess with?!? You think maybe he had a list of those bits that he knew he ought not change?

Do you practice to get this stupid, or is it natural?

Bettter wipe that egg off your face Jack, you look pathetic.

I was going to say wipe that cow manure off your face, but now I realize, that IS your face!

It was never said that they didn't exist, therefore for me to justify why they don't exist doesn't require an answer.

Backpedal backpedal fast as you can! So when Stevie says there "no proof" of any character from the Bible, he's NOT saying it to indicate that they never existed, oh no! He's just asking us to PROVE they did. That's why he was demanding graves and DNA!

It's not me who hasn't been answering questions, it's you who asks questions of questions as a means of diversion.

Translation: You know I exposed your demands as stupid, and can't answer that they are.

I'm after info on the dead sea scrolls, and he resorts to no type of comment as usual, the typical trademark of this charlatan.

Yeah, right, like your whiny "What about the Dead Sea Scrolls, duh" was some sort of worthwhile question! Never mind that its such an open-ended, worthless question in the first place. Stevie can't even explain WHY we should care about 'em; he just asks "what about 'em" and we're supposed to get out of quantum microscope and read his tiny mind to guess the intent of his stupid question.

Where is the "not my bag" bit in this thread?? It doesn't exist!!! Just another diversion

What's the TITLE of the thread, Stevie?

Now who's doing a "diversion" when he asks about dinosaurs?

Because you yourself admit that the writings Pre-Constantine were never collated into a single edition.

Never said such a thing in the world, you dork. The data shows that 20 of 27 books were firmly part of the decided collection; the other 7 were on the verge, all the rest you may name were outside the pale.

So my argument stands, his bible copies that he had made were collections of fiction and legend of the time which he liked, and that became your bible. You just don't see it because it makes sense, and that's something you have always had trouble with. Common sense.

"Common sense" for Stevie means, ""whatever conspiracy he can pull out of his bum this week without a shred of evidence." This is how you work:

1) Make assertion that has no evidence whatsoever.
2) Ignore contrary evidence as contrived, made up, etc.
3) Call your conclusion "common sense".

Now I've answered a few of your questions

Where? In your imagination?

on the info I have put forward, and don't bother linking me to your web page for refutation, I have already shown your web page is in error

I did hear you burp, yeah. It's all above your little head, Stevie. I'm still waiting for ONE actual meaningful change by Consty to be put forward from you. Even ONE. We still don't have it, not even now.

No, I'm not interested in the fumes of a dung beetle.

Nah -- you like the TASTE of dung beetle, not fumes!

2 creation accounts Jack, plain and simple.
You can't run from it, you can't hide from it and you can't ignore it!!!!

Stevie: "I say so, so there too, nanny nanny boo boo."

Puts Genesis2.4-5 here, but conveniently leaves out:-

until I explain it later. Duh.

So here we have a 'man' put into a garden and then the garden is made to grow, but in the first account, it had already grown before 'man'. It's pretty hard to hang fruit on trees that aren't there.

Um, no Stevie. I explain that:

The allegation is that whereas G1 has plants made before man, G2 has man made before plants. But it is really rather simple to see that G2 indicates no such thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist yet were plants and herbs "of the field" -- what field? The Hebrew word here is sadeh, and where it is used of known geographic locations, refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, "earth", which is 'erets -- a word which has much broader geographic connotations. (See for example Gen. 23:12-13: "And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land ['erets], saying, But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me: I will give thee money for the field [sadeh]; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there." ; Ex. 9:22 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch forth thine hand toward heaven, that there may be hail in all the land ['erets] of Egypt, upon man, and upon beast, and upon every herb of the field [sadeh], throughout the land ['erets] of Egypt."; Lev. 25:2-3, "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land ['erets] which I give you, then shall the land ['erets] keep a sabbath unto the LORD. Six years thou shalt sow thy field [sadeh], and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof...") A key to understanding what is being described here is that verse 2:5 goes on to explain WHY there were no "plants of the field" -- because a) there was no rain upon the earth, and b) there was no man to work the earth -- the two key elements for agriculture according to the ancient mindset. Thus, what this passage indicates is that there was as yet no organized agriculture, and that makes sense of the verses following, where God specifically plants the garden of Eden and places man to tend to it. G2 is not indicating that there were no plants created yet at all, but that a special place was set aside for the foundation of agriculture and for plants "of the field" to be developed. (This idea of Eden as a special place set aside shall come into play as we progress.)

Was that part too hard for you?

OK, but just because you begged me for it.

Not that it did any good! Your source is a bunch of baloney; it commits the classic error of claiming the canon was decided at Nicaea (it wasn't, you've been corrected on this before); it way overcounts the number of books (600???? Ha ha ha ha! Name 'em!). The rest is nothing but vague yada yada yada. Constantine did NOT pick any books, period! There's no evidence at all for this, zero, nada, zip. It offers no documentation for their claim at all, not one footnote.

You're just gullible and stupid, Stevie.

Apologia,

Wow. More assertions. The only thing you've given me is "Scholars say." Could you please tell me why the scholars say? You see, I'm not so much interested in what they think as I am why they think what they think.

Bible scholars believe that the stories are from different writers because, among other things, the stories are contradictory, they have different writing styles (the first story flows together while the second points out side details), they use different words, and they refer to God differently. The first story describes the creation of plants, animals, and humans over a period of many days, the second story describes these events as happening on the same day. The first story has a different order of creation from the second story. In creation story one, the writer or writers refer to God exclusively as Elohim, whereas in the secong story God is referred to as Yahweh Elohim. The earlier story refers to God in the plural, possibly indicating that the writer was a polytheist, while the later story refers to God iin the singular. The first story uses a literary device to describe events from the perspectrive of God, the second from the perspective of Humanity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_(theology)

"Whereas the earlier account found in Genesis 2 emphasizes the closeness of humanity's relationship to the environment and the immanence of God, the later Genesis 1 account emphasizes the transcendent greatness of God and culminates in the establishment of the Sabbath."

I think that someone here has said that it would have been very difficult for such blatantly contradictory stories to have remained together in the Bible without good reason. However, the fact that most people did not have access to the Bible for most of the history of Christianity combined with the fact that there was mass illiteracy until the modern era, combined with the fact that they Bible was canonized as being the unalterable word of God back around the third century, combined with the fact that criticism and attacks on the Bible's authenticity were strongly condemned and discouraged (even with torture and death) over most of the Church's history---helps to explain how such blatantly contradictory stories remained tied together in Genesis.

This is a basic overview of how two different groups of people view the creation stories in Genesis:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm

"The First Creation Story; Genesis 1:1 to 2:3: Historical Christianity taught that the entire Pentateuch -- the five books from Genesis to Deuteronomy was written by Moses. Most Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians continue to follow this belief. Most liberal and mainline theologians and religious skeptics accept the Documentary Hypothesis: that the Pentateuch was written by a number of authors from four different traditions, and who imported some material from nearby Pagan sources. The Hypothesis asserts that the author of the creation story seen in the first verses of the Bible was an anonymous 6th Century BCE writer or group of writers of the priestly tradition (often referred to as 'P'). "

(snip)

"The Second Creation Story; Genesis 2:4 to 2:25: This is a different description of the creation of earth's life forms. Most mainline and liberal biblical researchers attribute this section to 'J,' a writer who lived in the 9th century BCE (some say 10th century; others say after the Babylonian exile). Again, religious conservatives trace the authorship to Moses, and believe that this is a simple restatement of the earlier creation story."

You are in the group that believes that the two creation stories are not contradictory and are from the same writer, correct? If this is true, can you please tell me why I or anyone else should believe this?

Thanks.

Jimbo

Wikipedia and religioustolerance.org. Man, AP, how are you going to compete against scholarship at that level?

Awww Dimbo is playing the old, "Christianity has so many diverse opinions, so it's wrong!" Ok, but that means, "Science has so many diverse opinions, so it's wrong!" Gosh, Dimbo's source just disproved all of human knowledge, because all of it has diverse opinions! You really should stop using religioustollerence as a source, it makes you look really stupid (as if you don't already). Now try again Dimbo and this time find a source that doesn't make such stupid leaps.

Crystal

Xerxes,

Wikipedia and religioustolerance.org. Man, AP, how are you going to compete against scholarship at that level?

If you find anything factually wrong with the basic information I have provided from those sources, feel free to explain what the error or errors are.

Thanks.

Jimbo

Crystal,

Awww Dimbo is playing the old, "Christianity has so many diverse opinions, so it's wrong!"

I am answering Apologia's question regarding the reasons why many Bible scholars agree that the two creation stories were written by different authors at different times.

Ok, but that means, "Science has so many diverse opinions, so it's wrong!"

Scientists have competing theories, and the theory that is best supported by the evidence and by testing usually is seen as being correct. So science is dynamic and changes based on new evidence, which tends to make it a more accurate guage of what is actually true than a moldy ancient book scribbled by superstitious, fairly ignorant people. Science is a dynamic process, while the Bible is simply an ancient book, static and unchanging. It can tell us alot about the times in which it was written, but it obviously contains many errors, mistakes, mythology and falsehoods.

Gosh, Dimbo's source just disproved all of human knowledge, because all of it has diverse opinions! You really should stop using religioustollerence as a source, it makes you look really stupid (as if you don't already). Now try again Dimbo and this time find a source that doesn't make such stupid leaps.

If you can find anything in what I wrote that is factually wrong, feel free to point it out.

Also, could you now answer my question as to whether you believe "Holding's" claim that the second Genesis story is a "family history" of the first men? Do you actually believe this?

Thanks.

Jimbo