The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

[[KMA]Avenger]

I wanted to reply in Sandmans thread but i see i am to late. i also noticed how heated the discussion was and the lack of respect and open mindedness people had towards each other.
instead of bickering about who is right and wrong how about we try and discuss this like adults, eh?

right, first things first, anyone replying in this thread will first reply with respect to everyone taking part, the first sign of any disrespect i will ask a mod to lock it!

firstly, i have a problem with genesis (sorry, i read the bible a LONG time ago and don't remember chapters and verses and details so everything i say will be generally speaking, so correct me if i am wrong), according to the bible, weren't the first 2 people adam and eve? and they had 2 sons??
2 VERY obvious question immediately come to mind.
the first question is this, how did adam and eve have 2 sons which managed to populate the whole world, and 2, after god rejects cains sacrifice and accepts abels, cain decides to get rid of abel, when god finds out (another obvious question comes to mind as i type this, why would god need to find out, isn't he all seeing all knowing? ) he banishes cain into the wilderness but cain says to god that the people outside will kill him, god puts a mark on him so no one will touch him, who are these people and where did they come from, i thought adam and eve, cain and abel were the first and only people???

another thought has come to mind, doesn't god say something to the affect of "let us go down and make man in our own image/likeness?

doesn't that imply that modern man was not the first creation but a genetic experiment/alteration of the people who were already here, and this is why nobody has managed to find a "missing" link?


the point of this thread is to discuss the validity of certain aspects of the bible and NOT to argue about what is fact and what is not because at the end of the day, none of us had a hand in either writing the bible or know of anyone involved in writing the bible so its a fact that none of us know what is fact and what is not and this point is NOT up for debate so please don't respond or take offense to it

let the discussion begin

[agapooka]

I wanted to reply in Sandmans thread but i see i am to late. i also noticed how heated the discussion was and the lack of respect and open mindedness people had towards each other.
instead of bickering about who is right and wrong how about we try and discuss this like adults, eh?

right, first things first, anyone replying in this thread will first reply with respect to everyone taking part, the first sign of any disrespect i will ask a mod to lock it!

firstly, i have a problem with genesis (sorry, i read the bible a LONG time ago and don't remember chapters and verses and details so everything i say will be generally speaking, so correct me if i am wrong), according to the bible, weren't the first 2 people adam and eve? and they had 2 sons??
2 VERY obvious question immediately come to mind.
the first question is this, how did adam and eve have 2 sons which managed to populate the whole world They are the only ones mentioned. The Bible doesn't often mention women, because they usually aren't that important, according to the Bible. Plus, Adam and Eve had hundreds of years to make babies. Essentially, the answer to your question, if we want to believe every word in the Bible, would be major incest., and 2, after god rejects cains sacrifice and accepts abels, cain decides to get rid of abel, when god finds out (another obvious question comes to mind as i type this, why would god need to find out, isn't he all seeing all knowing? "Finds out" - those are your words. ) he banishes cain into the wilderness but cain says to god that the people outside will kill him, god puts a mark on him so no one will touch him, who are these people and where did they come from Incest., i thought adam and eve, cain and abel were the first and only people??? Might've been the only people MENTIONED to that point, but that doesn't make them the only people.

another thought has come to mind, doesn't god say something to the affect of "let us go down and make man in our own image/likeness?

doesn't that imply that modern man was not the first creation but a genetic experiment/alteration of the people who were already here, and this is why nobody has managed to find a "missing" link?

Not necessarily, although it could. The context, however, says otherwise and because the above also fits the context, that particular point is not really a contradiction.


the point of this thread is to discuss the validity of certain aspects of the bible and NOT to argue about what is fact and what is not because at the end of the day, none of us had a hand in either writing the bible or know of anyone involved in writing the bible so its a fact that none of us know what is fact and what is not and this point is NOT up for debate so please don't respond or take offense to it

It's very difficult to define what is fact and what is not. That's why I stick to pointing out flaws in logic or just bringing up other theoretical possibilities.

let the discussion begin

[[KMA]Avenger]

i think it best if i take this point by point...

if adam and eve did indeed have hundreds of years and eve was nothing more than a baby making machine, why no mention of this?

surely the bible wouldn't be so vague on such a VERY important issue to explain first how so many people came into being since the bible says its adam and eve and their 2 sons alone, and 2 why they are all outside of the protection god has given to adam, eve, cain and abel.
if all of these people outside had been criminals and warranted exclusion wouldn't they're crimes have been mentioned? after all, cains crime was!

i know it looked like i ruled out incest in my first post but i assure you it was left out for good reason.

