Some things will just never change, and this is one reason I rarly
discuss such issues with athiest. Someone once told me, to discuss
issues of depth and intellect with a fool...makes you the fool.

Mark D J. wrote:

You can't fault the writers of the bible, they simply did not have the
knowledge nor the tools to understand.

See?!? This is what always happens. Now, suddenly, the Bible merely
represents human fallibility and ancient ignorance. Even though, a minute
ago, 'the writers of the Bible' had an all-powerful, all-knowing 'God' on
their side, and the text itself didn't contain any mistakes...!

That's how it was understood then. Of course, you fail to understand
this. But most people who are educated enough and open-minded enough
understand how things probably appeared during that time. Some people,
you, are just out to attack and make ignorant comments without
discussing the issue with a mature attitude.

It's the same ole..same ole...from your typical athiest.

*Sheesh*

Some things will just never change, and this is one reason I rarly
discuss such issues with athiest. Someone once told me, to discuss
issues of depth and intellect with a fool...makes you the fool.

Some people,
you, are just out to attack and make ignorant comments without
discussing the issue with a mature attitude.

It's the same ole..same ole...from your typical athiest.

osprey wrote:

Free Lunch wrote:

On 25 Nov 2006 11:09:08 -0800, in alt.atheism
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
<1164481748.198206.120810@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On 25 Nov 2006 10:23:46 -0800, in alt.atheism
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
<1164479026.186602.280190@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On 25 Nov 2006 09:05:30 -0800, in alt.atheism and rec.ponds which was
removed because I don't want to support
"RedPhoenixSamurai" <Xabriol@gmail.com>'s annoying behavior, he wrote in
<1164474330.184553.89210@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On 25 Nov 2006 08:05:39 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism

Is there a clear reading of the Bible that is consistent with current
scientific knowledge about reproduction?

There are plenty of flat out mistakes in the Bible that cannot be
explained by any sensible reading of it.

Such as?

The creation stories. The claim that there was a global flood.

It is widely accepted that during that time period there was a flood of
such mass destruction in the general region that it was probably
believed to have been a "global" flood at that time.

So you agree that the story was false. There was no global flood.

No, not at all. What I believe is what is supported by evidence.

I doubt that, but the evidence shows that there never was a global flood
while there have been human beings.

You just don't understand, this is getting too difficult for you.

Look, it's obvious you are only out to just attack the bible while
ignoring that the bible was written by man, and was written as man
witnessed things. Man wrote the bible as he understood things to be.

In catechism, I was taught that the Bible was the inspired Word of
God. Are you saying that the Bible is _not_ the Word of God?

osprey wrote:

Free Lunch wrote:

On 25 Nov 2006 11:09:08 -0800, in alt.atheism
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
<1164481748.198206.120810@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On 25 Nov 2006 10:23:46 -0800, in alt.atheism
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
<1164479026.186602.280190@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On 25 Nov 2006 09:05:30 -0800, in alt.atheism and rec.ponds which was
removed because I don't want to support
"RedPhoenixSamurai" <Xabriol@gmail.com>'s annoying behavior, he wrote in
<1164474330.184553.89210@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On 25 Nov 2006 08:05:39 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism

Is there a clear reading of the Bible that is consistent with current
scientific knowledge about reproduction?

There are plenty of flat out mistakes in the Bible that cannot be
explained by any sensible reading of it.

Such as?

The creation stories. The claim that there was a global flood.

It is widely accepted that during that time period there was a flood of
such mass destruction in the general region that it was probably
believed to have been a "global" flood at that time.

So you agree that the story was false. There was no global flood.

No, not at all. What I believe is what is supported by evidence.

I doubt that, but the evidence shows that there never was a global flood
while there have been human beings.

You just don't understand, this is getting too difficult for you.

Look, it's obvious you are only out to just attack the bible while
ignoring that the bible was written by man, and was written as man
witnessed things. Man wrote the bible as he understood things to be.

In catechism, I was taught that the Bible was the inspired Word of
God. Are you saying that the Bible is _not_ the Word of God?

I realize you probably don't understand this, but in that period man
didn't understand what a "globe" was or that the earth was round. They
didn't have scientist to explain these things. It appeared back then
as the entire earth was flooded, and that is how it was written.

The story explicitly and falsely tells us that every human other than
the eight that survived, was destroyed by the flood. That claim is known
to be false.

All
humanity was not destroyed besides those on the Ark. All life that was
not on the Ark was not destroyed.

Again, I realize this is hard for you to understand so I am going to
try to break it down in small pieces.

Man, in the biblical time period, did not have a scientific
understanding of the earth.
There was BIG flood...LOTS of water and MANY DIED.
It was written, and witnessed, and today we learn what actually
happened.

So your argument is that if you torture the text enough, it really isn't
as false as it appears on the clear first reading.

I do agree with you that the people who told these tales didn't know
enough about the world to understand why they were wrong. I agree that
they were trying to make a point to their listeners, but the stories
themselves are known to be wrong as science and history. It is foolish
to claim that everything in the Bible is true. It is sensible to note
that the stories in Genesis are not history and cannot be taken as
history.

There were MANY events that man in that period believed to be the act
of God and today we are understanding what actually happened and why it
did appear to be acts of God.

Then don't try to have it both ways. The stories are not history. They
didn't happen even if they are intended to teach about morality or honor
or something else.

The evidence of such a massive flood is evident. While it was not
"global", nor believed to be, it is still evidence that there was a
massive flood that destroyed the entire population in that region.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/index.html

You asked for examples of flat out mistakes. I pointed it out to you.
You agreed that it was a flat out mistake, but try to quibble anyway.
Fine.

No, I am saying it was written as it was understood then. TODAY we
know what happened, and they wrote it then how they saw it and
understood it. The flood is supported by science, whether you want to
accept it or not.

No, the flood as described in the Bible is shown by the evidence not to
have happened. You try to rewrite the Bible and then claim that your
rewrite has been supported by science. Go ahead and rewrite the Bible
all you like. I won't stop you.

You can't fault the writers of the bible, they simply did not have the
knowledge nor the tools to understand.

As long as you don't give the Bible any more credit than it deserves,
you won't have a problem.

Would you like to fault the cave men who drew primitive drawings on
walls for not drawing accurate illustrations???

I don't have anyone here telling me that the cave paintings were
photographs.

The
exodus story. The cause of Hansen's disease. Jesus's competing paternal
genealogies.

Much of this can be explained by experts who have studied the bible and
understand it far greater than I do. It's up to you if you seek the
answers or not.

No, they are not explained, they are excused.

Again, I can't help you if you don't wish to actually do the research
yourself. That's entirely up to you. You seemed to have generated your
own ideas and you refuse to see anything outside your little box
because it might threaten your opinion.

I have already done the research. I stand by my statement that these are
mistakes found in the Bible. You are the one trying to defend ignorant
claims.

That's not my fault, that's YOUR ignorance.

I've spent a lot of time studying the Bible. I know what the religious
apologetics tell us. You have admitted that you don't. There are
mistakes in the Bible.

The mistakes still exist

no matter how many stories you tell trying to justify them.

I am not telling any stories, you are just trying to start up some more
of your typical *****.

Why did you come to the defense of Biblical literalism if you know its
not literally true.

Actually I didn't. I just simply made a statement that the flood is
backed up by science and the rest of the bible, you would have to seek
the experts opinions. I was originally discussing Ray's false statement
that human sperm and/or egg alone, is equal to human life.

You were the one who went on the rampage about how the bible is false.