What wasn't recorded?

The fact that every prophet sent by God Almighty wasn't important? (Implied Sarcasm Of The Previous Question)

So, after You've insulted every other prophet of old, less Jesus, then You make swelling claims of the Bibles reliability!

Do You (Th3Dv8) ever listen to the oxy-morons you're capable of making?

By the way Th3Dv8...

The Quran wasn't written by Mohammad and through-out its entirety it never professes to be Mohammad's compilation.

Just how 'self-referencing' to Mohammad is that?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, 'Mohammad, isn't mentioned as often through-out the entire Quran enough for me to count on one hand.'

funny how the wannabee self wise and dreamers of them self as wise and of god, are the only one's who find religions useful, as it allows for a never ending debate and conversation, about what is "more right"...

none of which has nothing or any iota of caring about how to create a better world for all other humans who live on earth.

but of course, these could care less about any who live on earth who live in pain and anguish with less than them self.

the scribes and pharisees.

and may the gods send them to hell pits, to be schooled about equal caring of others lives and environments, as quickly as possible...

and light the flames, to tens times hot.

to melt their self arrogance posed as caring and love of others.

i,ve never insulted 'other' prophets sent by GOD ? you are putting words in my mouth , twisting words ,when what i,ve said is plain , Muslims believe Jesus a Prophet Christians do not ...

You say the quran was'nt written by muhammud ? it was a supposed revelation from gabriel only to mohammud and only recorded by his wife ( that imo shows origin-mohammud ?)not 40 odd writers like the Bible ...

Lets leave it at that , i,ve overstayed my time on this forum , has been a good discussion , learnt a bit , but gotta move along ......

GOD BLESS you ALL , dont address any more comments to me plz as i won't answer i am going .....Cheers .....

I know when to say stalemate ....Love ya's

Robert burns, was a bawbag!! Kids to women all over Scotland and never contributed financially for one them! All this romantic poet shite as well? The guy was a class one pr**k! Didn't teach you that part about him, Sheik, did they? Hows things anyway big yin?

But Messy Tim... I'm still holding out for some 'Halal Haggis', so the ground will resound my step!

(Reference To An Old Poem)

Okay Th3Dv8, it's obvious we're at an impasse.

So, now that we've finished pizzing each other off, we can be friends, right?

I think that's how it works...

The Sheihk of LaBroquerie ----> <---- and Th3Dv8, having had spent too much time with J.W.s

You havent pizzed me off mate , healthy debate , you are a friend imo .

Stalemate? Nope!! The bible account of cration is the only reliable and authentic record of how and why we are here. Read it daily and have peace from above

well,as they say:"There Is Bliss In Ignorance",especially when it is chosen!

"Spiritual matters are foolishness to those that perish"

everyone "perishes"...

you're not even in the Ballpark with your Dogmatic approach!

Why Biblical Literalism is Wrong Part 1: Creation Myths
Posted by KJ at 12:54 AM
Something that seems to plague conservative Christianity is the idea that the Bible is literally true, literally the word of god and that it is infallible. This becomes problematic from the very start of the bible with the Genesis creation myth. Besides the extremely basic distinctions between the "historical" texts, law texts, prophetic texts, gospels and epistles, biblical literalists don't seem to be able to grasp the more specific genres contained within certain books.
First off, with Genesis, the first few chapters belong to the genre of Creation myth. The Genesis story is not unique, original, or true in any sense and to interpret it as such shows an enormous misunderstanding of the genre. It isn't meant to be interpreted literally because creation myths were symbolic narratives that described how the known world came to be, not scientifically accurate accounts of actual events. They developed in the same way most folklore does, by being passed down orally through many generations. Genesis was written down to preserve the cultural tradition of the Israelite creation myth. This is most likely the reason why there are two different accounts of the same basic story contained in Genesis. Chapter one and two give two divergent accounts of the same basic story, the events are in different orders, one contains details that the other doesn't and vice versa. The biblical creation story is a myth, nothing more, and we find parallels to it all throughout early human history, many of which predate the Israelites. If you want to understand the Genesis creation narrative, you interpret it within its cultural context, not take it as infallible, literal truth.

Seriously, it is not even internally reliable or consistent

All those twisted and distorted view of yours about the holy bible account: and you are a "christian" according to your profile?

Yes, both the Bible and the Quran confirm that the Heavens and the Earth and all therein were created in only 6 days of 'our' perception of time.

This seems to bother those who want to second-guess the time-line.

For some it's too brief a time period.

For others the argument is, 'If an Almighty Being wanted... Why didn't He just have it happen all-at-once?'

Now, both the Bible and the Quran have a specific chronological order of things were created.

Because the Angels and the Jinn were present, and even they have a limited appreciation of just how-much they can view and retain, it seems logical that a short, but preoccupying, sequence of events was needed.

In so doing, the Almighty would of re-enforced a greater level of reverence from the Angelic community.

By any stretch of the imagination, there is no gradual enough process or metamorphosis that can explain all that is around us.

Some events, like sedimentary rock from the gradual recession of flood water, is very evident around the World.

Other events, like the fusion of metallic ores to really incompatible elements, are so illogical that even in controlled conditions like a foundry or a blast-furnace, we still can't do it!

What's most important to remember is, while all things are possible with God, not all things are likely.

Gullible much?

1. An ad hominem response? usually a sign of someone with no other argument; I did not question your faith, but your scientific and biblical literacy.2. Most denomiations of X'ianity do not conform to a literal or "fundamentalism". 3. The text is the text, read it more carefully and in context

Almost the entire bible is written in parables, to give better and deeper understaning.



Incorrect, there are no "differences" just chapter 2 goes into deeper detail than chapter 1.

And on the rest of you ramble on this specific discussion. YOu do realize "Adam" means Mankind right? And eve translate to life or life bearing" right"? They are not gender specific. Adam and Eve are not gender specific eg., male and female. Just that's the way we are taught at an early age for possibly better understanding. But nevertheless once "Adam" was made eg., Mankind that was male and famale. And again, please let there be no confusion between chapter 1 and chapter 2 as chapter 2 goes into more detail about specifically what was done and when it was done. But now that we know "Adam" means mandkind, we'll discuss Eve meaning life and or life bearing. The two are not gender specific. But Eve allows us the possibility to repreduce generally and auotmatically referred to in the female genre, which isn't specifically correct or incorrect persay. And getting back on moreso of the topic, the two wasn't written to be in the same book namely. It's not like the narrative of chapter one was writting it to continue into chapter 2. The bible is written up of different epistels/letter and or personal books/journals. And besides that, chapter 2 is a recap of chapter 1 just in greater detail, goes back to origally when these scriptures/things were written they were no conciously intended to be placed in one book.

This is just nature and common sense can explain everything. For example take a glass and fill it with however much water, how can you explain the empty part is always exactly in relation to the full part? Everything simple or complex can be explained by common sense.