[semper]

One Step out of line, anyone, and this thread is locked for good. Any further attempts to resurrect it will result in a warning, and the case of the validity of the christian bible will be closed for good leaving it at 'we'll agree to disagree'...

~Semper

[agapooka]

i think it best if i take this point by point...

if adam and eve did indeed have hundreds of years and eve was nothing more than a baby making machine, why no mention of this?

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died KJV Genesis 5:5

Apparently, they don't bother mentioning how long Eve lived, nevermind that she was a baby factory. But imagine, her kids could have more and more babies with each other... after 930 years, if she lived long enough and there was no sterility in old age, she could have made a lot of kiddies. The lack of mention of Eve's precise role and age at death is due to the biblical fact that women are trivial.

surely the bible wouldn't be so vague on such a VERY important issue to explain first how so many people came into being since the bible says its adam and eve and their 2 sons alone, and 2 why they are all outside of the protection god has given to adam, eve, cain and abel. Well, it IS vague. Deal with it.
if all of these people outside had been criminals and warranted exclusion wouldn't they're crimes have been mentioned? after all, cains crime was! Good point.

i know it looked like i ruled out incest in my first post but i assure you it was left out for good reason. Because you get the cooties if you think about it!

[[KMA]Avenger]

One Step out of line, anyone, and this thread is locked for good. Any further attempts to resurrect it will result in a warning, and the case of the validity of the christian bible will be closed for good leaving it at 'we'll agree to disagree'...

~Semper

i agree 100%.





@pooky, will respond to your last post tomorrow.

[Mister Sandman]

[spoiler]

I wanted to reply in Sandmans thread but i see i am to late. i also noticed how heated the discussion was and the lack of respect and open mindedness people had towards each other.
instead of bickering about who is right and wrong how about we try and discuss this like adults, eh?

right, first things first, anyone replying in this thread will first reply with respect to everyone taking part, the first sign of any disrespect i will ask a mod to lock it!

firstly, i have a problem with genesis (sorry, i read the bible a LONG time ago and don't remember chapters and verses and details so everything i say will be generally speaking, so correct me if i am wrong), according to the bible, weren't the first 2 people adam and eve? and they had 2 sons??
2 VERY obvious question immediately come to mind.
the first question is this, how did adam and eve have 2 sons which managed to populate the whole world They are the only ones mentioned. The Bible doesn't often mention women, because they usually aren't that important, according to the Bible. Plus, Adam and Eve had hundreds of years to make babies. Essentially, the answer to your question, if we want to believe every word in the Bible, would be major incest., and 2, after god rejects cains sacrifice and accepts abels, cain decides to get rid of abel, when god finds out (another obvious question comes to mind as i type this, why would god need to find out, isn't he all seeing all knowing? "Finds out" - those are your words. ) he banishes cain into the wilderness but cain says to god that the people outside will kill him, god puts a mark on him so no one will touch him, who are these people and where did they come from Incest., i thought adam and eve, cain and abel were the first and only people??? Might've been the only people MENTIONED to that point, but that doesn't make them the only people.

another thought has come to mind, doesn't god say something to the affect of "let us go down and make man in our own image/likeness?
You must remember the spiritual side.

doesn't that imply that modern man was not the first creation but a genetic experiment/alteration of the people who were already here, and this is why nobody has managed to find a "missing" link?

Not necessarily, although it could. The context, however, says otherwise and because the above also fits the context, that particular point is not really a contradiction.
As we have seen mutation can occur through time; thats why incest should not take place anymore.

the point of this thread is to discuss the validity of certain aspects of the bible and NOT to argue about what is fact and what is not because at the end of the day, none of us had a hand in either writing the bible or know of anyone involved in writing the bible so its a fact that none of us know what is fact and what is not and this point is NOT up for debate so please don't respond or take offense to it

It's very difficult to define what is fact and what is not. That's why I stick to pointing out flaws in logic or just bringing up other theoretical possibilities.

let the discussion begin

I left Agapooka's points which are valid. Some others no may agree however, I don't see the need to spend extensive amounts of time on questions that have be answered. [/spoiler]


Just for knowledge; I am not mistaken, the Fall of Man was before the Birth of Cain and Abel.

Also, incest back then.... wasnt shunned upon.

[agapooka]

Hey, he took out the part where I said "Good point! " and didn't even try to offer a rebuttal.

Censorship of truth!

[spoiler]By the way, Avenger, respond faster, already. I'm getting bored and might start arguing that the Bible is a perversion of the Koran, which looks like it was written after the Bible, but was actually written much before Moses even lived and brought to Mohammed with a Time Machine, which had been constructed in Atlantis. Because the writings would self-destruct in the style of Inspector Gadget, he had to quickly scribble them down, and this is why he missed a few key points and had to add a few of his own.

And then, the same happened with the Koran: a partial copy of it was brought back in time to various people and used to "inspire" them and the new Bible "authors" told that it would self-destruct, so they'd better start copying it out... It's like the telephone game with a stress factor. FIVE! FOUR! THREE! TWO! ONE! [/spoiler]

[Thriller]

One Step out of line, anyone, and this thread is locked for good. Any further attempts to resurrect it will result in a warning, and the case of the validity of the christian bible will be closed for good leaving it at 'we'll agree to disagree'...

~Semper

Spoilsport.

Question for sandman:
According to Christians Man has two main choices: 1) accept the Love of God and, upon death, go to paradise for eternity, 2) Refuse God and, upon death, just die, be utterly damned. How is that freedom of choice? isn't it the same thing as a gun to your head?

[agapooka]

I believe it's called blackmail.

[Mister Sandman]

Spoilsport.

Question for sandman:
According to Christians Man has two main choices: 1) accept the Love of God and, upon death, go to paradise for eternity, 2) Refuse God and, upon death, just die, be utterly damned. How is that freedom of choice? isn't it the same thing as a gun to your head?

Quote sources in the bible please. Then I may consider answering that question.

I personally don't see it as the gun to your head theory.

[Thriller]

Spoilsport.

Question for sandman:
According to Christians Man has two main choices: 1) accept the Love of God and, upon death, go to paradise for eternity, 2) Refuse God and, upon death, just die, be utterly damned. How is that freedom of choice? isn't it the same thing as a gun to your head?

Quote sources in the bible please. Then I may consider answering that question.

I personally don't see it as the gun to your head theory.

You just want to me to post sum scripture and then tell me i misinterpreted it.

This speaks volumes on the accuracy of the bible.

[Mister Sandman]

You just want to me to post sum scripture and then tell me i misinterpreted it.

This speaks volumes on the accuracy of the bible.

On the contrary, I want to see where you got it from so i can contextualise it. And give you more of an understanding.

[agapooka]

He's getting it from Christians who claim that if you don't give Mr God your soul, he'll steal it from you so that he can throw it in the barbecue and have it for lunch you'll go to this place commonly called hell.

Maybe those Christians are wrong and this isn't in the Bible, though. It'd be nice if you could help us out with that.

[spoiler]O Lord, please don't burn us.
Don't grill or toast Your flock.
Don't put us on the barbecue
Or simmer us in stock.
Don't braise or bake or boil us
Or stir-fry us in a wok.
Oh, please don't lightly poach us
Or baste us with hot fat.
Don't fricassee or roast us
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don't stick Thy servants, Lord,
In a Rotissomat.[/spoiler]

Edit: I want to point out that this thread is about the validity and not the soundness of the argument provided in the Bible. We can start a thread about the soundness thereof once we've resolved the logical validity. The following article makes the difference clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness

[Mister Sandman]

He's getting it from Christians who claim that if you don't give Mr God your soul, he'll steal it from you so that he can throw it in the barbecue and have it for lunch you'll go to this place commonly called hell.

I dont care what people claim, I only care about what the bible says. However, If I must....

How is it freedom of choice?:

How is it not freedom of choice?

Like, you can choose to stand in the middle of the 405 freeway in Los Angeles during rush hour (and inevidably get killed), or you can choose not do that.


God is telling you exactly what will happen if you choose one path and what will happen if you choose the other. He doesn't force you to do anything, you make the choice as to what's going to happen to you based on your decision. Adam and Eve certainly didn't have any gun to their heads. They'd already been enjoying paradise and knew what God required of them. They chose to disobey God, and so they took on the consequences of that decision. It's the same thing for man today.

There's no gun to your head. There's just enough information given to you so you can't later plead ignorance.

It's no different than, say, someone contemplating robbing a bank. If they don't rob it, they'll stay out of trouble with the law. If they do rob it, they'll get caught and spend time in prison. That's just common sense. If a person chooses to go ahead and rob the bank, knowing the consequences, the results that come are because of how they chose to use their free will.



Maybe those Christians are wrong and this isn't in the Bible, though. It'd be nice if you could help us out with that.

[spoiler]O Lord, please don't burn us.
Don't grill or toast Your flock.
Don't put us on the barbecue
Or simmer us in stock.
Don't braise or bake or boil us
Or stir-fry us in a wok.
Oh, please don't lightly poach us
Or baste us with hot fat.
Don't fricassee or roast us
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don't stick Thy servants, Lord,
In a Rotissomat.[/spoiler]

Oh, and a quite narcissistic and cynical song from Monty Python.... and what it has to do with this argument I fail to see. Its a song, it doesnt show anything.