Bible verse by verse

[Guest]

Here is what I see as your problem areas, starting from the bottom.

I don't really care what you think. You've shown many times over you have no competence at all when it comes to linguistics, etymology, exegesis, history, or archaeology.

How did the fossils fuels (found hundreds of feet below the level of the earths surface) originate?

Anaerobic decomposition of organisms.

How did they get submerged there if not the result of an oxygen depriving turbulent flood?

They weren't submerged. They're millions of years old, and millions of years of sediment have piled up on top of them. Plate tectonics is also responsible for certain stratigraphic changes. There is not a shred of evidence whatsoever for a widespread turbulent flood. The evidence absolutely unilaterally precludes such a ludicrous notion.

Coal and oil are mainly the end result of pressure and not oxidation.

Which is what happens when millions of years of sediment collect on top of you.

Plant and animal residue dissolves, is eaten, dries up and is blown away. It just doesn't remain In in one spot long enough to amount to anything ----------- UNLESS something special happens out of the mundane.

No, what happens is that sediment traps it between strata and it stays there.

Secondly, did you ever wonder why women were looked upon as a negative connotation?

Because ancient history is almost exclusively patriarchal.

Adam certainly blamed God for creating the woman. Why two trees and not 3?

Because the early writers chose two.

There were two trees in the Garden.

There are also two trees in my front yard. So what? None of this changes the fact that the sign means "forest" or "grove."

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (which man was not to touch) and the Tree of Life (which man was driven out of the Garden so as to prevent eating of it, and remaining in an endless state of eternal worsening depravity).

Thirdly, the wheel is not something I considered, because unless the men, horses and chariots were submerged in heaps of mud ----- everything disappears ----- which again brings into question any thoughts that fossil fuels could come about by any means other than a gargantuan cataclysm, such as the Flood/asteroid strike.

You literally haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

And finally, concerning the boat, as the stereotypical conceptualization of the generic family is two great-grandparents, two grandparents, two parents, and two children. I thought that people once had large numbers of children, and that people died off at very young ages, and that there are parents for both the wife and the husband (the joining of two families). I just see your opinion is a "conceptualization" of how such a Character might have come to be,

No, it's not my opinion. That's a demonstrable fact. That's what the character is understood to represent.

and not the end all logical absolute. My educated guess is that the ones who came to a non-biblical opinion simply had no knowledge of the Bible or were looking to ignore it and sound more "conceptual."

No, you cannot make an educated guess here. You are not educated in any of these fields. You're just making ignorant assumptions that serve your dogmatism.

I find the Biblical "conceptualization" far more intriguing.

Of course you do. That doesn't make it any less ludicrous, though.

And since even linguists are now pretty certain that all language originated from one area,

Utter and complete nonsense. You cannot point to a single example of a publication within the field of linguistics that at all suggests such a ludicrous concept.

it is likely everyone shared many of the very same "folk" stories that they carried away with them to various parts of this planet.

What astonishingly mindless dogmatism. What grade are you in?

It seems to me that you are the one being dogmatic. You cannot create life, from dirt or rock. Can you show me anyone who can? I have produced various people and publications from various nationalities and backgrounds regarding the long lost roots that seemingly point to a historic connection between ancient Chinese and the Bible, and you go all to pieces. Whether the Bible is true or not, it is most apparent that the entire world shares the Flood story. And it doesn't take brains to realize that they are likely all connected some place in time. And I believe the very notion that this might just be unexplainable is troubling to people who are seeking excuses for their dogmatic unbelief and bad manners.

[_LittleNipper]

But you have admitted that you never accepted the biblical Christ. Why not accept Him now?

The way you're embarrassing yourself with this nonsense, I wouldn't take this opportunity to ask why anyone here doesn't follow your lead.

Actually, you embarrass yourself. When you don't get your way, you attack the messenger by attempting to make them look inferior, uneducated, duller then yourself, a liar, a cheat. You'd make a very good Democrat.

[_maklelan]

It seems to me that you are the one being dogmatic.

Of course it does.

You cannot create life, from dirt or rock.

What's your point? You don't actually think that the early universe really only consistent of dirt and rock, do you?

Can you show me anyone who can? I have produced various people and publications from various nationalities and backgrounds regarding the long lost roots that seemingly point to a historic connection between ancient Chinese and the Bible, and you go all to pieces.

