Biblical contradictions II

"AS for Genesis not saying it was Satan- No kidding Sherlock. Since you are a non-believer you will NOT agree. See II Corinthians 4:4 to know why. Revelation calls Satan the serpent, a little "s" just like Genesis 3. see:Rev. 12:9 and 20:2."I don't care what Revelations, written ages after the fact, has to say about Genesis. That could be an interpretation as well couldent it?Lets look at the verses you site:Rev 12:9 - And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.Were does it say thats the same serpent as the begining? It seems to be refering to some kind of dragon. He is not saying that this is Genisis' serpent is he? If he is, it's at best a loose refrence, and quite mbiguous open to interpretation.Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,Again, this says nothing about the devil being the snake in the garden. Were does it say this? Could I not interpret this figuratively? As being that the devil is a cursed creature, as the snake was cursed? Or just that the devil is loathsome? Why does this nceisitate your interpretation?Onward:"Telling the truth? What do you base this on? "Yea hath God said," starts doubting God or contradicting Him from the onset. Why would a created thing just one day decide to doubt God and create doubt in the mind of Eve? The serpent didn't tell Eve to eat the fruit because it was a choice of free will."The serpent was telling the truth and not deciving anybody, as pointed out time and time again, the serpent mearly said you won't die, you will know good and evil. And guess what? It happend. You want the KJV, here it:Gen 3:4,5 - And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.Was that a lie? How is that deceptive? How is that leading eve astray? He mearly told the truth. She said "God said we would die" serpent was walking by said "no you wont", that was it. No lie, no nothing, just a passing comment."WOW! You have a copy of the original Hebrew? I'm impressed. The Sinaiaticus, Vaticanus and Alexandranus manuscripts are all corrupted
by Gnosticism and Origen and take way from the blood atonement of Christ, His Deity and many other doctrines. BTW, they only make up 1% of the family of manuscripts. I'm no lightweight when it comes to Textual criticism."Oh, so you admit that the current Bible comes from various conflicting, disparet sources, so basicaly what we have today is unrealiable rubish! Cool! That clears up alot [This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2003]

Theologian63 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps because it wasn't a scheme at all. The serpent was simply telling the truth. Note that the serpent does not tell Eve to eat from the tree.

---

​

Telling the truth? What do you base this on?

---

The text. Have you not read it?Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.So here we see that god tells Adam directly not to eat from the tree or he'll die that very day.Oh...we're about to get into a semantic argument, aren't we? You're about to say that text does not say, "that very day," and then you're going to pretend as if "in the day...thou shalt surely die" doesn't mean "that very day."But that's a different argument. The point is that god says they're going to die. Eve seems to have gotten the message, too:Genesis 3:2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:3:3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.So we have established that god wants Adam and Eve to believe that they'd die. In fact, the ante has gone up when we get to Eve...god only told Adam not to eat it. Eve seems to think she shouldn't even touch it.Now, let's look at what the serpent says:Genesis 3:4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.And that's it. We never hear any more from the serpent. In Genesis 3:1, the serpent asks Eve about what she can eat, but he does not tell her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Too, the serpent doesn't say anything about going ahead and eating from the Tree in 3:4 or 3:5.Now then, what happens when Adam and Eve eat from the tree?Genesis 3:6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.Hmmm...Eve touched the fruit and didn't die. Now, we don't know where she got this idea about not touching the fruit, but that apparently was wrong. And when she ate it and gave it to Adam to eat, they didn't die then, either.Instead, what happened? Their eyes were opened. We even hear god describe it:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:So it would seem the serpent was right. The serpent said, "your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."And what happens? Genesis 3:7 says their eyes opened and Genesis 3:22 has god saying they are as gods, knowing good and evil.So by direct reading of the text, we find out that the serpent was telling the truth. If they ate from the Tree of knowledge, they wouldn't die. Instead, they'd become as gods.And that's exactly what happened.Now, some might say that Adam and Eve would have been immortal had they not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. This is belied by:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:What is the point of the Tree of Life if Adam and Eve were already immortal? Why does god panic over the two of them eating from the Tree of Life if they were already immortal?The only logical conclusion is that Adam and Eve were going to die from the very beginning, the threat made by god was that they were going to die that very day if they ate from the tree, god was wrong in that claim, and the serpent was telling the truth.

quote:

---

AS for Genesis not saying it was Satan- No kidding Sherlock.

