You asked why am I still here, and I will answer that right now; since I took your question as not being made in a smartassed way. If it were, I probably would have responded in a smartassed way myself.

First of all, I had some friends ask that I not leave. Eventhough I do not come here as often as I did, I still come when a dialogue was not finished. As I recall, when denny disappeared for awhile, people said he did because he was a coward. I do not run from a fight, never did in VietNam, and I sure as hell won't from here. Plus, if I respond to people, that is a hell of a lot different than people like Tickleboob spamming the board. But then maybe you're more into spam than beef.

Secondly, I had a stalker following me around and making stupid remarks. I responded back in kind, and was actually banned for a few days. The reason, by the Fray editor? 'Other'. Apparently to responnd back to some jackass in kind is a bad thing here. So, I decided that was another reason to stick around. Maybe they'll ban me for good.

Now, as for this reply you put on the board.

Re: One more thing, on the great abortion debate
by Boss Greer

06/11/2009, 10:10 AM Wahbooz: And I am still curious to learn about the contradictions between chapter 1 and chapter 2 in the Old Testiment. Show me some examples, so I can see where you're coming from.

Are you serious here?

Which was created first, man or the animals? Or plants?

Who created the earth, G_D or Jesus? (Or both?)

Where were the animals created from, the water or the earth?

There are hundreds of other contradictions in the bible, but I limited myself to a few in Genesis.

Given that the bible isn't a single book, instead being a compilation of several different writings from different times and from different authors, this isn't really surprising. What is surprising is when literalists try to claim that the contradictions don't exist...

First of all I do not see you linking verses per chapter, in your comments, so I do not know where your question of "Who created the earth, G_D or Jesus? (Or both?) Truth being I do not recall 'Jesus' even being mentioned in chapter 1 or chapter 2 of Genesis, are you being troubled by the use of 'Lord' and 'God' in chapter 2? Remember, this is all before Christ came upon the scene, eventhough some Bible scholars seem to think Adam and Christ are the same.

As for which was created first, chapter 1 answers that question, and designates which' day' it took place. If you are referring to the way in which it is written in chapter 2, I do not see that in any of the verses, the 'day' was mentioned. And remember that the Bible was translated how many times, and from how many different languages? And by whom? I know from my own native tongue that a non-speaker, i.e. someone who is of another language, can very easily create grammar errors. And this could very well be the writing habits of the person who wrote or transcribed them. But, and this still remains the same, the order of the days are not mentioned in chapter 2.

I see you are troubled by chapter 1 verse 21 and 24. No matter what answer I gave you, you would not be willing to accept, I suspect anyway. But let me just say this. So many say the Bible proves evolution wrong, but now go back and read chapter 1 verse 21 and 24. Hell, read the entire first chapter, with the open mind you would use, in reading a book on evolution. Do you think it took only water, or do you think it took only land, or do you think it took both to create every creature that exists on this world? And I marked 'day' as I did because at another place in the Bible it says that a day is as 10,000 years, and 10,000 years is as a day to GOD.

But now lets address your ending statement. Instead of spending a lot of time typing, since people like JD are so overwhelmed by posts from the likes of his mental superiors like Knot, I'll just say go to pbs.rog, and look up Buried Secrets Of The Bible; which is not a religious program, but a scientific one. As I've remarked many times before, mans knowledge about a subject is limited by his evidence. More evidence is being uncovered every day, so for anyone to say who, what or when, about the Bible, and the many books, is only fooling himself.

To me Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2, while they may not prove evolution, they show that the Creator used evolution to create all of existence.

Now if you want to link chapter and verse, and show me how you think they contradict each other, I'm willing to read. But as the part about Noah, and the animals taken aboard the Ark, I would guess you read my response to you.

As for your literalist comment, you must be referring to people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the rest of the right-wing jugernauts. My religion is not european in origin. My 'religion' comes from the Americas. So your reference does not refer to me.

