T1B

God is inherently omniscient (you might want to look that up) - along with the other two omnis.

Jsc810 wrote: But the LORD God called to the man,“Where are you?”

But also, he's not beyond fucking with us.

So what you're saying is that God doesn't even have to open his eyes during Marco Polo but he does anyway?

Nice.

Sort of. He could also win at sharks and minnows without even getting wet but what fun would that be?

You've heard all the Jesus plays golf jokes, right? Some of them are true.

Jsc wrote:Genesis 3:8-9

Genesis 3:9 is among my favorite verses in all the Bible.

Adam has just gone into sin.
He tries to cover himself.
He's afraid.
He tries to hide from God.

Genesis 3:9
And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?



Jsc. Where art thou?



God is asking a rhetorical question.

Genesis 3:8-10
[8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
[9] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
[10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

God went right to where Adam was and asked that question, Jsc.

We know that because when God asked, Adam immediately answered Him - v.10.


Verse 8.

It says Adam and Eve hid THEMSELVES from the presence of the Lord, it does not say that God could not see them.

Geez, Chip. You're really reaching now.

Except he's wrong. It's entirely possible for a gay man to bed a woman as he would a man. The decorations might not be as festive, but the basic act would be identical.

Van wrote:Except he's wrong. It's entirely possible for a gay man to bed a woman as he would a man. The decorations might not be as festive, but the basic act would be identical.

Maybe in Screwball's world, but not in mine.

Jsc810 wrote:pop, which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally? How do you know which parts to take literally and which ones not?

This part is direct and is (imo) intended to be taken literally.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 20:31
But these (Scripture) are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.



I think overwhelmingly it's easy to see what is written to be taken literally and what is intended as something else.
Just read the Book naturally.

If you have a question about a particular verse or passage, I can tell you what I think.

It is overwhelmingly easy, so why do you insist on taking so many things literally that are clearly intended as allegory? In order to rebut Jsc's verse-based examples of biblical contradictions you're constantly forced to construct specious semantic interpretations, while in the meantime you swallow the whole of something as silly as Genesis hook, line, and sinker?

Van wrote:It is overwhelmingly easy, so why do you insist on taking so many things literally that are clearly intended as allegory?

I don't.

If you think I do, tell me which Scripture I take literally which is clearly intended as allegory.

The entire story of Creation. Anything to do with Noah's ark. The parting of the Red Sea. The Earth stopping on its axis.

Have at it.

Van wrote:The entire story of Creation. Anything to do with Noah's ark. The parting of the Red Sea. The Earth stopping on its axis.

If you think any of those things were clearly intended as allegory, I'd like to know your reasoning.

Those events are all written as straightforward accounts of what happened.

Jsc wrote:What parts are literal, and how do you know?

The Bible is a big collection of books.

Give me a questionable Scripture and I'll tell you how I know it is intended as allegory or not.

poptart wrote:

Van wrote:The entire story of Creation. Anything to do with Noah's ark. The parting of the Red Sea. The Earth stopping on its axis.

If you think any of those things were clearly intended as allegory, I'd like to know your reasoning.

Those events are all written as straightforward accounts of what happened.

Children's fables are also written as straightforward accounts, but only a child is expected to take them literally. Those silly 'events' in the Bible are less believable than Harry Potter: The Bottomless Flagon of Wizard-Spiked Mead, and you don't take that literally too, do you?

Those other books present themselves as fables.

The Bible presents itself as God's Living Word.


If you gave 100 people (who had never heard of the the Bible) the Bible and asked them to read Genesis 1 and tell you how many days it took for God to create everything, 100 people would say ---> 6 days.
It says just that.
The text couldn't be more clear.

So I take the reading literally.


The irony is that you are doing the exact thing you accused me of.

It is YOU who are taking a text which is clearly intended to be taken literally and trying to say that it must have been intended as allegory.

No, I'm simply doing exactly what you claim to be "easily" able to do yet clearly fail miserably at doing: understanding the difference between obvious allegory and that which is to be taken literally.

Entire human beings created whole cloth from the motherfucking rib of another human being, just like...poof? One minute dude is alone in some Ethiopian garden spanking it to his Raiderette calender, all the while thinking to himself, "Damn, I needs me summa dat!" Then...blam! His DNA twin magically appears (except she somehow has tits, a pussy and a functioning womb despite being an exact biological duplicate of him), and she's rearin' to fuck like a rabid rhesus monkey because she realizes they have an entire planet's population to create out of their single set of DNA.

And you take that literally. You credulous doorknob.

And since God made man out of dust, why couldn't He do the same with woman? Why did He have to roofie Adam and then go full-on mafiya on the guy by ganking his rib?

Jsc wrote:If those 100 people (who had never heard of the Bible) had high school educations, then they would dismiss it as myth, because it conflicts with established science. They would dismiss it as easily as they would dismiss Harry Potter.

You just changed the subject.

I didn't say the 100 people would be asked whether or not they think Genesis 1 is myth.

I said if they read the text, I think 100 out of 100 would say that they think it says that God created everything in 6 days.

That's what it directly says.

No mystery.

You don't need to be confused about what parts of the Bible are intended as allegory and what parts are intended to be taken literally.

In most cases there is just no need to wonder how the text is meant to be taken.



There is no conflict there, Jsc.

I actually gave you the answer to this question a few weeks ago.

Genesis Chapter One gives a chronological account of what God created.
Day one this, day two this, day three this, etc.
We are told that on day six, God created Adam and Eve.

Genesis Chapter Two (beginning with verse 7) is then speaking only of what happened on day 6 in the garden.
It provides more details specifically about the creation of man.

Adam was created first and then Eve was produced from his rib.

God likes his symbolism as much as the next guy.

Jsc810 wrote: You are the one who says that Genesis should be taken literally. Yet you are the one who adds words to the Bible where they don't exist, to reach a conclusion that you are confortable with.

no here's the way it works....take every third word of the bible put them together and you will have what's to be taken literally, what's rhetorical, and what's just nonsense....it's kind of like the DaVinci code, only a much funnier outcome