---

Where else are we going to look for what Genesis means? Christians? What do they know about it?

quote:

---

Since you are a non-believer you will NOT agree. See II Corinthians 4:4 to know why.

---

Oh, I get it...if I disagree with you, it's because I'm the disbeliever. It can't possibly be because you're mistaken.That's a bit convenient, don't you think?

quote:

---

Revelation calls Satan the serpent, a little "s" just like Genesis 3. see:Rev. 12:9 and 20:2.

---

Irrelevant. The serpent mentioned is not the serpent of Genesis but rather the dragon right there in front of them:Revelation 12:9: And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.Revelation 20:2: And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,Where in these two passages do you find reference to the serpent of Genesis? That serpent was long dead. The serpent was cursed as the animal that it was, not some sort of supernatural entity. Instead, Revelation is referring to the "dragon." Dragons are reptiles and thus can be called "serpents."But don't be so naive as to confuse the serpent from Genesis with the dragon from Revelation.

quote:

---

WOW! You have a copy of the original Hebrew? I'm impressed. The Sinaiaticus, Vaticanus and Alexandranus manuscripts are all corrupted
by Gnosticism and Origen and take way from the blood atonement of Christ, His Deity and many other doctrines.

---

Um...and where do you think the KJV is translated from? It isn't like the scholars had it dictated to them in English by angels.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

"I compare scripture with scripture. That's how it is supposed to be done. I'm not denying WHAT the scripture says. I HAVE the KJV right next to me. It's ALL I use. I have been reading it for over 35 years. The KJV, not this particular bible. LOL Some things in the Bible are to be taken literally while others are figurative or have a deeper meaning than what is first read. Why couldn't it mean "begin to die"?Im not denying that you can interpret the scripture this way, but that is your choice. It can also be interpreted in the way I do. You still have not answerd the question why are you so sure you have the right interpretation?"LOL Some things in the Bible are to be taken literally while others are figurative or have a deeper meaning than what is first read."This is disturbing. Somehow you feel you are able to decide for yourself which bits are litteral and which arent? To assume that somehow you have this judicial power is foolish at best.Why can I then not assume that the entire story of Adam and Eve, or Genesis for that matter, is figurative? By your same logic I can do the same. Pick and choose whats true, and whats a metaphore based on my own Gut feeling, and because I feel its right, then it necesitates it's reality.Thats pretty crazy if you ask me."I choose to believe the latter."So it was a choice then? Just a choice, no better or worse than mine, sicne we both started from the same textual basis. You took it one way, I took it another, but we cannot invalidate each others opinion now can we?"If God lied He is a sinner and is in need of redemption and needs to accept His Son Jesus as His savior."Isn't Jesus God? So God is a sinner???? What????? You can allow for that in your logic? I thought God was perfect, are you saying he may not be? And why would God have to accept himself???"Not only that but He will eventually end up in the lake of fire along with YOU. "But the fearful and unbelieving (YOU),...and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone..." God in Hell? I think not! If you don't want to burn, TURN! Turn from your unbelief and accept Jesus as your Saviour."this is the most pathetic attempt at reductio ad absurdum I have ever seen. And your acusatins and condemnation of me will not help your case in this argument.But at least you have admited, that your views are mearly your opinions about what you have read. And thus, aren't necissarly the right interpretation, but rather your gut feelings about them. Sounds good.

"the KJV was written using existing English translation Bibles such as Tyndale's, Wycliffe's, Coverdale's, the Geneva Bible, and including two revisions of the Bishop's Bible. The men working on this "translation" were also told that readability and literary merit were at least as important as accuracy in scholarship. How this makes the KJV any less "corrupt" than others is very much in question."Thanks for the bible history lesson. These versions were translated from the TR, the most accurate of the Greek texts and the Mesoretic Hebrew, but you know that, right? As far as the corruption, why do you assume it is so? These versions were true to the TR just like the KJV. What source are you quoting here "The men working on this "translation" were also told that readability and literary merit were at least as important as accuracy in scholarship." Since you have so often called this lack of substantiation to my attention I now put the ball in your court. "Touche" as they say in France.God putting a lying spirit into someone could very well be a demonic spirit. Since HE is all powerful, there is nothing in His nature that HE cannot do. Remember, YOU, used these verses to support your idea of God lying, not me.

