---

sure and you could read King Lear and say it is about incest

---

Exactly. Now you're catching on.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

Quote: from gronk at 7:47 am on Mar. 16, 2009

---

sure and you could read King Lear and say it is about incest

---

Exactly. Now you're catching on.

---

yep but they would both be dubious interpretations

-------
Goodbye LW! 2 things to leave you with- 1 the points dont matter
2. There should be able to have topics within groups

---

thats an incorrect interperation.  
It was common practise in historical genealogies to ommit generations of people who were insignificant, especially when doing long genelogies

---

That is absolutely false.

The Bible explicitly used stated, "X begat Y, Y begat Z," and so forth. No where in the bible, not once, is the word begat (yalad) used to mean anything other then single generation. Claiming that there is missing generations is very unsupported.

Either way, secularist have way more on the Bible then just those dinky little genealogies.

-------
-RAV-

No one really likes her much.

-------
And while the seagulls are crying,
We fall but our souls are flying.

---

That is absolutely false.

The Bible explicitly used stated, "X begat Y, Y begat Z," and so forth. No where in the bible, not once, is the word begat (yalad) used to mean anything other then single generation. Claiming that there is missing generations is very unsupported.

Either way, secularist have way more on the Bible then just those dinky little genealogies.

---

Actually, it's not false at all...while the word may mean something different, it's also a fact that the writers of the Bible tended to use numbers symbolically rather than for the sake of specific mathematics, and it's more than a little likely that ancient genealogies were screwed up along the way (because, seriously, you try tracing your family back 2000 years and tell me how that goes for you...and then imagine doing that 2000 years ago).

Generally speaking, anyone who states that the Bible ABSOLUTELY DOES state anything about the age of the earth has shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

I've noticed that people tend to bring God into an argument so that they can make it appear that God would only agree with the arguer.

---

I usually bring unicorns into discussions. They make everything happy

---

I've noticed  

-------
Rule 16
I'm so sick of atheists trying to convert me to science.

---

Quote: from Ravenous Notion at 11:15 pm on April 14, 2009

---

That is absolutely false.  

 The Bible explicitly used stated, "X begat Y, Y begat Z," and so forth. No where in the bible, not once, is the word begat (yalad) used to mean anything other then single generation. Claiming that there is missing generations is very unsupported.  

 Either way, secularist have way more on the Bible then just those dinky little genealogies.

---

Actually, it's not false at all...while the word may mean something different, it's also a fact that the writers of the Bible tended to use numbers symbolically rather than for the sake of specific mathematics, and it's more than a little likely that ancient genealogies were screwed up along the way (because, seriously, you try tracing your family back 2000 years and tell me how that goes for you...and then imagine doing that 2000 years ago).  

Generally speaking, anyone who states that the Bible ABSOLUTELY DOES state anything about the age of the earth has shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

---

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the numbers are symbolic for anything. That is a typical tactic used by the religious when their text is under siege. Until you can provide evidence for the claim that the numbers are symbolic, you have an empty case.

The Bible is "God Inspired." There should be no difficulty tracing genealogies. The Bible does state the age of the earth. It is easily countable by looking at the genealogies, which are not gaping, and not "symbolic." If the genealogies are symbolic, than so is god.

-------
-RAV-

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 8:24 am on April 16, 2009

---

Quote: from Ravenous Notion at 11:15 pm on April 14, 2009

---

That is absolutely false.

  The Bible explicitly used stated, "X begat Y, Y begat Z," and so forth. No where in the bible, not once, is the word begat (yalad) used to mean anything other then single generation. Claiming that there is missing generations is very unsupported.

  Either way, secularist have way more on the Bible then just those dinky little genealogies.

---

 

 Actually, it's not false at all...while the word may mean something different, it's also a fact that the writers of the Bible tended to use numbers symbolically rather than for the sake of specific mathematics, and it's more than a little likely that ancient genealogies were screwed up along the way (because, seriously, you try tracing your family back 2000 years and tell me how that goes for you...and then imagine doing that 2000 years ago).

 Generally speaking, anyone who states that the Bible ABSOLUTELY DOES state anything about the age of the earth has shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

---

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the numbers are symbolic for anything. That is a typical tactic used by the religious when their text is under siege. Until you can provide evidence for the claim that the numbers are symbolic, you have an empty case.

The Bible is "God Inspired." There should be no difficulty tracing genealogies. The Bible does state the age of the earth. It is easily countable by looking at the genealogies, which are not gaping, and not "symbolic." If the genealogies are symbolic, than so is god.

---

...

One thing.

Do your fucking research.

So I lied, more things.

The bible has meanings and symbols. For example, 666 means total failure, hence the whole devil thing. It's not a frikin history book, it's not literal.

I don't mind people disagreeing with it if they know what they are talking about, but you are stupid.

For example, if the genealogies are symbolic, God must be? Goodness! That is quite a jump! If one thing has one thing not meant to be taken literally, the rest is false? Oh my! Not to mention that the genealogies are symbolic, considering two Gospels have two DIFFERENT genealogies! Here's a thought! They say Noah lived to be about 600! Literal much? No. In fact, use those 600 years when you're deciding what the age of the earth is. In the Jewish culture, age equaled wisdom, a great age showed great wisdom, therefore symbolic. Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God. You really think we're saying he's a bloody lamb! You think Jesus was calling us a bunch of sheep?

They used symbols to communicate ideas! Saint Luke used symbols to tell the story of Jesus' birth, to show how he was a king. He wrote about a star, which all kings seem to get. And that's just one example. Read the Book of Revelations, tell me that is literal. And before you ask, some is literal, it's NOT one book. It has history, apocalyptic books, songs, proverbs, parables, etc. And just because one thing is a metaphor, does not mean the rest is false. Go out and read a book. It might be good for you. Or, just do your research on symbols. Both options seem fairly easy.

As much as I dislike the ad hominem argument, grow a brain.


-------
Rule 16
I'm so sick of atheists trying to convert me to science.