100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 08/09/08 08:21 AM
|
|
Oh and Eljay, it’s an "isolated incident"? Come on now. What about your famous "virgin Mary" Why would it be so important for Mary to be considered a "virgin"? Because it implies that god had some kind of role in knocking her up. It would have been yucky and "unholy" for her to become pregnant in the traditional manner. My guess is it wasn't Joseph. It was another man who impregnated her and it may have been rape. Joseph probably knew what would happen if this got out and became common knowledge. A stoning more than likely. So the two of them concocted this story to spare Mary's life and get out of dodge before those crazy villagers got wind of it. It was considered "important" for Mary to be a virgin because it was prophised she would be thousands of years previous to this. It was stated first that the saviour would be born to a virgin. It is one of the 3,000+ fullfilled prophecies of the Old Testiment which told of the coming of Jesus. But seriously - is this something that you are unfamiliar with? Just not buying it. At least not from a logical perspective. Tell me with a straight face that Mary was a "virgin". By definition of virgin, let’s just say a person who has not been intimate with one of the opposite sex. Do you think this was actually the case? Not to mention, why would it be “bad” or “unholy” if a man had actually impregnated Mary? Isn’t that the way it’s normally done? You have had sex before correct? I don’t want to jump to conclusions here. Mary was a virgin. Your "not buying it" has no bearing on it's validity. Please don't confuse this with the "perpetuality of virginity" as described in Catholicism though - I don't buy into that. Mary had other children after Jesus - and that would have ended the "virginity" status at that point. I wouldn't say that you are jumping to conclusions - but I am curious as to how much you are limiting God. Do you think that the God of scripture - who fashioned Adam from the earth, and Eve from his rib - incapable of impregnating a virgin by mere thought? Mary was not a "virgin". She had to have sex with someone. I don’t know who it was but I don’t think it was Joseph however. My theory is she was sexually assaulted but she might have confessed this to Joseph because she was a young girl and she was frightened of what these villagers would do to her if they found out she had been raped. Stoning most likley in public. I am not confusing anything. She had sex and Jesus was the result. Jesus was a man. Jesus more than likely had descendants of his own also. I am not limiting god. I am simply stating that there is no way he got Mary pregnant telekinetically. So are you suggesting that god had sex with Mary? There are also no ribs forming human beings. That is just a fictitious account from the bible. Actually - you are limiting God. You are using the limited experience of your life, and the facts and knowledge you have gleened - through others - from the education system that you were exposed to - just like every one here has. You have determined for yourself that the God of Scriptures was incapable of forming Jesus in the womb of Mary - which by the way - is another biblical concept - without the help of a man having had sexual relations with her, consensual or otherwise. This show a serious lack of understanding the God of scripture. You would be better served to simply claim that Jesus didn't exist. For to claim that God was incapable of forming life in the womb of a virgin, but somehow create a human out of dust, as in the case of Adam, or out of a rib as in the case of Eve, is a demondstration of not comprehending the power of God. You are incorrect. I am simply questioning the bible as many of us are here on this thread. Of course I am limited to my educational background, life experience and any other research on the topic I may have done. Are you implying that you aren’t in some respect? I simply disagree with your views. I have brought forth my information to the table and you are free to debate any of us who disagree with you. Never once have I limited god. I told you I do not believe in a virgin birth, or humans being made from ribs. I do believe in Jesus. He was a man. I have stated this repeatedly. I’m not sure what you are misunderstanding at this point. I also feel that Mary had sexual intercourse with someone in order to become pregnant. Why would that be so awful anyway? Why would the "son of god" need to somehow be created through non traditional means? Tell me why that is evil or bad? I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me - or offering a different perspective. I would prefer that they at least have read the book before the jump into dicussions about it though - expecially when the preofees to disbelieve what is explaned in it. The bible discusses specifically about the virgin birth - in both the Old Testament and the New. If Jesus HAD to have been born of a man having sex rather than to a virgin - then the entire New Testatament would be a contradiction to the whole. Joseph also came to the same conclusion that you did - that Mary had had sexual relations, and this matter was resolved by God. As to your last question - the "son of God" had to be born of a virgin because it was prophesized to be so - thousands of years before the event. Had he not been born of a virgin - he would have never been recognized as the "son of God" - and rightfully so. Not to be mean spirited - but if you had read the book - this would have been an obvious response to the question. It is referenced numerous times. This is not a slight - it is only going to be to your advantage to have the experience of reading it - for it will legitimise your opinion about it - otherwise, the opinions you are express are either ill informed, or someone elses. When you speak of reincarnation and how it is interpreted in Wicca - it is clearly demonstrated that you've put some study into this - even if casually - so too with your responses on evolution. If you wish to involve yourself in biblical discussions - why is not the effort put into the bible as you have in these other things? That is essentially the point that I'm getting at. Whether you chose to or not - only you can justify to yourself. Well if you do not mind us questioning these inconsistencies and contradictions found in the bible, shouldn't you be able to debate them with me? Clear the air? Set my head straight so to speak? Have you read the bible? I've asked you that twice now and you sidestep the issue. If you say you have, from ear to ear, then assuredly you would be able to enlighten me or properly explained some of the problems set forth by the others here? If you have not read it in its entirety, fair enough. You probably should not go around chastising others for research you yourself have yet to complete. Which is it then sir? Yes - I have read it ear to ear - the New Testament at least twice. I'm fairly strait forward about what I discuss here, and I rarely touch upon subjects that I know little about - other than Darwinism - which I have no desire to bother with, I had enough of that nonsense crammed down my throat as a youth - being held hostage by a grade. I don't mind responding to the questions and percieved contradictions - but it is often better when one executes the exegesis for themselves - else they are relying on my exegesis. The only time I get into depth concerning these topics is when one professes to claim they know what I think or do as a Christian - which is in opposition to what I think and do in my life. Otherwise - much is lost when the responses are given to someone who has formulated an opinion about a topic without the experience of examining the occurance of it eveywhere in the text. An example of this is Tribo refutting Jeannies percieved contradictions. Here - Tribo is not a professed Christian - but he has at least read the scriptures, and understands the basics of what is being said. I'm not saying that you need to read the entire bible before you enter into discussions about it - but you would be better served to ask where in scripture your percieved conflicts are resolved - rather than hold the expectation of some one else to determine the exegesis for you. I can respect that you have read the book from ear to ear, however it just seems that in this case, you would be able to better help someone like myself, or any of us on this thread who according to your analysis, are so underexposed and quick to question the mystical workings of the bible. That is the presumption you are making here Eljay and it is not entirely fair. It is a mistake often made but generally you hear it espoused more from the mouths of the fundamentalists. I won’t go so far as to accuse you of that of course. Darwinism and anthropogenesis were subjects of great interest to me while in school. That is in direct contrast to you. I excelled in this level of academia. I also studied cultural and physical anthropology. So we are both scholars, we just enjoyed different subjects. I don’t feel that is any reason to heap blame on someone as being a "non believer". Can we not learn from each others strengths or perceived weaknesses? If my level of understanding of the scripture was so terribly lacking, as you would seem to indicate, how then would I be able to bring forth these arguments and debate them? I don't agree with you that these inconsistencies and contradictions are merely "perceived". Not after days of this and more and more evidence to support the reality of our claims. It’s simply too much now for backtracking and hiding your head in the sand. You are mistaken in that I expect any fundamentalist here to "explain the bible to me". I ask and then I question. The problem seems to always arise when I question and don’t merely "accept". I’m just not hardwired for that. Sorry. I guess I need to apologize for this but it feels like I should not. Krimsa; I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there is a definite pattern to learning. It is quite evident to me that you are more than aware of this - and I might add that you show a great aptitude for being able to express that with confidence. An admirable trait. In my experience with education - in both ends of the classroom - in it, and in front of it - I've discovered that learning about the bible does not fall into the pattern - as unlike most subjects - there are a number of differet authors contributing to the same theme. That the "facts" of the bible are not merely stated once - but are self supported within the text, and usually by different authors - so as to corroberate what is being said. Also - the books are not linear - but literal, and many are collective, rather than contradictory. All of these facets make for a difficult time in comprehension without having a grasp of the whole - as it were. It brings to mind a statement I've often had to tell my pupils "Don't ask questions until you've been given all of the information - you'll only get confused." So I'm more than willing to adress questions and concerns - even percieved contradictions - but there may be times when my best response is to suggest an expended exegesis - which is a better way to approach an issue (or question) which can offen time be rather lengthy - and would need more of an active participation on your part to establish an understanding. My sense is that there is a sincerity on your part to understand _why_ these things are - without having to _believe_ they are. I'm okay with that. Fair enough Eljay. I do appreciate your politeness and that you at least listen to these contradictions. That’s all I ask of any of the Christians or non Christians who support your views. Many here have and some (we all know the couple I’m referring to) blatantly do not. They name call, become overly emotional, can not formulate arguments and essentially refuse to even listen and remain locked behind the stone walls of their own egotism. I’m not sure god would have intended that outlook toward his fellow man (and woman) whether they want to claim he did or not. Also, Eljay, I have never once featured myself as an expert on any particular subject. That is your assessment of me for whatever reason. All I have done here is looked at the bible (primarily only KJV) and pointed out contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies. I STILL will disagree with you that these are somehow "perceived". The folks here who do not see these problems as you do, could say that we are in fact