The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I know everyone is fed-up with FF on this forum and about how every topic appears to gravitate towards him and his beliefs, but I have a genuine question for him.
If the Bible is all fact, as you have repeatedly claimed, then how can their be two creation stories, Genesis 1 & 2?
If the Bible is all fact, as you have repeatedly claimed, then how can their be two creation stories, Genesis 1 & 2?
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Two differing accounts.
>
> (wanders off)
>
> Picking up different details.
Yeah, the details being that in the first account man and woman are created at the same time, and in the second, woman is created after man.
Which is the argument, is it not?
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Two differing accounts.
>
> (wanders off)
>
> Picking up different details.
Yeah, the details being that in the first account man and woman are created at the same time, and in the second, woman is created after man.
Which is the argument, is it not?
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Two differing accounts.
>
> (wanders off)
Picking up different details.
> Two differing accounts.
>
> (wanders off)
Picking up different details.
Light wrote:
> Hey, it's almost as if the second story was inserted by a male
> dominated priesthood in order to keep women in a subservient position
> socially...
You think? It couldn't be could it? A way of repressing women that we're only in the last fifty years or so managing to correct? Who would have thought.......
[edit] well, apart from Mary and his group of little friends, who still consider that women should be subservient.....
> Hey, it's almost as if the second story was inserted by a male
> dominated priesthood in order to keep women in a subservient position
> socially...
You think? It couldn't be could it? A way of repressing women that we're only in the last fifty years or so managing to correct? Who would have thought.......
[edit] well, apart from Mary and his group of little friends, who still consider that women should be subservient.....
Hey, it's almost as if the second story was inserted by a male dominated priesthood in order to keep women in a subservient position socially...
Forest Fan wrote:
> I meant to say (which I have edited now)
>
> Ugh. Men and women were created on the same day , women
> after men.
on the second Creation story in Genesis, in which man and woman are created at the same time.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The first is told briefly in Genesis 1:27: God "created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
The term "man" in this instance is to be understood in the collective sense as meaning mankind. This plural or inclusive use of the word "man" is made clear in Genesis 5:2 where it is again stated that "Male and female he created them and blessed them and called their name man on the day of their creation." The passage therefore may be interpreted to mean that men and women were created in one act, both sexes together, equally and at the same time.
The second, much lengthier account is given in Genesis 2 and 3. Instead of simultaneous creation, the story tells first of God forming man out of the dust, breathing life into his nostrils, and setting him down in the garden of Eden.
Only after the first act of creation does the story go on to recount the making of a woman from the man's rib, the story of the serpent's temptation of the woman, and the subsequent expulsion of the man and the woman from the garden into our world.
Two differing accounts.
(wanders off)
> I meant to say (which I have edited now)
>
> Ugh. Men and women were created on the same day , women
> after men.
on the second Creation story in Genesis, in which man and woman are created at the same time.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The first is told briefly in Genesis 1:27: God "created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
The term "man" in this instance is to be understood in the collective sense as meaning mankind. This plural or inclusive use of the word "man" is made clear in Genesis 5:2 where it is again stated that "Male and female he created them and blessed them and called their name man on the day of their creation." The passage therefore may be interpreted to mean that men and women were created in one act, both sexes together, equally and at the same time.
The second, much lengthier account is given in Genesis 2 and 3. Instead of simultaneous creation, the story tells first of God forming man out of the dust, breathing life into his nostrils, and setting him down in the garden of Eden.
Only after the first act of creation does the story go on to recount the making of a woman from the man's rib, the story of the serpent's temptation of the woman, and the subsequent expulsion of the man and the woman from the garden into our world.
Two differing accounts.
(wanders off)
Quinty wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Ugh. Men and women were created on the same time, women after
> men.
>
> Are you *That* utterly thick that you cant see the contradiction? As
> Jim of Honor said, if they were made at the same time then they cant
> have been made one after the other.
No, no, no. That was honestly just a mistake, it doesn't even read grammatically correct.
