SIN

Here it is then;"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth. Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind."
(Lev. 11.21-22) Irrelevant. Locust, beetles and grasshoppers are specifically mentioned and they don't have four legs, they have six. Except that the ground water is already at its lowest point and therefore can't be used. You need extra water that simply isn't there. Again, believe what you will, but we need evidence. Where is yours? No, but the amount of water that DID have to come rom the canopy would have killed us while it was in the canopy.You have yet to address this point with anything but handwaving.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

The goal of most religeons isn't a financial and economic utopia therefore your opinion may be that it isn't sucessful if you don't know their goals.

I agree that things become better adapted through breeding and natural selection but things are becoming worse through radiation, which would be less notcible in bacteria. So even though things adapt through breeding the defects from radiation would still be passed down by genes and eventually multiplied.

I guess I have always been taught wrong that the US was based on God. As for the geological column I'll have to do some research because I've been told several opinions from credible people.I'll define what I mean by greater when I say the evolutionary tree only shows animals getting greater. A greater characteristic would be something that benefits the organism according to its environment. I would say it seems a group of humans would survive and multiply more than a group of apes would no matter where they are, this would makes humans greater (to my terminology). But both organisms would survive in certain circumstances, making it so both of us outrun the bear.Yes we've thrived and multiplied and it's pretty good. But consider in the long run how things might turn out. When you see siblings or cousins marry, negative things can happen to the genes of their child. The further away the relation the less of the effect though. Since we're all slightly related the effect does happen every generation (just to clarify "the effect" I'm referring to is mutations in the family being unhealthily dominant when insect occurs, such as cancer). This is what I mean by the gene pool very minutely being filled with mutations and such. The fact that there are 6 billion people on earth doesn't go against what I'm saying. At the rate things are going I'm sure there will be many more a billion before things get real unhealthy.Everybody being nice to each other is very stable but being nice only when there's a positive response isn't (yes I am refining my previous statement). Let’s say you're on your death bed eating lunch with a group of people and someone turns his back and you take his sandwich (not saying you would do this). He never knows or suspects that it's you. He loses and you win, even in the long run if there's no after life. The next day you die before that cycle of what goes around comes around gets you. You knew you were dying and you weren't punished by man, what's to stop you from doing it? Let's say you trusted the others not to tell also. What good is it doing you if you leave the place better by not stealing the man's sandwich; you're gone from earth before you ever were accounted for it. I think it's safe to say we don't understand each other very well on this issue but maybe we will soon.I agree that man can make a system that works well with morals, that most the laws are explainable, under logic, in this nation, for example, but I don't think decency is explainable. Walking around naked even saves you money even but it's not ethical under God. If the US did it so Christians wouldn't be offended they would have passed many more a rule, and since you say the US isn't based under God, then explain what made man make this rule?!-Notice for everyone who is participating in the debates on this page related to Genesis 3: I will make a full, complete response with interpretations from the Bible soon so ask any more questions you want me to reply to related to this.

quote:

---

I guess I have always been taught wrong that the US was based on God.

---

I'm actually kind of curious as to who taught you about the US Government, but left out the first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

quote:

---

Let’s say you're on your death bed eating lunch with a group of people and someone turns his back and you take his sandwich (not saying you would do this). He never knows or suspects that it's you. He loses and you win, even in the long run if there's no after life. The next day you die before that cycle of what goes around comes around gets you. You knew you were dying and you weren't punished by man, what's to stop you from doing it?

---

This got explained to you already. Many, many times, by several people. The last time I did it was here. You still haven't responded to it.

quote:

---

Walking around naked even saves you money even but it's not ethical under God. If the US did it so Christians wouldn't be offended they would have passed many more a rule, and since you say the US isn't based under God, then explain what made man make this rule?

---

Walking around naked makes you cold.An original necessity becomes a societal convention becomes a law.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

I see your argument with the 4-legged insects but its just an older English term. More recent translations say-"However, there are some exceptions that you may eat. These include insects that jump with there hind legs: locusts of all varieties, crickets, bald locusts, and grasshoppers. All these may be eaten."-New Living Translation (translated from the original language). You can't read the King James that literal because the terminology wasn't as literal back then. Expect a similar response for the Genesis 3 issue.
I see your argument with the 4-legged insects but it’s just an older English term. More recent translations say-"However, there are some exceptions that you may eat. These include insects that jump with there hind legs: locusts of all varieties, crickets, bald locusts, and grasshoppers. All these may be eaten."-New Living Translation (translated from the original language). You can't read the King James Translation that literal because the terminology wasn't translated that literal back in the day. Expect a similar response for the Genesis 3 issue.As for the canopy hold on a bit. I found an article a while ago but I need to find it again.As for the canopy hold on a bit. I found an article a bit ago but I need to find it again.

Walking around naked makes you cold but that's good when it's warm out. You can make yourself colder by jumping in a freezer or many other things but that's not illegal. The founders left some discernment for us. Whether it’s too cold to go outside or just right is a logical decision. I’m sure that isn’t the reason they made it illegal.I think there's a gap that isn't being breached with the whole helping the next man down the line issue. I don't understand quite everything you say and vice versa.

