Find your own ammo against bible waving nutjobs!

[Warham]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
You can't have a rational discussion and then start talking about humans living to the age of 900.

Sure I can.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Oh yeah?

If that were true, you woud not be trying to discredit them so much....

LOL @ Sesh...no shit...

I'm not trying to discredit anybody.

You guys haven't brought up a valid arguement yet, but I'm trying to show you that you just haven't done the proper research on the scriptures. Look and ye shall find.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm not trying to discredit anybody.

You guys haven't brought up a valid arguement yet, but I'm trying to show you that you just haven't done the proper research on the scriptures. Look and ye shall find.

I never said you were discrediting "anybody".

You continually discount the answers, even when they are laid at your feet.

And then you slam the messengers for not doing "the proper research".

But that is ok.

You are the one who will wish for an asbesto suit someday, not me...

[Warham]

You just said a few posts ago that I was discrediting them. Come on!

I discount your answers, because you haven't done the research. You aren't the messengers for anybody but yourselves. You likely haven't put ten minutes doing research on any of these minute topics in the Bible.

[Hardrock69]

See?

I rest my case.


You ARE discrediting my answers.

[Warham]

I didn't have a question for you to answer, therefore I have no idea what you are referring to.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham
First: A man and woman are needed, yes.

Second: Yes, incest was wrong after the Ten Commandments were laid down.

Third: God did create Adam and Eve, and then had many children. The Bible doesn't mention more than Cain, Abel, and Seth, but it's assumed they have many more since they both lived until they were in their 900's.

Fourth: From an article which explains it better than I can:

'In later generations, brother-sister marriages would be outlawed as genetically dangerous and would be considered as "incest," which God is expressly against. 17 Not only the Bible but almost all modern legal codes refuse to sanction marriages of close relatives. The scientific reason for this restriction is that the children of such marriages have a high percentage of being deformed, sickly and/or moronic than those of other marriages, a genetic trait noted in most lawyers. :-) The genetic basis for this probability is that inherited mutant genes, producing such unwholesome characteristics, are more likely if they are carried by both parents, since these mutant genes would be reinforced. This theory is based on the Bible teaching that Adam was the "first man" 18 and that Eve was "the mother of all living". 19

However, there were no mutant genes in the genetic systems of Adam and Eve, because they came directly from God Himself. Thus no genetic harm could have resulted had Cain or some other son of Adam married his sister. In fact, it would undoubtedly have taken many generations before enough genetic mutations (which are random, and therefore harmful, changes in the highly ordered structure of the germ cell, brought about by penetration of the cell by shortwave-length radiation or some other destructive agent) could have accumulated in the human race to make such marriages of close relatives genetically harmful.'

Fifth: Research is a wonderful thing. If you had these questions, you could have found the answers. You have no excuse before God.

First off... ...EEEWWWWWwwwwwww!

So you're saying it was ok to have the incest back then and that you're ok with it, and we should all accept it? Ewww...
(and just out of curiosity, do you think it was Cain or Abel giving Eve the high hard one in front of Adam?) :D

Secondly, you trying to defend/explain this crap sounds WAAAAAAYYYYYY more crazy than ANYTHINg I have EVER said about 911... ...just thought ya oughta know! :D

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
You can't have a rational discussion and then start talking about humans living to the age of 900.

Thank you.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Hardrock69


Here is a hilarious scenario:

God in all His Glory, giving Mary the God Cock....fucking the living shit out of her....so that lightning was coming out her ass....

The door opens...God is BUSTED!!!!

Joseph: "HEY! WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH MY WOMAN?!?!?!?!?"

:D

Just breakin her in for ya Joe! :D

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
First off... ...EEEWWWWWwwwwwww!

So you're saying it was ok to have the incest back then and that you're ok with it, and we should all accept it? Ewww...
(and just out of curiosity, do you think it was Cain or Abel giving Eve the high hard one in front of Adam?) :D

Secondly, you trying to defend/explain this crap sounds WAAAAAAYYYYYY more crazy than ANYTHINg I have EVER said about 911... ...just thought ya oughta know! :D

No, I'm saying that's the way it was. Don't like it? Fine. I'm giving you an answer that is reasonable and logical.

You don't have to accept anything. I gave you an answer. You can either accept it or discard it. I'm not here to change your minds, only to clear your misconceptions of what it really says in the Good Book.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
I didn't have a question for you to answer, therefore I have no idea what you are referring to.

It is quite simple. You continually run your mouth, claiming I "haven't done the research".

You discredit what I say, due to your own ignorance. Playing stoopid by saying "I did not ask you a question" is no excuse.

But that is ok. Like I said, you will wish you had an asbestos suit some day.

[Warham]

I'm calling it like I see it.

You're ignorant of the scriptures.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
No, I'm saying that's the way it was. Don't like it? Fine. I'm giving you an answer that is reasonable and logical.

You don't have to accept anything. I gave you an answer. You can either accept it or discard it. I'm not here to change your minds, only to clear your misconceptions of what it really says in the Good Book.

Who has misconceptions here?

You are right..you do not have to accept the answers, even when they are true.

You claim that nobody here "does the research".

This is something I learned when I was a teenager.

Concerning Genessis and Adam, what it really says is that "mankind" had children.

There may have been one individual (out of millions who inhabited the Earth) named Adam some thousands of years ago, but the Bible never says that God created some guy named Adam...

The ancient Hebrew word for "man", meaning "mankind" or Human Beings is "ha-adam".

'Eth' is put before the object of the sentence if the object is either a definite noun (has article 'ha') or a proper noun (proper name).

Eth adam: 'Adam' is the proper name of one person, refers to the person whose name is 'Adam'.


Ha-adam: Life form(s). Example: Human beings.

As 'Adam' stands for 'life form', one can put 'ha' in front.

If 'Adam' is a proper name, one cannot say 'ha-adam'.

In other words, 'ha-adam' cannot refer to a person named 'Adam'.

Genesis Chapter 2, Verse 7: Then the Lord God (originator) formed man (Hebrew 'eth ha-adam') from the dust of the ground (Hebrew 'adamah'), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man (Hebrew 'ha-adam') became a living soul.

You do not do the research.
Get your fireproof suit ready.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm calling it like I see it.

You're ignorant of the scriptures.

Who is?

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
You can't have a rational discussion and then start talking about humans living to the age of 900.

Maybe they were yodas.