I meant to say (which I have edited now)
Ugh. Men and women were created on the same day , women after men.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Ugh. Men and women were created on the same time, women after
> men.
>
> Are you *That* utterly thick that you cant see the contradiction? As
> Jim of Honor said, if they were made at the same time then they cant
> have been made one after the other.
No, no, no. That was honestly just a mistake, it doesn't even read grammatically correct.
I meant to say (which I have edited now)
Ugh. Men and women were created on the same day , women after men.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Ugh. Men and women were created on the same time, women after
> men.
Are you *That* utterly thick that you cant see the contradiction? As Jim of Honor said, if they were made at the same time then they cant have been made one after the other.
Comprendai?
> Ugh. Men and women were created on the same time, women after
> men.
Are you *That* utterly thick that you cant see the contradiction? As Jim of Honor said, if they were made at the same time then they cant have been made one after the other.
Comprendai?
Forest Fan wrote:
> RastaBillySkank wrote:
> Those views are based not only on the fact that
> Jesus himself treated women as equals (He allowed them to be
> disciples, he preached in the Court of Women and he appeared first
> to
> women after the resurrection) but also on the second Creation
> story in Genesis, in which man and woman are created at the same
> time.
>
> Ugh. Men and women were created on the same time, women after
> men.
Hilarious, yet saddening.
Do you not see that that's completely impossible? If men and women were created at the same time, they'd have been created simultaneously. But you then said women were created AFTER men.
You contradicted yourself in a single sentence.
Perhaps men and women were created by the same process, but they weren't created at the very same time, as you claimed.
> RastaBillySkank wrote:
> Those views are based not only on the fact that
> Jesus himself treated women as equals (He allowed them to be
> disciples, he preached in the Court of Women and he appeared first
> to
> women after the resurrection) but also on the second Creation
> story in Genesis, in which man and woman are created at the same
> time.
>
> Ugh. Men and women were created on the same time, women after
> men.
Hilarious, yet saddening.
Do you not see that that's completely impossible? If men and women were created at the same time, they'd have been created simultaneously. But you then said women were created AFTER men.
You contradicted yourself in a single sentence.
Perhaps men and women were created by the same process, but they weren't created at the very same time, as you claimed.
RastaBillySkank wrote:
> Those views are based not only on the fact that
> Jesus himself treated women as equals (He allowed them to be
> disciples, he preached in the Court of Women and he appeared first to
> women after the resurrection) but also on the second Creation
> story in Genesis, in which man and woman are created at the same
> time.
Ugh. Men and women were created on the same day, women after men.
> Those views are based not only on the fact that
> Jesus himself treated women as equals (He allowed them to be
> disciples, he preached in the Court of Women and he appeared first to
> women after the resurrection) but also on the second Creation
> story in Genesis, in which man and woman are created at the same
> time.
Ugh. Men and women were created on the same day, women after men.
FF, the last post you made regarding my original question is non-sensical. Just because I don't own a Bible and can't quote the verses personally, does that honestly mean that you refute the views of the traditional roles of men and women (that men should be the head of the house and women can't be priests, based on scripts saying "wives submit to your husbands" and another one claiming women should not hold authority over men and the story in one of the Genesis creation stories in which women is made from man, the very story you in fact quoted from) and those of more contemporary views, like the equality for women in the church and the fact that they may be ordained. Those views are based not only on the fact that Jesus himself treated women as equals (He allowed them to be disciples, he preached in the Court of Women and he appeared first to women after the resurrection) but also on the second Creation story in Genesis, in which man and woman are created at the same time.
Your absolute blood-mindedness both confuses and irritates me. Your particular brand of fundamentalism is so shockingly devoid of logic that I can't even begin to comprehend it.
I respect your beliefs but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them and it certainly doesn't mean that I (and others) can't point out the flaws in them.
Your absolute blood-mindedness both confuses and irritates me. Your particular brand of fundamentalism is so shockingly devoid of logic that I can't even begin to comprehend it.
I respect your beliefs but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them and it certainly doesn't mean that I (and others) can't point out the flaws in them.
Page: