Was Adam really the first human and if so...

[Picaro]

I've read it, fool. You just don't agree with it so you make up all these alternate meanings to what's written. I'm just trying to figure out why god included evil in his creation. Admit it, you don't know.

lol no you haven't read it at all ; quit lying, it just makes you look even more like a troll.

 

[Picaro]

I've read it, fool. You just don't agree with it so you make up all these alternate meanings to what's written. I'm just trying to figure out why god included evil in his creation. Admit it, you don't know.

Taz, please try to understand. We all get that you read a 21st century modern English edition of the Bible. We get that you comprehended it as a 21st century person reading through the lens of 21st century culture.

Many of us go back to the day and time the accounts were written so that 21st century language, understanding, and culture do not alter the meaning of the original languages and cultures. The Bible is meant, not to be read--but studied. Simply reading it can tie one up in knots.

The major error is the constant citing of verses as if the book is just a list of verses all unrelated to the rest of the 'book' they're in and not connected with the other books, either, which is just retarded. But hen Taz or the other trolls are not here to discuss that, they're here because they're compulsive neurotic Xian haters, is all.

 

[Taz]

People who have actually read the book will immediately notice you haven't read it, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Why, Noah didn't take 2 of every animal?

It’s an allegorical account Taz.

And completely accurate in what it was meant to convey, 100%.

It's not accurate as written, only when you move the goalposts to the alternate meaning that you give that passage.

What 'goalposts'? You're getting even more ridiculous now. I'm not 'moving' anything; people who have read it know exactly what I'm talking about here, and you don' thave the first clue. lol

People who agree with your cherry-picker of the stories agree with what you're saying. Even though your interpretation of said stories is nowhere near what they are. But it's the only way for the bible to make any sense to you. I get it. But I don't agree with cherry-pickers, you can't just choose which stories are true

I've read it, fool. You just don't agree with it so you make up all these alternate meanings to what's written. I'm just trying to figure out why god included evil in his creation. Admit it, you don't know.

Taz, please try to understand. We all get that you read a 21st century modern English edition of the Bible. We get that you comprehended it as a 21st century person reading through the lens of 21st century culture.

Many of us go back to the day and time the accounts were written so that 21st century language, understanding, and culture do not alter the meaning of the original languages and cultures. The Bible is meant, not to be read--but studied. Simply reading it can tie one up in knots.

It's simple, did god create everything in the universe? Yes or No?

 

[BreezeWood]

And completely accurate in what it was meant to convey, 100%.

... in what it was meant to convey

the written bibles are not microcosms of a singular all encompassing world culture as a hub of knowledge shared by all beings ... in fact each desert religion bible is written separately, using distinct text to serve each specified culture, customized for their own particular purpose.

example:

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.

the above is a fabrication as its origin was not made universally known to all beings by the supposed deity of that book and furthermore refutes the earlier spoken Religion of Antiquity that is shared world wide being universally known and accepted as humanities primary goal, the Triumph of Good vs Evil for Admission to the Everlasting, in all respects.

 

[Taz]

I've read it, fool. You just don't agree with it so you make up all these alternate meanings to what's written. I'm just trying to figure out why god included evil in his creation. Admit it, you don't know.

lol no you haven't read it at all ; quit lying, it just makes you look even more like a troll.

I went to sunday school, then regular church and a catholic boys school. I know wtf I'm talking about. I just cant figure out why god included evil in this creation?

 

[Taz]

I've read it, fool. You just don't agree with it so you make up all these alternate meanings to what's written. I'm just trying to figure out why god included evil in his creation. Admit it, you don't know.

Taz, please try to understand. We all get that you read a 21st century modern English edition of the Bible. We get that you comprehended it as a 21st century person reading through the lens of 21st century culture.

Many of us go back to the day and time the accounts were written so that 21st century language, understanding, and culture do not alter the meaning of the original languages and cultures. The Bible is meant, not to be read--but studied. Simply reading it can tie one up in knots.

The major error is the constant citing of verses as if the book is just a list of verses all unrelated to the rest of the 'book' they're in and not connected with the other books, either, which is just retarded. But hen Taz or the other trolls are not here to discuss that, they're here because they're compulsive neurotic Xian haters, is all.

I'm just trying to figure out why god put evil, and so much of it, in this creation. maybe he created other universes without evil and he's trying different things out?

 

[ding]

I've read it, fool. You just don't agree with it so you make up all these alternate meanings to what's written. I'm just trying to figure out why god included evil in his creation. Admit it, you don't know.

lol no you haven't read it at all ; quit lying, it just makes you look even more like a troll.

I went to sunday school, then regular church and a catholic boys school. I know wtf I'm talking about. I just cant figure out why god included evil in this creation?

You are so full of shit.

 

[Meriweather]

The major error is the constant citing of verses as if the book is just a list of verses all unrelated to the rest of the 'book' they're in and not connected with the other books, either, which is just retarded. But hen Taz or the other trolls are not here to discuss that, they're here because they're compulsive neurotic Xian haters, is all.

