Sure I have. Anyone but the strictest pedant can see it.
Apparently your not learning. No, you have not provided anything but evidence that can be interpreted several ways. The fact that you adhere to one interpretation of facts displays nothing but your opinion. Honestly your opinion does not ring true. It only rings commonly accepted(The easy way out).
Catholic scientist writes:
Not really... "he knew her and she conceived" can only mean that he had sex with her.
And it doesn't even really matter what the word is: "he smurfed her and she conceived" means the same thing.
Exactly but only because you have "she conceived" at the end. however, if you add the very end of 4:1 to the context it slightly changes the meaning to a possibility that in MAYBE Cain and Abel were descendants of LORD God. Which would make sense as to why they are not listed in Gen 5.
Catholic Scientist writes:
No, that is solipsism <-- clicky.
Are you familiar with solipsism and how totally ghey it is?
Do you think that we can know anything?
You take my argument out of context.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Wait, how can you claim its the real one if you're so "skeptical"!?
Your right. My bad. I don't know if it's a exact copy of the autograph.
Catholic Scientist writes:
That's a stinking pile of bullshit. You're just trying to interpret away a perceived error. Its not honest.
Your claim, not mine.
Catholic Scientist writes:
What? Everytime I leave for work in the morning, I loose my awareness for my girlfriend!? That's just silly.
Maybe you don't know her at all. Yes, you're right, you do loose your awareness of her when she leaves and it translates into what you think you know about her. The image you paint of her, or rather the one she paints for you.
Catholic Scientist writes:
How old are you? (I'll be 30 this year.)
You're comming off as immature because you're arguing for solipsism and have to bust out the dictionary to make semantic arguments. Quit wasting my time.
It seemed that you didn't know the definition to the meaning of the word because your argument was ridiculous.
Catholic Scientist writes:
False. And shouldn't you be "skeptical" of that?
I am. See, I am Christian but it's a faith choice and I accept that. I accept that the things I believe are built around faith and not complete awareness. Naturalist's have a hard time with this idea. They assume uniformity of place/time and Natural causality.
Catholic Scientist writes:
That's got to be one of the stupidest interpretation I have ever read.
Everytime someone walks out of the room, I no longer know them
You may have never knew them.....
Catholic Scientist writes:
If that were true then nobody could communicate.
Actually people can but there is always a communication barrier. Yes I am skeptical of this, it is however what I believe.
Catholic Scientist writes:
How about this: Fuck skepticism! Who says I have to be skeptical? Why would you want to be so skeptical to the point where you can't know anything? And then contradict yourself and claim that your interpretation is the real one
Its blatantly obvious that the Bible uses the idiom "to know" to trefer to sex and that its done it in the passage you're trying to chop up and twist to fit your needs.
And what you're refering to is solipsism. Do you think we can know anything at all?
I don't claim that my interpretation is the real one. I claim that possibly the commonly accepted idea or other interpretations are possible. "Skepticism". Interpretations are different for everybody. We know what we think we know, end of story.
Only God can interpret the scripture and that's the only reason they exist.
It doesn't make much sense for God to write down a bunch of stuff that only He can understand. Can't he just remember it? (It reminds me of that Dana Carvey movie, Clean Slate.)
thewordofgod writes:
Do you have a better plan than God?
I have five."I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
Only God can interpret the scripture and that's the only reason they exist.
It doesn't make much sense for God to write down a bunch of stuff that only He can understand. Can't he just remember it? (It reminds me of that Dana Carvey movie, Clean Slate.)
thewordofgod writes:
Do you have a better plan than God?
I have five.
How is God supposed to remember when he doesn't have any brain to remember things? God's knowledge isn't in our earthly languages so it has to be processed by a human brain and then his language of truth comes out in the writings and speaking we do. All he does is arrange the vocabulary words that's in my memory according to his knowledge, which is the truth. When I write down these words that come into my mind, which is the invisible and created part of us, then I can understand what he wants me to know.
He's been revealing knowledge in me for two and a half years now so I have the whole story now. When I read the scriptures and prophesies, I understand them without having to study like Christians do, and still they don't know the true interpretations. They lie to themselves with their own interpretations and then lie to others that they teach.
You really are nuttier than a football bat, aren't you?Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
How is God supposed to remember when he doesn't have any brain to remember things?
Without a brain, how is he supposed to design anything?
thewordofgod writes:
When I read the scriptures and prophesies, I understand them without having to study like Christians do, and still they don't know the true interpretations. They lie to themselves with their own interpretations and then lie to others that they teach.
I think you're holding the book upside down."I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
He's been revealing knowledge in me for two and a half years now so I have the whole story now. When I read the scriptures and prophesies, I understand them without having to study like Christians do, and still they don't know the true interpretations. They lie to themselves with their own interpretations and then lie to others that they teach.
Did he tell you why the writings don't match the evidence?
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
have not heard this one before and actually it's almost adoptable but yet it still does not subtract from the other argument that Cain and Abel may not have been descendants of Adam.
i do not understand why this is particularly an issue with you. i have demonstrated above, repeatedly, that "knowing" can indeed refer to sexual intercourse, perhaps euphemistically or idiomatically. it is one thing to be skeptical of a claim, but quite another to continue skepticism after clear demonstration, with substantial evidence. denialism is not skepticism -- it is its own form of belief.
Not really... "he knew her and she conceived" can only mean that he had sex with her.
And it doesn't even really matter what the word is: "he smurfed her and she conceived" means the same thing.
Exactly but only because you have "she conceived" at the end. however, if you add the very end of 4:1 to the context it slightly changes the meaning to a possibility that in MAYBE Cain and Abel were descendants of LORD God. Which would make sense as to why they are not listed in Gen 5.
again, one needs to look at context across verses, as well, in order to determine usage.
quote:And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:
(genesis 4:17)
there is no other context here that is at all confusing. nor is there most any other time the expression is used. its meaning is pretty clear.
I don't claim that my interpretation is the real one. I claim that possibly the commonly accepted idea or other interpretations are possible. "Skepticism". Interpretations are different for everybody. We know what we think we know, end of story.
there are places where there is room for interpretation.
this is not one of them. not every interpretation you hear is equally valid. some are supportable by the text, and others are not. this one is particularly sketchy, as yada as a sexual euphemism (especially when tied to yalad, as in gen 4:1), is particularly well established. the basic fact of the matter is that a great many things are commonly accepted because they are correct. this is not to say that everything commonly accept is necessarily correct, of course.
So.... I get what you "beleive". Whether or not you realize it's a "belief" is the real issue. I realized your point the first time you posted. My argument still stands. Providing a way to analyze the data does not help your argument or make it true. We're still dealing with probabilities.
I'm closing this thread since the originator is around to fulfill the point of the thread and subsequent additions to the thread are unable to stay on topic.
Without a brain, how is he supposed to design anything?
Whether or not you realize it's a "belief" is the real issue. I realized your point the first time you posted. My argument still stands. Providing a way to analyze the data does not help your argument or make it true. We're still dealing with probabilities.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