No, you've produced no publications. You've shown me a couple websites full of nonsense written by people who obviously have no linguistic training. You've claimed this and that is asserted by linguists, but I've seen no references to any publications.

Whether the Bible is true or not, it is most apparent that the entire world shares the Flood story.

No, it is only shared by those cultures where flooding has the potential to be catastrophic.

And it doesn't take brains to realize that they are likely all connected some place in time.

Unless you've studied the psychology of religion and evolutionary theory and you know that the human mind shares certain predispositions that manifest themselves in certain shared conceptualizations of the earth and our priorities on it. You have no idea how much research and literature is out there that directly touches on these subjects. You're just assuming that the websites you stumbled across that sound cool to you have everything nailed down tight, so you're asserting as much to someone who disagrees. You simply have no clue what you're talking about.

And I believe the very notion that this might just be unexplainable is troubling to people who are seeing excuses for their dogmatic unbelief.

No, you just haven't studied this all that much, you have no real skills or resources to do so, and you like to find stuff online that you think validates your faith. Bravo, you're just like every other naïve hobbyist.

[_maklelan]

Actually, you embarrass yourself. When you don't get your way, you attack the messenger by attempting to make them look inferior, uneducated, duller then yourself, a liar, a cheat. You'd make a very good Democrat.

What hasn't gone my way? I think you've done a wonderful job of exposing the naïveté of your claims, and I've done a fine job of describing the naïveté as it unfolds in your posts. I have no problems with the way this has all unfolded. Obviously you're not going to take instruction, but I didn't go into this discussion under the assumption that you actually would. You've played your part marvelously, and your naïve dogmatism was even more acute than I anticipated.

[_LittleNipper]

It seems to me that you are the one being dogmatic.

Of course it does.

You cannot create life, from dirt or rock.

What's your point? You don't actually think that the early universe really only consistent of dirt and rock, do you?

Can you show me anyone who can? I have produced various people and publications from various nationalities and backgrounds regarding the long lost roots that seemingly point to a historic connection between ancient Chinese and the Bible, and you go all to pieces.

No, you've produced no publications. You've shown me a couple websites full of nonsense written by people who obviously have no linguistic training. You've claimed this and that is asserted by linguists, but I've seen no references to any publications.

Whether the Bible is true or not, it is most apparent that the entire world shares the Flood story.

No, it is only shared by those cultures where flooding has the potential to be catastrophic.

And it doesn't take brains to realize that they are likely all connected some place in time.

Unless you've studied the psychology of religion and evolutionary theory and you know that the human mind shares certain predispositions that manifest themselves in certain shared conceptualizations of the earth and our priorities on it. You have no idea how much research and literature is out there that directly touches on these subjects. You're just assuming that the websites you stumbled across that sound cool to you have everything nailed down tight, so you're asserting as much to someone who disagrees. You simply have no clue what you're talking about.

And I believe the very notion that this might just be unexplainable is troubling to people who are seeking excuses for their dogmatic unbelief and bad manners.

No, you just haven't studied this all that much, you have no real skills or resources to do so, and you like to find stuff online that you think validates your faith. Bravo, you're just like every other naïve hobbyist.

And you feel you are superior...

[_LittleNipper]

Actually, you embarrass yourself. When you don't get your way, you attack the messenger by attempting to make them look inferior, uneducated, duller then yourself, a liar, a cheat. You'd make a very good Democrat.

What hasn't gone my way? I think you've done a wonderful job of exposing the naïveté of your claims, and I've done a fine job of describing the naïveté as it unfolds in your posts. I have no problems with the way this has all unfolded. Obviously you're not going to take instruction, but I didn't go into this discussion under the assumption that you actually would. You've played your part marvelously, and your naïve dogmatism was even more acute than I anticipated.

I only copy and pasted this Chinese linguist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmK65_kEjKA
You're the one who denounced him without any real evidence. This Chinese man is genuine and has studied his field and speaks his language fluently. I simply disagree with your opinion. What he says makes sense, and what you say sounds academically conditioned.

[_LittleNipper]

In the Genesis account, the ancestry of all the East Asian people can be traced to Shem. Shem means honourable name, which fits well with East Asian cultural values

No, Shem just means "name." It's the generic Hebrew word for "name." Don't waste everyone's time pretending to pontificate on Hebrew etymology.

Which only demonstrates the depth of your research.
Name of the Month - Shem
By: Jeff A. Benner

We are not given much history of Shem or what type of person he was but his name does provide us with a clue. Unlike our names, a Hebrew's name was a word with meaning. This meaning was a reflection of the person himself and his character. The Hebrew word "shem" is most often translated as "name" and the name of Shem in English is Name.

The word shem means much more than just a name. A related word in Hebrew is the word "neshemah" meaning "breath". In the Hebrew mind the breath is much more than the exchange of air in the lungs but was the seat of one’s character. The word "shem" is also used in the manner as seen in the passage below where the word "fame" is the Hebrew "shem".

For he was wiser than all other men, wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol; and his fame was in all the nations round about. (1 Kings 4:31 RSV)

This is similar to our desire to "have a good name". This has nothing to do the actual name but the character of the one with the name.

As Shem's name means character we can conclude that he was a man of character and this is what we see in the one story about him. Shem and his brother Japheth (yaphet) go backwards into the tent of his father with a robe to cover the nakedness of his father after it had been exposed by Ham. It should also be noted that "the uncovered nakedness of the father" is not the nakedness of the father but is an idiom for sexual relations with the mother as mentioned in Leviticus 18:8.

You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.

It had always bothered me that Ham was the one who uncovered the nakedness of his father, but it was his son Canaan that was cursed for it. That is until I discovered that Canaan was the product of the union between Ham and his mother. This demonstrates how a simple reading of the text does not always reveal what the text is actually stating

[_maklelan]

Which only demonstrates the depth of your research.

The depth of my research? I have two graduate degrees in biblical studies that focused on Hebrew, Nipper, and one of them's from Oxford. What do you have?

Name of the Month - Shem
By: Jeff A. Benner

Evidently this guy taught himself Hebrew and has written several books without any actual formal training. I'm not saying it's impossible to adequately teach yourself Hebrew, but for hobbyists, more often than not, what they end up with is naïve etymologizing.

We are not given much history of Shem or what type of person he was but his name does provide us with a clue. Unlike our names, a Hebrew's name was a word with meaning.

Actually most contemporary names are words with meanings.

This meaning was a reflection of the person himself and his character. The Hebrew word "shem" is most often translated as "name" and the name of Shem in English is Name.

The word shem means much more than just a name.

Not true at all.

A related word in Hebrew is the word "neshemah" meaning "breath". In the Hebrew mind the breath is much more than the exchange of air in the lungs but was the seat of one’s character.

No, this isn't true. Neshemah comes from the verb nasham, which just means "to pant." There's nothing special about this word. Now, the word nephesh can also refer to breath as well as to the individual's spirit or life force.

The word "shem" is also used in the manner as seen in the passage below where the word "fame" is the Hebrew "shem".

Nope, it's just a metaphor referring to a name that is well known.

For he was wiser than all other men, wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol; and his fame was in all the nations round about. (1 Kings 4:31 RSV)

This is similar to our desire to "have a good name". This has nothing to do the actual name but the character of the one with the name.

Absolutely and totally false.

As Shem's name means character we can conclude that he was a man of character and this is what we see in the one story about him. Shem and his brother Japheth (yaphet) go backwards into the tent of his father with a robe to cover the nakedness of his father after it had been exposed by Ham. It should also be noted that "the uncovered nakedness of the father" is not the nakedness of the father but is an idiom for sexual relations with the mother as mentioned in Leviticus 18:8.

Also completely false.

You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.

This is just a rationalization on the part of the priestly author of Leviticus.

It had always bothered me that Ham was the one who uncovered the nakedness of his father, but it was his son Canaan that was cursed for it. That is until I discovered that Canaan was the product of the union between Ham and his mother. This demonstrates how a simple reading of the text does not always reveal what the text is actually stating

No, this reveals how imagination and no real understanding of Hebrew are a dangerous mix.

[_maklelan]

I only copy and pasted this Chinese linguist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmK65_kEjKA

What leads you to believe that is a Chinese linguist?

You're the one who denounced him without any real evidence. This Chinese man is genuine and has studied his field and speaks his language fluently.

My brother speaks English fluently, but that doesn't make him a linguist.

I simply disagree with your opinion.

Because you don't have a clue what you're talking about but don't want to admit you may be wrong.

What he says makes sense,

Because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

and what you say sounds academically conditioned.

Because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[_maklelan]

And you feel you are superior...

In terms of biblical literacy and linguistic acumen, absolutely. In terms of anything else, I don't know and don't care.