Now, do I get 6 more posts? In the words of Seasoldier "Hahahahahahahahahahaha....."

Wahbooz:

As for your literalist comment, you must be referring to people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the rest of the right-wing jugernauts. My religion is not european in origin. My 'religion' comes from the Americas. So your reference does not refer to me.

Now, do I get 6 more posts? In the words of Seasoldier "Hahahahahahahahahahaha....."

I was referring to anyone who insists that the bible must be read in literal fashion and that everything that is described took place in exactly the manner described. From your words above you don't seem to be one of those misguided souls so it doesn't apply to you at all.

Hell, take 7, I'm feeling generous!

Fair enough, it just appeared a contradiction. I appreciate your courteous response.

As for the bible, let's take the issues one at a time.

1. Which was created first, man or the animals? Or plants?

Genesis 1:25-27 (Animals First) Gen 1:25 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.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 2:18-19 (Man First)

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Gen 2:19 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.

Similarly in Genesis 1:11-13, 27-31 it's clear that the plants were created first, yet in Genesis 2:4-7 man was created before the plants existed?

I still remember when I was a kid and I first decided to read the Bible cover to cover. Those first two books were like literary whiplash. I was astonished they could have been enshrined that way, for two millenia, with such glaring self-contradictions within just a couple pages of text. It would be a bit like if on page one a novelist said his main character was born in Louisiana, the third son in a large family, then on page six he said the same character was born in New York and was an only child, without ever noting much less bothering to explain the contradiction. Even if we could explain the discrepancy by noting that it was really written by multiple authors over the course of many years, it would still look like lazy editing.

seem invariably to be found together... wonder why??

The postulate that "all scripture is fully harmonious with all other scripture" seems to lie at the very root of literalist philosophies. So a literalist reading of Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, can easily generate (and HAS generated) thousands of mutually conflicting exegesical treatments, all of which claim to fully resolve the "problem" of conflicting passages... and every one of which profoundly tortures the Hebrew and Aramaic past the point where mercy-killing is indicated.

Of course, most exegeses don't even reach back to the Septuagint... they start from Martin Luther, or the King James, or the Douay.

Wow. Where in history did the profound Jewish regard for scholarship fall off the truck of Christian tradition??

And why are Literalists so overwhelmingly and blissfully ignorant of the whole matter??

Shep

I feel sort of strange referring to someone as Boss, makes me feel like Chico Marx. You know, I'm going to have to start calling myself Boss. How about Boss Carpenter, does that sound good?

Fair enough, it just appeared a contradiction. I appreciate your courteous response.

You are quite welcome. It can appear to be a contradiction, but I just look at it as writing style. But also, as I pointed out the show on PBS, this could very well have been put together from fragments of scrolls.

As for the bible, let's take the issues one at a time.

1. Which was created first, man or the animals? Or plants?

Genesis 1:25-27 (Animals First) Gen 1:25 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.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 2:18-19

[(Man First) Not necessarily]

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Gen 2:19 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.

As I've said before, it does not specify the so-called 'day'. Could it appear to be a contradiction? Sure, but I suspect it is more a product of translation perhaps. Or, as the Show on PBS shows, a product of trying to recreate scrolls that were extremely old, and many of which were partially destroyed. When the Jews were conquered, by the Assyrians I believe, there were attempts to destroy not only their temples, but their 'sacred scrolls' as well. As much as was possible were grabbed in an attempt to save them.

So the order of some of the verses could be a product of conquest, vain attempts to recreate, and poorly translated documents. If you will notice 2:18 and 2:19 do not flow together, the beasts of the field would not make a very 'good help meet' unless perhaps you're into beastiality. It does not get to the 'help meet' until you get to verse 21. Do you see what I am saying? There isn't a natural rythmn in the verses, as if you threw up a deck of cards and let them fall as they may.

Similarly in Genesis 1:11-13, 27-31 it's clear that the plants were created first, yet in Genesis 2:4-7 man was created before the plants existed?

