• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Hello from a Subversive Element

Exodus and Joshua and the Samuels are pretty good too, as well as single-story books like Ruth and Esther and Jonah and the first part of Daniel; but when it comes to swashbuckling action-adventure, it's hard to beat Genesis and Judges--especially the parts (like Genesis 34) that they never read to kids.

AMEN! Not to mention, it gives one ammo to use in their attempt to teach people that the world is really only 6000 years old vice several hundred million! (And that's one reason why the answer to..)

My question is this: If I read I and II Samuel twice, can I get out of reading I and II Chronicles (the "begats" books)?

... is "NO" :D Of course I'm sure you know that, but in case anyone else was wondering, the begats are very important for several reasons including the above!

Okay, you have a hard time remembering the anniversary, etc. So, what does it mean if one can't remember any of the gift ideas that their wife hands them every other day of the year? :0
 
Not to mention, it gives one ammo to use in their attempt to teach people that the world is really only 6000 years old vice several hundred million!
I'm a young-earth creationist too, but I've never had much luck arguing creationism from the Bible, especially not to non-Christians.

Bishop Ussher's tracking of the genealogies in the Bible is a commendable piece of work, but I remember noticing at least two holes in it when I studied it--places where he had to make assumptions because the hard data wasn't there. Of course, those assumptions are not going to make five or six orders of magnitude worth of difference (the age I've always heard for the earth is around 2 billion years, not several hundred million), but they're certainly weaknesses.

When I'm arguing with Christians, I prefer to use the philosophical differences between Genesis and evolution rather than the scientific ones; they're less arguable. For example, Genesis says that there was no death before man's first sin (and that before that sin, all animals were herbivores); evolution says that death was around millions of years before man was. (Extra credit: where is the very first death in the Bible recorded? It's a trick question.) Also, Genesis is very particular about the order in which things were created (first day, second day, etc.), and it's a markedly different order than that of any evolutionary theory I've heard. There are other anomalies: for example, light was created on the first day, but the sun and the moon weren't created until the fourth day--after the earth was already covered with green things.

The biggest problem, I think, in the whole Origins argument is the subtle lie that if you push hard enough, creationism and evolutionism can be reconciled. They absolutely cannot, and it's important to realize that from the outset.

When I argue with non-Christians, I like to leave creationism completely out of the picture and simply talk about the increasingly real limitations of modern evolutionary theory. Being a computer geek, I generally start out with some of the serious information-theory concerns it raises.

But I didn't mean to get this far off topic.

Okay, you have a hard time remembering the anniversary, etc. So, what does it mean if one can't remember any of the gift ideas that their wife hands them every other day of the year?
In technical terms, I'd guess it means one is hosed.
 
In technical terms, I'd guess it means one is hosed.

ROTFLM Tail end O! So true, so true. My friend, you've just spoken volumes with that one brilliant little insight.

I'm a young-earth creationist too

Great, IMHO there's not enough of us out there.

I remember noticing at least two holes in it when I studied it--places where he had to make assumptions because the hard data wasn't there.
I believe that the "assumptions" or "holes" simply occured because there were a few people who didn't do anything worth writing home about.

(the age I've always heard for the earth is around 2 billion years, not several hundred million), but they're certainly weaknesses.

Well, technically 2 billion is several hundred million! :p Will you accept that? Of course you're right, I had just finished reading an article in National Pornographic about "new evidence" supporting evolution and was stuck on the varying time lines that evolutionists believe man started to come around to our present form. My sincerest apologies.

When I'm arguing with Christians, I prefer to use the philosophical differences between Genesis and evolution rather than the scientific ones; they're less arguable.
Surprised that's not been more effective for you. And it's such great fun too. Books upon books worth of great reading there. I personally find the best method for me is to actually delve into scientific proof supporting the "big" stories and prophecies which helps to prove the Bible's infallibility. It's a natural slide into the creation groove from that belief.

(Extra credit: where is the very first death in the Bible recorded? It's a trick question.)
There's actually a number of ways to go with this - so here's my take. Let me know what you think:
Spiritually speaking, "the wages of sin is death." Therefore the first recorded sin in the Bible would be in Genesis chapter 3 where we find the serpent telling the first lie recorded in the Bible. (He sinned, he died) Now, in the timeline presented in the Bible, Lucifer actually sinned while in heaven (hence the casting out) so there was spiritual death prior to this event, but it's recorded later. If you're looking for physical death though, I'd say the slaying of animals for clothing.
The biggest problem, I think, in the whole Origins argument is the subtle lie that if you push hard enough, creationism and evolutionism can be reconciled. They absolutely cannot, and it's important to realize that from the outset.

100%
 
My friend, you've just spoken volumes with that one brilliant little insight.
Hey--I'm married; what d'you expect?

Well, technically 2 billion is several hundred million! Will you accept that?
Welllll ... [grudge grudge grudge] ... okay. :-)

I personally find the best method for me is to actually delve into scientific proof supporting the "big" stories and prophecies which helps to prove the Bible's infallibility.
We must move in different circles or something. It doesn't seem to be nearly as difficult to believe (for example) that modern archaeology now agrees that King David actually existed as it does to believe that God created the universe in 144 hours less than ten thousand years ago. (Ten kiloyears is a nice round number that ought adequately to handle any of Ussher's genealogy problems.)

If you're looking for physical death though, I'd say the slaying of animals for clothing.
I'm impressed; you know your stuff. One of these days I'm going to make something of the fact that God did the very first killing; but not today. Today I have to prepare some sort of lesson for kids 5-8 years old about breaking the fast on Yom Kippur (which ends today).
 
In lighter news...

I just found out on Hotmail that ma' poems could be worth $10.000!




:sign: :sign: :sign: :sign: :sign: :sign:
 
I'm probably not even close but I look at it as this:

A person who feels like breaking into uncontrolled (possibly maniacal) laughter but is maintaining their composure. The sign represents their laughter to those who may be expecting the breakdown.

(Either that or it's someone trying to insult us by saying that our Dads were at some point or another quite frolicksome with a goat ? ;) )




:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
 
Okay, I get it: laughter.

The closest I had been able to come so far was, Look at me, I'm a sheep just like everybody else, no originality, herd beast herd beast herd beast, baaaaa!
 
Barak,
Welcome to CP :D I'm thinking you know..............

I don't think we have any Librarians in this group yet ;)
 
Welcome to CP
Thank you!

I'm thinking you know..............
Um...ah...know what?

I don't think we have any Librarians in this group yet
Actually, I'm not a big-L Librarian--that is, a member of the official Librarian Party. I'm just a small-l librarian, studying on my own and hoping one day to have a small library of my own (L. Neil Smith, Claire Wolfe, Vin Suprynowicz, Ludwig Von Mises, Walter Williams, Murray Rothbard, etc.).

:)
 
Top