tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post2218893698159942821..comments2023-10-31T05:14:08.945+13:00Comments on Undeniably Atheist: Why Biblical Literalism is Wrong Part 1: Creation MythsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post-59642933697628184712010-09-12T16:18:57.173+12:002010-09-12T16:18:57.173+12:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.DMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11389651479904502758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post-51791015178299789162010-09-12T09:26:35.207+12:002010-09-12T09:26:35.207+12:00Anon, I have a feeling you're trolling but I&#...Anon, I have a feeling you're trolling but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you really are that stupid.<br /><br />First off, Genesis 1 and two are completely contradictory. In Genesis 1 god creates the animals first, and then men.<br /><i>"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. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image."</i> Gen 1:25-27<br /><br />It is the other way around in Genesis 2 however, with man being created first, and then the animals being created for his companions.<br /><i>"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 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. "</i> Gen 2:18-19<br /><br />I think that should be enough to show that they are contradictory.<br /><br />With regard to historical statements and scientific facts, I'll be dealing with those in a few days in part 3, 4 and 5 of this series.KJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10817974804323066290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post-63599214737514377592010-09-12T07:33:50.273+12:002010-09-12T07:33:50.273+12:00No disagreement whatsoever about the order of even...No disagreement whatsoever about the order of events? Go back and read Genesis 1 and 2 again and if you can't figure out what's different, I'll give you a hint.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05554732589649361481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post-58047258727599678362010-09-12T02:56:03.824+12:002010-09-12T02:56:03.824+12:00Genesis 1 and 2 and the first few chapters have no...Genesis 1 and 2 and the first few chapters have no conflict, no disagreement whatever about the order of events etc.<br /><br />The reason there are similar accounts in many other societies can be explained quite simply - if it is the truth, then other societies would be likely to discuss it and pass it on, witness the number of accounts - over 200 - of Noah's Flood which we find among many ancient peoples.<br /><br />The Bible certainly has symbolic and prophetic passges, but not one of its historical statements has yet been disproved.<br /><br />There is a wholly rational case for accepting both Genesis 1 and 2 - and the rest of Genesis - as literal history. And there is no scientific fact to contradict Genesis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post-51863587436445923692010-09-12T02:13:18.104+12:002010-09-12T02:13:18.104+12:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com