Hi, I'm new here, so let me introduce myself by correcting "Subgenius":
subgenius wrote:Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Gen 1:25-27 Confused Christian god creates Man after it creates animals
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.
Gen 2:18 Confused Christian god creates Man before it creates animals
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
--------
If the Bible is fundamentally unreliable for information about their god, why do Christians put so much faith in it? It's patently obvious that the Bible is nonsense, yet we have relatively smart people believing in it. That's stunning to me.
V/R
Dr. Cam
Yet another perfect example of how one can be completely unable to "discern" or even have a fundamental understanding of context within the scriptures.
So, your post ignores the obvious understanding of why there are seemingly 2 creations being described in adjacent chapters - as if it were some careless overlooked edit for all these centuries..as if King James, or the author of Genesis, just missed this little gem...of which you must be so proud to prance around with...adorning your middle finger as you display for all to see.
Geez
Once again we see fomr your post how fundamentally dense one post can be about the basic use of the scriptures - and basic grammar.
Consider the obvious
1. Chapter one is blatantly theological
2. Chapter two is blatantly chronological
3. Chapter one is about the Cosmos
4. chapter two is about the Garden of Eden
most inept scholars of ancient literature realize how chronological order is disregarded.
translate "yatsar" however you like because...
literally, all that has been noted in ch.2 is that animals were formed BEFORE
they were brought to man, there is nothing about who was created first....so...there is no indication of any contradiction with the chronology of ch. 1.
Now, Subgenius, as concerns your "Yet another perfect example of how one can be completely unable to "discern" or even have a fundamental understanding of context within the scriptures", let's apply this same line of reasoning to the quote in your signature ... "'Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts' Richard_Feynman", such that we have the following:
Using your same device: "Yet another perfect example of how one can be completely unable to "discern" or even have a fundamental understanding of context within the ["The Physics Teacher Vol. 7"]". In fact, let's read through "The Physics Teacher Vol. 7" so that we may all understand the context of the phrase "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.":
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
... you teachers, who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap, can maybe doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?"
It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.
In a field which is so complicated [as education] that true science is not yet able to get anywhere, we have to rely on a kind of old-fashioned wisdom, a kind of definite straightforwardness. I am trying to inspire the teacher at the bottom to have some hope and some self-confidence in common sense and natural intelligence. The experts who are leading you may be wrong.
I have probably ruined the system, and the students that are coming into Caltech no longer will be any good. I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television--words, books, and so on--are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.
Finally, with regard to this time-binding, a man cannot live beyond the grave. Each generation that discovers something from its experience must pass that on, but it must pass that on with a delicate balance of respect and disrespect, so that the [human] race--now that it is aware of the disease to which it is liable--does not inflict its errors too rigidly on its youth, but it does pass on the accumulated wisdom, plus the wisdom that it may not be wisdom.
It is necessary to teach both to accept and to reject the past with a kind of balance that takes considerable skill. Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation.
So carry on. Thank you."
-Presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, 1966 in New York City, and reprinted from The Physics Teacher Vol. 7, issue 6, 1969, pp. 313-320
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
While I understand that contextual issues are problematic when referring to ancient scriptural references, this same form of contextual issues are much easier to avoid when referring to 1966 A.D. issues. I'm not here to argue religion, I'm here to use your same "devices" to uproot your stupidity. Let me explain, if you rely in prepositions X, Y, and Z to formulate an all encompassing generalization A, then, given enough understanding of logic and set theory notation, one is able to use those same prepositions X, Y, and Z to formulate generalization A which must be defined by generalization A to begin with, thereby destroying generalization A, or in other words, falsifying generalization A through proving it's paradoxical nature.
Anyway, and as in the words of "The Physics Teacher Vol. 7" ... "Carry on. Thank you."