And as a result, you tend to find public nudity more legal in hotter areas - Brazil, Spain, even Southern California. Here in Minnesota it's never warm enough to be totally naked outside. Public nudity is frowned on as a result.Women can breastfeed in public. Is that nudity? I can generally get naked in public as a form of protest; in that situation it's usually protected under the First Amendment.In America nudity is almost always sexualized. In cultures where nudity can have non-sexual meanings, it tends to be more legal. Europe, etc. Although there's an argument tht nudity in America is sexualized simply because its so restricted. The founders didn't make nudity illegal. That's usually left to municipalities. That's why nudity isn't in the constitution. Maybe I can help. What we agree on is that humans, to a large degree, self-govern - act moral even when there's no external pressure to do so. (Most people call this the "concience".) Your argument is, that represents the influence of the Holy Spirit on us, correct?Our argument is that human self-governance is an evolved, natural social behavior because it has significant practical value. Our evidence is that while humans in every culture self-govern, they don't self-govern by the same rules or moral code. This implies that while the capacity to self-govern is intrinsic to humans, the rules used are determined by culture. This capacity for self-governance is a survival benefit for those that have it because they tend to a greater degree to obey the rules of their society, which prevents them from experiencing social ostracism, which could be a potentially fatal circumcstance (especially in a primitive culture.) Ergo, especially in a primitive culture, an inability to self-govern tends to get you killed. Thus we're all the decendants of persons who, to whatever degree, were able to self-govern by the rules of their society.Of course, if you never teach a kid what is right and wrong, they don't internalize any rules at all, and they act immoral. I don't see how your Holy Spirit theory explains this, but it's a natural consequence of our theory.

quote:

---

... All these may be eaten."-New Living Translation (translated from the original language).

---

Sorry, but we don't have the original. The oldest we've got is actually the Greek Septuagint-- a translation from the Hebrew into Greek put together around 350 BC.Now, lets see what we've got.In the LXX we have ( transliterated, and poorly ) "poreuomai a epi tessarah a exel skele." This pretty much means "walk on four legs."The Vulgate ( Jerome's 405 AD )has "ambulat quidem super quattuor pedes." Pretty much "walk on four legs."The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia-- Hebrew, yes; original, not by a lot-- has "halak al-arba asr-lo." Or... something like "walking/travelling on/above four."So, the moral of the story is don't trust your Bible's translators .Seriously though, this seems like a pretty blatant omission of some information that actually is in the closest-we-have-of-the-originals. I'd bet this omission was made to 'clarify' some biblical inerrancy issues. I'd be interested if you know of any justifications for the NLT's translation of the text.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi, John.I don't know if the insects on 4 legs was your original point or compmage's (sp?). Either way, although I detest most of the softshoeing that goes on trying to make the Bible not have contradictions and errors, when it obviously does, I have a problem with this one.I was told once that the Hebrews didn't count those big jumping back legs as legs, and that's why they said four instead of six. Normally, I'd say, "Oh, yeah, one more excuse," but in this case, surely we're not suggesting that the Israelites couldn't count the legs on a locust, are we? That wouldn't be a Bible error, that would put the Israelite intelligence down around the level of a gorilla, which could also count the legs on a locust if we trained it to count.

quote:

---

the Greek Septuagint-- a translation from the Hebrew into Greek put together around 350 BC.

---

I think you're being about a century too kind. I remember hearing 250 BC as the date, and I found several web sites saying it was originally put together under Ptolemy Philadelphius. http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.stm gives 285-246 as the dates of that Ptolemy's reign.It is, however, the earliest testimony to the text of the Torah that's extant, which was your point. I just thought you'd like to know, not correcting you.

The traditional account is that the Septuagint was put together under Philadelphius. This story seems almost certainly to be legend, not fact. An entry of the Catholic Encyclopedia gives a good run-down of this tradition and with the problems associated with it. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Septuagint VersionAt any rate, I was off by at least 50 years. Thats what I get for not checking. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

It was mine, although it wasn't really a point, just a comment that has sidetracked the issue slightly. Except that beetles are included in the list. Do all species of beetle (in the Middle East) have the same 'jumping back legs'?------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

It's another fiddle to defend inerrancy.And totally unnecessary. The phrase used both by the KJV and the NIV actually says "winged creatures that walk on all fours". I think it's just a way of distinguishing creatures that go around in a manner a bit like a quadruped from birds which walk upright on two legs (effectively). That's all. It's technically incorrect (and I'm not sure it's incorrect enough to invalidate any vaguely sensible inerrancy doctrine) but it's not really an issue. Essentially I agree with truthlover's point that the Hebrews could not have really been that daft that they couldn't count legs.Unless, of course, you want to say that the whole thing is dictated by God and totally and literally true in everything it asserts explicitly or implicitly, which of course is the view from which YEC derives.[This message has been edited by Karl, 05-13-2003]

I don't want to say anything of the sort. The Bible is useless when taken completely litterally.God's Child said something like "In the Bible it talks about a water canopy."I simply pointed out that it talks about 4 legged insects as well. I then pointed out problems with the water canopy hypothesis.The aside comment is now being discussed more than the challenges to the water canopy.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy