Summations Only

Now that is just plain silly Faith, a down right stupid comment.It is not a matter of my reading but rather what the authors actually wrote.I cannot be responsible for the dishonesty, delusion or inability of you and others to actually read what is written.

You may be right.Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

Too funny Faith but what is actually written.Chapter and verse Faith, chapter and verse.Remember everyone here can look and see what is actually written not what you "read".

No Faith, you and the millions against what is actually written which is why you NEVER support your assertions by providing chapter and verse. You know that if you actually did that what is written would refute you yet again.

Too pitiful Faith.Yet again you simply refuse to actually support your assertions.I post what is written Faith and if you think that is incorrect just specify the chapter and verse and everyone can look it up.

too funny Faith Learn to actually read. Where in Gen 7:2 are fowl mentioned? Does it not say "beasts"? Now let's look at Gen 7:3. It says seven fowls, fowls of the air not seven clean fowls.Now what does Gen 6 say? Fowls, not clean fowls, not unclean fowls, fowls.Remember these very verses were posted by me back in Message 1352.I am just posting what is actually written, not what apologectics wish was written.Edited by jar, : fix formatting

I suppose you can show where in Gen 7:3 it mentions clean (or unclean) fowl or in Gen 7:2 where it says fowls should be included in beasts; and if the later were true then why even mention fowl separately?What you suggest is that folk should read what is not there but should be there.You do understand that all the commentary were added because there are so many contradictions and falsehoods in what was written and so it was necessary to make shit up to explain the problems away.

When I brought up the contradiction between flying birds and all birds once I was told that only flying birds were found in the middle east despite the fact that one ostrich species is the "Arabian Ostrich".

That's a great example of just how silly the apologists get when making shit up and confirmation yet again that Biblical Christians don't believe what the Bible actually says and just make up the silliest possible justifications to explain away truth or honesty.Consider that there were tens of thousands of different clean species on the ark if the stuff in Genesis 7 were true and that just one elephant would feed Noah and family for a long, long time the idea that the seven figure was for sacrifices is simply laughable.If Noah and the crew sacrificed one clean critter a day they would still not live long enough to use up all the spare clean critters they brought along.The issue is the same, two different stories are being told and they were just mushed together with total disregard of the contradictions like number of fowl and what gets killed. Trying to make them into one story leads to silly made up shit like needing more clean animals for sacrifice.

No one has even suggested the apologists were idiots, they have been very successful in selling their nonsense. They were and still are desperate, terrified, marketing, assured that their audience will not think things through. Many, particularly today also understand that thar is money in them thar fundy pockets that can easily and safely be moved into their pockets.No, they certainly are not idiots.

There is no prophetic meaning in the story.

The very existence of "Commentary" proves the Bible is just the words of men.If the Bible was actually the inerrant word of God there would be no need of any commentary unless the God was unable to say what She meant and avoid saying contradictory and absolutely false statements.But commentary exists and it exists simple because the Bible is filled with errors, falsehoods, contradictions and ambiguity.That was obvious even before any Bible existed and began with Paul and the author of John's gospel trying to change, revise and rewrite some of the more obvious immediate problems. A major problem was the need to redefine the whole meaning of "messiah" and explain away the fact that Jesus said the end would come during the lifetime of the Disciples.So Paul as well as the authors of John and some of the Epistles began the process of explaining away the discrepancies and it continued down through all of the various "Commenters".

An important point is that there is no universally agreed explanations for the errors, omissions and contradictions in the Bible stories. Each commenter makes up their own solution to wave away the problems.

What you post are great examples of attempting to create prophecy after the fact, a con game. It it is just another attempt to try to shoehorn Jesus into the Old Testament and is no more successful today than it was 2000 years ago. It is at best an example of willful ignorance but more likely simply dishonesty.

It is your silly idea that the Abe story is a prophecy of Jesus that YOU are making up. No one denies the words are actually there but to go from acknowledging the existence of the words to thinking they refer to Jesus is just ludicrous.What you are doing simply shows that once again you have no clue what prophecy means and no ability to actually read what is written without adding your own peculiar spin.What you are doing is prophesying after the fact. You, like all apologists, are just making shit up to support your position.Don't worry, marketing folk have always done that.