No, that is not clear from the Bible that I am looking at. Here are the words.

2:4. 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

Only the earth and the open sky.

5. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Still empty of life.

6. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Rain finally appeared.

7. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Nowhere does it say man was created first, as in 'And god created man (either first, or before) nor does it mention the 'day'. It simply refers to the creation of man. Poor writing technique? Possibly, or possibly tattered and pieced together scrolls? But it does not say that man was created before the plants, if it had I would have said absolutely, I see a contradiction.

I put day in quotes because I've already explained my take on that.

Anyone who says 'exactly the manner described.' has himself as a fool.

Well thank you, maybe tonight I'll post more than 8.

Looking forward to your response.

The editor punished him for homo phobic slurs and abuses on me and a couple others here. Its what he does when he gets pissed and it violate the fray Rules of the road. So he got banned to wise him up. Im not holding my breath.

Proof? Im the "stalker making stupid remarks" to Boozy that Boozys blameing in his reply to you. But Boss Greer ask you self---if all Boozy did was answer back in kind like two "jackasses" then why did he get banned and not me or Jack? Or all of us? We are the goofy stalkers right? And Boozy the solid contributer her, right?

Buit it was just him, ask the staff here. I just got done stepping back and telling Wahbooze that calling me "gay boy" or "homo" or saying "go back to the gay bar if yer looking for a boy friend, gay blade" and stuuf like that is homophobic hate and sshows his real inside views. If just being gay is a insult to him hes the one with problems. Well him and gay guys he runs across when hes been drinking or is mad. Or people like him that think thats okay. It leads to attirtudes that sometimes lead to violence.

Whabooze has a problem with the truth too like when he said he was leaving, and then said he was posting less. And remember these are the guys who said Denny didnt plagerize and me and Jack were scum flamers to bring it up.

Go on wasting air, meatball cheeks. If I had been banned like that they would not have let me back so quickly. My suspicions are they did a little tracking of your asinine posts, and figured you deserved everything you got. But as for homophobic slurs? Asking you if you're a stalker, or trolling for a boyfriend is a homophobic slur? Yeh, right. You just continue to flat your lard jaws all you want. I notice most people just ignore your ignorance.

Let me see now, you happen to know why I was temporarily banned. You know this because you went cwyin to the editor? After making the usual whiteboy comments about an Indian being an alcoholic? I see, so then one kind of bigotry is acceptable, but another is not? This is the point you are insinuating? It's just fine in your world to call Native people alcoholics, but let the world beware it is not acceptable to make any comment about white boys.

Well then go cwy to the editor again, sissyboy, because I still think you're a butt smeller.

First off I never complaned to any staff about your homophobic abuse. I assumed thats why you guot banned because of the timing of when I told you myself it was sick and wrong.

But heres the "real easy" stuff Whabooze. IF Im the low life etc etc (cept you made up the whiteboy and Indian Alcoholic stuff---Im not Jack) and you are the golden boy and you tell ther truth and I lie.........

then explain for us all please............

how it is YOU happenned to got banned and I didnt at all and never have been.

This time take your time and think about yer answer, Boozy.

Attepting to prove the existance of God by quoting the Bible is foolish.

The idea of disproving the existance of God through the bible is even worse.

Neither one of us are trying to prove or disprove the existence of GOD. That is not the purpose of this discussion. Some may try to, but that is not.

I didn't make shit up, dipstick. Your rant proves me right, with your supposedly cute corruption of my name.

Second, you're the one who claims to know why I got banned. Pretty easy to see who went cwying to the editor. Whether you've ever been banned before or not, I could care less. From time to time you show up, with a different nic, pander your childish platitudes, and then you're gone again.

I'm not wasting you time with the likes of you, because you are ignorant. Consider yourself ignored. And stick your Boozy (oh that's right, I lied about that didn't I?) right up your ass, butt sniffer.