asking you to argue directly (verbatim) from the actual text that is written and it is you who insists on a lot of "well what they meant to say is..." That doesn’t go over real well in the scientific community. You should hopefully understand this as a professor. I feel that the bible was written by human beings and nothing supernatural occurred. I also believe it is a lot of storytelling (some at its finest). I have never stated differently. I also mentioned that I feel it’s quite plausible that the bible was not intended to be taken literally. It is probably based in symbolism and metaphor. You keep throwing this "expended exegesis" in my face like I am not interpreting this information correctly. We went over this probably at least 15 times and I rebutted your argument each and every. I ask you to interpret from the actual context of Leviticus. Look at what they are saying. I am not relying on well, maybe they meant this or maybe they meant that. That sir, is my point. I do not mean “sir” here in a bad or disrespectful way but that is how we commonly addressed male scientists and professors of physics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abra
Oh please abra.....you know it's true....when I speak truth you guys just conveniently ignore it......how apra-po Ok abra.......Christians preach against homosexuality because in God's eyes it is wrong....If God intended for man to sleep with man and woman with woman....then he would of made adam and steve......and for me I have many homosexual friends......I love thee person....just not the sin....and every single one knows where I stand. And just because homosexuals want to justify it by saying that God loves me no matter what.....it will not change that it is wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BIBLE INCONSISTENCIES --JB GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. 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. 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. ************************************ GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. Genesis 2:4-9 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 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, 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. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 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. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 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. sorry JB there is no in consistancy there.....God created all and then Adam and Eve to live in the Garden of Eden....The only thing I see is that your not understanding whqt you are reading. Everything was created before....read again....man not until the 6th day........so here again proof of what you ask..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
feralcatlady
on
Sat 08/09/08 09:45 AM
|
|
BIBLE INCONSISTENCIES GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. Genesis 1:24-27 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created. Genesis 2:7 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 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. [/quote 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ] NO INCONSISTAENCY Read carefully.......he produced all then man......on the sixth day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later. 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. Wrong again.....he created adam first.....and then eve from the rib of adam.........omg people please if your going to do this at least know what the heck your talking about... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. ****************************** GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. (Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.) 5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Again just because you don't get it....no surprise because I think you read into what you want instead of what it truly is.... God was pleased....... Then MAN was disobedient.....God was not displeased with his creation only in man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel. 5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. ************************ GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel. Genesis 11 1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. JB a bible study for you is so needed...... The Tower of Babel 1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. 3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." 8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth. There was one language.....God made the languages so as they would not understand each other....... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Pagans have kind of a different take on that whole "tree of knowledge incident". Their feeling is that story was very deliberately put in there to discredit woman and a much older faith. It does kind of make sense in a way. It was Eve that took fruit from the tree and tempted Adam with the knowledge. It would have been Eve naturally because she would have had no fear of the garden as it had always been her place prior to god being on the scene and being intimidating and scaring folks. The tale of the "serpent speaking to Eve" would have also been an attempt at discrediting the older earth based religion as the snake had been known as a symbol of the Goddess in many cultures. Pre-dynastic Egyptian queens were found mummified with snakes wrapped around their necks. So the best way to disvalue something is to associate it with evil or the devil. There ya go. Snakes are bad and so is Eve. I don’t know how true that is but an interesting take on it for certain. "the snake had been known as a symbol of the Goddess in many cultures.. The snake is a symbol of the reptilian races, particularly the Draconians who are ruled by a Queen and is a female dominated society where men are subservient to women, so the snake could well have been a symbol of the Goddess of this galaxy who is known as the Draconian Queen and worshiped. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off God said what he meant and meant what he said......He said DO NOT eat from the Tree of Knowledge....then satan (snake) came by and said ahhhh cmon eve go ahead he has no say in what you do.....
"Mans first fall from Grace. They died to sin......not unto themselves They died to God. hmmmmmmmmmmmm out get a clue people we could do this for the rest of our lives....and people who don't have a clue what they are reading will never get it. GOD winner people not They did not become ashamed until they listen to satan....they were not ashmaed of being naked and then the fig leaves......hmmmmmmmmmm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Pagans have kind of a different take on that whole "tree of knowledge incident". Their feeling is that story was very deliberately put in there to discredit woman and a much older faith. It does kind of make sense in a way. It was Eve that took fruit from the tree and tempted Adam with the knowledge. It would have been Eve naturally because she would have had no fear of the garden as it had always been her place prior to god being on the scene and being intimidating and scaring folks. The tale of the "serpent speaking to Eve" would have also been an attempt at discrediting the older earth based religion as the snake had been known as a symbol of the Goddess in many cultures. Pre-dynastic Egyptian queens were found mummified with snakes wrapped around their necks. So the best way to disvalue something is to associate it with evil or the devil. There ya go. Snakes are bad and so is Eve. I don’t know how true that is but an interesting take on it for certain. So far off......not even responding read it people...take a class understand it....before you put this blah blah blah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
feralcatlady
on
Sat 08/09/08 09:44 AM
|
|
The Pagans have kind of a different take on that whole "tree of knowledge incident". Their feeling is that story was very deliberately put in there to discredit woman and a much older faith. It does kind of make sense in a way. It was Eve that took fruit from the tree and tempted Adam with the knowledge. It would have been Eve naturally because she would have had no fear of the garden as it had always been her place prior to god being on the scene and being intimidating and scaring folks. The tale of the "serpent speaking to Eve" would have also been an attempt at discrediting the older earth based religion as the snake had been known as a symbol of the Goddess in many cultures. Pre-dynastic Egyptian queens were found mummified with snakes wrapped around their necks. So the best way to disvalue something is to associate it with evil or the devil. There ya go. Snakes are bad and so is Eve. I don’t know how true that is but an interesting take on it for certain. "the snake had been known as a symbol of the Goddess in many cultures.. The snake is a symbol of the reptilian races, particularly the Draconians who are ruled by a Queen and is a female dominated society where men are subservient to women, so the snake could well have been a symbol of the Goddess of this galaxy who is known as the Draconian Queen and worshiped. JB The snake was satan....has always been satan and had nothing to do with the start of the whole woman's rights movement.....lol Works for me. I think to be fair though, the serpent has also represented men over the ages as a phalic symbol? That I dont know. Would be some fun research I guess. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it was a spiritual death, they why did the Bible not say that it was a "spiritual" death. Death is death. People did not understand "spiritual death" back then so why call it death when everyone understands that death is when the physical body dies. And secondly, how does the spirit leave the body without physical death occurring? This is the life giver. And what is a soulish nature? What does that mean? I have never heard these terms before and they sound just like some rationalization to explain the inconsistency of why they did not actually die. Death is death of the physical body unless they were living in two dimensions and walking back and forth between them and one of them was suddenly closed to them. That might be some kind of death. But if this is so, why is this not explained? JB Hey if people want to get into arguing that the Bible is nothing met metaphors, I have one for you. Jesus, is the parable of a regular man. Any man who does what's right. The virgin birth is symbolic only. It simply means that all men are born of spirit and no man is born of flesh. The crucifixion is symbolic that every man is wrongly accused by his fellow man. The ressurection is symbolic of the fact that all men are spiritual in their true essence and all men will survive death. 
I could argue that to the death, but I'm truly not interested. I'd rather plan next year's broccoli garden.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG STUDY STUDY STUDY STUDY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Pagans have kind of a different take on that whole "tree of knowledge incident". Their feeling is that story was very deliberately put in there to discredit woman and a much older faith. It does kind of make sense in a way. It was Eve that took fruit from the tree and tempted Adam with the knowledge. It would have been Eve naturally because she would have had no fear of the garden as it had always been her place prior to god being on the scene and being intimidating and scaring folks. The tale of the "serpent speaking to Eve" would have also been an attempt at discrediting the older earth based religion as the snake had been known as a symbol of the Goddess in many cultures. Pre-dynastic Egyptian queens were found mummified with snakes wrapped around their necks. So the best way to disvalue something is to associate it with evil or the devil. There ya go. Snakes are bad and so is Eve. I don’t know how true that is but an interesting take on it for certain. The snake was satan....has always been satan and had nothing to do with the start of the whole woman's rights movement.....lol "the snake had been known as a symbol of the Goddess in many cultures.. The snake is a symbol of the reptilian races, particularly the Draconians who are ruled by a Queen and is a female dominated society where men are subservient to women, so the snake could well have been a symbol of the Goddess of this galaxy who is known as the Draconian Queen and worshiped. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel. 5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. ************************ GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel. Genesis 11 1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. JB a bible study for you is so needed...... The Tower of Babel 1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. 3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." 8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth. There was one language.....God made the languages so as they would not understand each other....... I hear what you are saying Feral, but you ignored the contradiction here: GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel. 5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abra Oh please abra.....you know it's true....when I speak truth you guys just conveniently ignore it......how apra-po Ok abra.......Christians preach against homosexuality because in God's eyes it is wrong....If God intended for man to sleep with man and woman with woman....then he would of made adam and steve......and for me I have many homosexual friends......I love thee person....just not the sin....and every single one knows where I stand. And just because homosexuals want to justify it by saying that God loves me no matter what.....it will not change that it is wrong. More christian judgements at their best.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Pagans have kind of a different take on that whole "tree of knowledge incident". Their feeling is that story was very deliberately put in there to discredit woman and a much older faith. It does kind of make sense in a way. It was Eve that took fruit from the tree and tempted Adam with the knowledge. It would have been Eve naturally because she would have had no fear of the garden as it had always been her place prior to god being on the scene and being intimidating and scaring folks. The tale of the "serpent speaking to Eve" would have also been an attempt at discrediting the older earth based religion as the snake had been known as a symbol of the Goddess in many cultures. Pre-dynastic Egyptian queens were found mummified with snakes wrapped around their necks. So the best way to disvalue something is to associate it with evil or the devil. There ya go. Snakes are bad and so is Eve. I don’t know how true that is but an interesting take on it for certain. So far off......not even responding read it people...take a class understand it....before you put this blah blah blah. Feral, the scripture is for everyone. You can analyze it to death and interpret it to mean just about anything. Everyone has a right to their own interpretation of it. It is for everybody, not just for Christianity. There are other religions who use the Bible. Why do you insist that only you have it right? JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later. 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. Wrong again.....he created adam first.....and then eve from the rib of adam.........omg people please if your going to do this at least know what the heck your talking about... And then adam and eve's descendents went on to have incestuous relationships to further the human race, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragon called it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off God said what he meant and meant what he said......He said DO NOT eat from the Tree of Knowledge....then satan (snake) came by and said ahhhh cmon eve go ahead he has no say in what you do..... "Mans first fall from Grace. They died to sin......not unto themselves They died to God. hmmmmmmmmmmmm out get a clue people we could do this for the rest of our lives....and people who don't have a clue what they are reading will never get it. GOD winner people not They did not become ashamed until they listen to satan....they were not ashmaed of being naked and then the fig leaves......hmmmmmmmmmm And you say this as though it is fact and it is not even plausible as fact. No logicalness here at all. Fantasy is all this story is. |
|
|
|
|