Hopefully they also have a spark of interest

 

[Taz]

I've read it, fool. You just don't agree with it so you make up all these alternate meanings to what's written. I'm just trying to figure out why god included evil in his creation. Admit it, you don't know.

lol no you haven't read it at all ; quit lying, it just makes you look even more like a troll.

I went to sunday school, then regular church and a catholic boys school. I know wtf I'm talking about. I just cant figure out why god included evil in this creation?

You are so full of shit.

How so?

 

[ding]

I've read it, fool. You just don't agree with it so you make up all these alternate meanings to what's written. I'm just trying to figure out why god included evil in his creation. Admit it, you don't know.

lol no you haven't read it at all ; quit lying, it just makes you look even more like a troll.

I went to sunday school, then regular church and a catholic boys school. I know wtf I'm talking about. I just cant figure out why god included evil in this creation?

You are so full of shit.

How so?

As in you are lying.

 

[Taz]

I've read it, fool. You just don't agree with it so you make up all these alternate meanings to what's written. I'm just trying to figure out why god included evil in his creation. Admit it, you don't know.

lol no you haven't read it at all ; quit lying, it just makes you look even more like a troll.

I went to sunday school, then regular church and a catholic boys school. I know wtf I'm talking about. I just cant figure out why god included evil in this creation?

You are so full of shit.

How so?

As in you are lying.

As opposed to you being full of shit, you're not lying, you're just full of shit in the traditional way.

 

[ding]

lol no you haven't read it at all ; quit lying, it just makes you look even more like a troll.

I went to sunday school, then regular church and a catholic boys school. I know wtf I'm talking about. I just cant figure out why god included evil in this creation?

You are so full of shit.

How so?

As in you are lying.

As opposed to you being full of shit, you're not lying, you're just full of shit in the traditional way.

You are a total liar. You’re a troll who pretends be agnostic while behaving as a militant atheist. Your only purpose here is to subordinate religion. But you are so bad at it I have my way with you every time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

[
So 2 of every animal is accurate?

People who have actually read the book will immediately notice you haven't read it, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Then answer his question.

Don't need to, already pointed out he doesn't know squat, so no need to take him seriously, or you, either.

That doesn't make sense. You are sissying out of a question. Your whining about other poeple has no bearing on the question or your answer.

 

[Picaro]

[
So 2 of every animal is accurate?

People who have actually read the book will immediately notice you haven't read it, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Then answer his question.

Don't need to, already pointed out he doesn't know squat, so no need to take him seriously, or you, either.

That doesn't make sense. You are sissying out of a question. Your whining about other poeple has no bearing on the question or your answer.

It has everything to do with it, moron; you haven't read the book either, just another Angry Faggot trolling with no purpose or knowledge. his error is so glaring a kid would catch it right away, dumbass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

[
So 2 of every animal is accurate?

People who have actually read the book will immediately notice you haven't read it, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Then answer his question.

Don't need to, already pointed out he doesn't know squat, so no need to take him seriously, or you, either.

That doesn't make sense. You are sissying out of a question. Your whining about other poeple has no bearing on the question or your answer.

It has everything to do with it, moron; you haven't read the book either, just another Angry Faggot trolling with no purpose or knowledge. his error is so glaring a kid would catch it right away, dumbass.

Actually I have.

Back to the question:

Two of each animal?

 

[DOTR]

...did he look like us? And if the answer is "yes", then what is or was Homo naledi?

The Creation Story is a myth / allegory. That doesn't mean it's useless, however. It's just not what actually happened. Personally, I believe in Intelligent Design.

Agreed. There is a conception that a myth is some kind of lie. it isnt. It can be a truth told in a non historical way.

 

[DOTR]

There was a first human ... but he didn't look like us.

On the other hand ... at some point there must have been a human who first looked like us.

That's just the way things work.

Have there been different species of humans? Was there an evolutionary tree wherein human species diverged and, eventually, some died out and another evolved into us? I think it's plausible, maybe probable.

Lots. The genus Homo has produced many species. Europeans and Asians are distinct in having bred with Neanderthals and Denisovians in particular. But all share common descent.

 

[DOTR]

Ever notice that any mention of God, the Bible or Christianity will bring Black Flag and Fort Fun running and gasping? And with pretty much the same stupid remarks.
Lots of fear there. But not much in the way or original attacks.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
... and the history of the desert religions, identical in nature by virtue of their collective self interests being seldom the subject of repentance by their adoring congregations.

 

[Picaro]

People who have actually read the book will immediately notice you haven't read it, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Then answer his question.

Don't need to, already pointed out he doesn't know squat, so no need to take him seriously, or you, either.

That doesn't make sense. You are sissying out of a question. Your whining about other poeple has no bearing on the question or your answer.

It has everything to do with it, moron; you haven't read the book either, just another Angry Faggot trolling with no purpose or knowledge. his error is so glaring a kid would catch it right away, dumbass.

Actually I have.

Back to the question:

Two of each animal?

Actually you haven't, or you wouldn't be as obviously ignorant as Taz is.