I was online when the ACLU board, which allowed anyone to cuss you out and call you every name they could think of. UWolf was the moderator and he would cuss me out everytime I showed up, so don't tell me that I've never seen real bashing.
Then I apologize for my assumption.
But likewise, you therefore cannot call what I say of the King Jimmy bashing.
The First Heaven, the world of Adam, is where Humans had our origin. It was some 10 Billion years BEFORE the first bacteria of our Planet appeared some 3.7 Billion years ago. It was made the SECOND Day. Gen 1:6-8
Where's the physical evidence that it existed at all? Which star did it orbit? How far was it from Earth? What was its diameter? Its orbit length? Its atmospheric conditions? Its geological makeup?
And why are you referring to it as a "Heaven"? Heaven in the singular means "home of God", and "the heavens" in the plural just means sky. ("Heaven" comes from Anglo-Saxon/Old English; "sky" comes from Old Norse).
They NEVER planted a crop, built a city, nor had ANY of the modern human technologies...
They didn't do those things because they didn't
need to do those things. The ability to do such things is no statement of intelligence whatsoever. They're just tools.
After all,
I can't do any of those things, either.
But just as a salmon
knows the way home, I
know how to make a stone axe. And so can you.
The problem with Jericho is that today's "willingly ignorant" scientists CANNOT tell the difference between animal and Human intelligence. Jericho is an Oasis, and was inhabited by the sons of God (animals who evolved from the common ancestor of Apes) and later Humans (descendants of Adam). Don't you know the difference?
The "difference" is an artificial construct of your own. You've provided no indication whatsoever that any "difference" here even exists. Adam is a legendary figure, with no historicity of any kind. IOW, there's no indication that he ever existed.
It's not relevant because scientists don't know the difference between Humans and animals because they have REJECTED God's Truth in Genesis. Animals are innocent because they don't have the Intelligence to understand the difference between good and evil. Our Legal system recognizes this and doesn't have trials for animals, but instead, for their Human owners. God knows the difference and tells us in Gen 3:22.
Dude, even
you couldn't tell me what good and evil are when I asked. Even now, different people have different opinions as to what they are.
So it appears, therefore, that good and evil are entirely social constructs that have no existence outside the human mind.
And now, since you admit to its non-relevance, why'd you bring it up?
shows the FIRST Heaven was made the 2nd Day.
Gen 2:4 shows that other HeavenS were made the 3rd Day.
Can you add 1 plus at least 2? If so, you can tell your friends you read it in Genesis.
What I find most amusing is that you reference the Bible, but don't actually quote from it much. Not everyone has one in their house, for the record. I've just got a NRSE and New Jerusalem Bible(for one reason alone: Tolkien was one of its editors ^_^).
Normally, I just use Jewish translations when reading Genesis since I trust them to translate and commentate on their own text better than Christians, but I'll play Devil's Advocate here and use the King Jimmy, which is freely available online(though still not public domain; figure that one out).
Genesis 1:6-8
6 And God said, Let there be a
firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the
firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the
firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
So, separating "waters from waters" is consistent with the standard view of the cosmos in that region at that time: that the world exists basically in a giant bubble surrounded by "waters above" and "waters below", separated by a "firmament". Nothing like what you're describing at all.
Meanwhile, Genesis 2:4
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
This verse is noteworthy, sure, but not for the reasons you state. This actually begins an account that's entirely separate from everything that came before it, and almost certainly had a different author (according to what's called the Documentary Hypothesis; I'm not sure if you've heard of it). In fact, there's some debate as to where the break begins. The first part might have been the closing idea of the preceeding verses, while the part which begins with "in the day that" might be the start of the completely separate account that has a completely different author.
There's nothing in either of these that indicate any sort of multiverse. "The heavens", as stated above, just means the (quite singular) sky.
False, since those disciplines are LIMITED to our Planet and know NOTHING of the time BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos,
Those disciplines
should not concern themselves with anything regarding the Cosmos. That's not their field. I doubt practitioners of those disciplines could tell you the exact distance between Earth and Neptune without looking it up. But when it comes to their respective fields, they know more than cosmologists.
Nobody knows of anything "before" the Big Bang, or if a "before" was even there, since it appears that all spacetime began there. (Which would imply there literally was no time before the Big Bang, and thus literally no "before" the Big Bang).
Then you should be able to tell us WHY God (Elohim) told Noah to take 2 of each animal and LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) told Noah to take 2 of the unclean and 7 of the clean animals.
Documentary Hypothesis. Those are interpolations of two separate accounts, from different authors, of the same general story, into a single text.
BTW, the God whose name is only remembered through the Tetragrammaton is not Jesus, but a Storm God.
False, since the descendants of Noah named the Rivers after one of the
FOUR Rivers of Adam's First Earth. Our Planet has
THOUSANDS of Rivers, and is some 30k feet in elevation, while Adam's Earth was only 22 1/2 feet at it's highest point above the mountains.
Gen 7:20
The people in the Fertile Crescent would have been aware of those four rivers which are now just two. They would also not have been aware of the Himalayas, and so it makes perfect sense why they would list the "highest mountain" as a place that's actually, well, not.
I'm sorry. You must not know what the original Hebrew words mean. Here are the verses and their Hebrew meainings.
Gen 1:1¶In the beginning God created the heaven (Air) and the earth. (Ground)
Gen 1:2 And the earth (Ground) was without form, and void; (dust) and darkness (death) was upon the face of the deep. (water) And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
I was speaking from the perspective of Cosmology, not Genesis. Nothing but Helium and Hydrogen. Whatever's contained in Genesis is entirely irrelevant to Cosmology.
God tells us He inspired (God Breathed)
2Ti 3:16 His Truth to the men who wrote it. He also tells us the Holy Spirit moved the prophets to speak.
2Pe 1:21
So the Bible is written by God because the Bible says so. Circular, and thus fallacious, logic. God didn't say either of those things; Paul and Peter respectively did.
I could write a book and say that God authored it just as easily.
What ad hominems? Are you speaking of the False Accusation which YOU have made by claiming the Straw man's got me tight in his grasp?
Hardly an accusation. Just an observation. And no, I'm talking about yours. Shifting the blame to me is another red herring; an attempt to distract from your own.
If you took that phrase as an ad hominim, that was not my intention, but nevertheless I apologize and will make every attempt to not use that phrase here again. (Depending on how long this goes, I might need reminders. Feel free.)
When I say "the Straw Man's got you tight in his grasp", what I'm saying is that you're committing a straw man fallacy. That means you're not arguing with something that I actually believe, but assuming I believe something and arguing based on that assumption. Or doing likewise with another party.
Go back and actually read your words and my refutation of them all.
You've refuted nothing.
But I'd be happy to help break down your initial OP argument into something more easily digestible, as a way to help illustrate how its illogical.
