Oh they know what they are doing to us Shalom Krisma

why not? Is it because it's hard to comprehend that mankind has a soul, a spirit and a flesh body? Or could it be that you are having trouble distinguishing yourself as a spirit without any flesh? Or is it none of the above?


*Funches*

Hugs

It makes no sense in the context of what I presented to you which were two contradictory accounts.

Creationists call us to believe the Biblical creation story as a literal account of historical events. However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts. Which creation story are they calling us to "literally" believe?


For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text.


The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests.


The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman. These two creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history? Obviously not.


Many serious students of Scripture consider the first eleven chapters of Genesis as non-literal, pre-history type literature, with Abram in Genesis. 12:1 being the first literal historical figure in the Bible. This understanding of Genesis causes an uproar in some quarters. In most church communities, little of this textual study has filtered down to the pew. But, in their professional training, vast numbers of clergy have been exposed to this type of literary scriptural analysis.

I'm noy cynical at all. You need to realized that I don't believe a word of the Bible. It may as well be a superman commic book as far as I'm concerned.

The bottom line is that Christians keep preaching to "Read the Bible", and then when I do and I report back on what it has to say, they call me cynical.

Excuse me, but it wasn't my idea. I'm just reporting on what the book had to say.

Also you posted the following from Genesis:



Well, clearly this is a lie. Serpents do not eat dust. They eat frogs and mice and all sorts of other animals. They eat the same things that all other animals eat.

Clearly whoever wrote this either got carried away with their fibbing, or didn't know much about snakes.

Obviously, if this had been written by the supreme creator of the unvierse it would have spoken the truth. Clearly it's not true that serpents eat dust.

The Bible is actually filled with these kinds of obvious falsehoods. Yet people still want to claim that it is the word of the supreme infallible creator of the universe?

You can't be serious.

And according to the Bible, God does not respect women as being equal to me. They are treated as second class citizens.

That's not me being cynical, that's what you must believe if you believe that the Bible is the word of God.

In fact, if you think that's cynical, then you must think that authors of the Bible are cynical because it came from the Bible, not from me.


I get tired of having the biblical crap laid onto me like as if I'm the one who's being nasty.

If you don't like what the Bible has to say take it up with the authors, not me.

What you fail to see is it isn't 2 separate stories nor is it 2 different versions. It is telling you in chronological order that man was made first in spirit form and later he was made into flesh. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Because it makes no sense. I just offered you an explanation for the two accounts. Did you even read that? You cant just make stuff up in your head. It has to be shown in scripture.

This serpent is Satan not a flesh snake and if he eats anything it certainly is dust

Then move to Iraq or Iran. You can date women that wear Burkas and black drapes down to their ankles.

I showed you point blank in verse not through made up stuff in my head. I repeat it is not 2 different versions of creation. But if you don't see that I am not here to argue...

NO WHERE did you show that the rest of the races (which is weird anyway) were made on the 6th day. I gave you an explanation for the two accounts written by a theologian and you ignored it.

Well for someone who detests the bible as much as you do. I ask you then why do you stay in the religious forums? Is it to belittle and bad mouth everyone like a bully?
Is it to try and make Christians feel bad?
Is it to feel superiority? Or is it something else?

I didn't ignore a thing!

You didn’t respond or refute it. Show me exactly where it says plausibly that the rest of the races were created on the 6th day. The exact line.

Now i know you better than that. You want to take that this degrades women.

I personally have been at the grocery store and seen some beautiful Arab women who just mainly had a scarf on thier heads.

If women think they need to have a string up thier but to be beautiful they are sadly mistaken.

Alot of men are attracted to women dressed nicely and show respect for themselves these others have no respect for themselves and it is our way of societies faullt.

Why go to extremes when you knew exactly what i meant. I know you are a very intelligent woman... Blessings...Miles

I clearly stated that >>>>
What you fail to see is it isn't 2 separate stories nor is it 2 different versions. It is telling you in chronological order that man was made first in spirit form and later he was made into flesh. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Then say what you mean.

You insisted that

Is that the woman's fault? A woman should be allowed to dress however she wants provided it is permissible in the current environment. The same standard would apply to a man.

and that by the way was very rude to say that to miles

Well when it is permissible in society to run around half dressed you can expect rape crimes to increase so who's fault would it be?

And you are very rude for insisting that I was somehow out of line when I was making a point about women's rights and their attire and the responsibility of men.

Well when this country is predominately Christian and we have a burgeoning multi million dollar pornography industry you tell me? I don’t think that’s a coincidence at all.