Theologian63 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps because it wasn't a scheme at all. The serpent was simply telling the truth. Note that the serpent does not tell Eve to eat from the tree.

---

​

Telling the truth? What do you base this on?

---

The text. Have you not read it?Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.So here we see that god tells Adam directly not to eat from the tree or he'll die that very day.Oh...we're about to get into a semantic argument, aren't we? You're about to say that text does not say, "that very day," and then you're going to pretend as if "in the day...thou shalt surely die" doesn't mean "that very day."But that's a different argument. The point is that god says they're going to die. Eve seems to have gotten the message, too:Genesis 3:2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:3:3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.So we have established that god wants Adam and Eve to believe that they'd die. In fact, the ante has gone up when we get to Eve...god only told Adam not to eat it. Eve seems to think she shouldn't even touch it.Now, let's look at what the serpent says:Genesis 3:4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.And that's it. We never hear any more from the serpent. In Genesis 3:1, the serpent asks Eve about what she can eat, but he does not tell her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Too, the serpent doesn't say anything about going ahead and eating from the Tree in 3:4 or 3:5.Now then, what happens when Adam and Eve eat from the tree?Genesis 3:6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.Hmmm...Eve touched the fruit and didn't die. Now, we don't know where she got this idea about not touching the fruit, but that apparently was wrong. And when she ate it and gave it to Adam to eat, they didn't die then, either.Instead, what happened? Their eyes were opened. We even hear god describe it:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:So it would seem the serpent was right. The serpent said, "your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."And what happens? Genesis 3:7 says their eyes opened and Genesis 3:22 has god saying they are as gods, knowing good and evil.So by direct reading of the text, we find out that the serpent was telling the truth. If they ate from the Tree of knowledge, they wouldn't die. Instead, they'd become as gods.And that's exactly what happened.Now, some might say that Adam and Eve would have been immortal had they not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. This is belied by:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:What is the point of the Tree of Life if Adam and Eve were already immortal? Why does god panic over the two of them eating from the Tree of Life if they were already immortal?The only logical conclusion is that Adam and Eve were going to die from the very beginning, the threat made by god was that they were going to die that very day if they ate from the tree, god was wrong in that claim, and the serpent was telling the truth.

quote:

---

AS for Genesis not saying it was Satan- No kidding Sherlock.

---

Where else are we going to look for what Genesis means? Christians? What do they know about it?

quote:

---

Since you are a non-believer you will NOT agree. See II Corinthians 4:4 to know why.

---

Oh, I get it...if I disagree with you, it's because I'm the disbeliever. It can't possibly be because you're mistaken.That's a bit convenient, don't you think?

quote:

---

Revelation calls Satan the serpent, a little "s" just like Genesis 3. see:Rev. 12:9 and 20:2.

---

Irrelevant. The serpent mentioned is not the serpent of Genesis but rather the dragon right there in front of them:Revelation 12:9: And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.Revelation 20:2: And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,Where in these two passages do you find reference to the serpent of Genesis? That serpent was long dead. Instead, Revelation is referring to the "dragon." Dragons are reptiles and thus can be called "serpents."But don't be so naive as to confuse the serpent from Genesis with the dragon from Revelation.

quote:

---

WOW! You have a copy of the original Hebrew? I'm impressed. The Sinaiaticus, Vaticanus and Alexandranus manuscripts are all corrupted
by Gnosticism and Origen and take way from the blood atonement of Christ, His Deity and many other doctrines.

---

Um...and where do you think the KJV is translated from? It isn't like the scholars had it dictated to them in English by angels.Theologian63 writes:

quote:

---

Why couldn't it mean "begin to die"?

---

Because that's not what it says. "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."Besides, Adam and Eve were going to die, anyway. Otherwise, what was the point behind the Tree of Life? God panics over them possibly eating from it since they would become immortal."Become" immortal? That would mean they weren't immortal to begin with.

quote:

---

Anyone who can read knows Adam and Eve lived many years after that

---

So why did god say, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" if he meant, "You will lose your immortality"?What's the point of the Tree of Life if Adam and Eve were already immortal?

quote:

---

So, either God lied or we don't understand the true meaning behind "thou shalt surely die."

---

Seems to be the former. There are so many indications that "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" means exactly what it appears to mean: You eat it and you die that day.

quote:

---

If God lied He is a sinner and is in need of redemption and needs to accept His Son Jesus as His savior.

---

Have you considered the possibility that the character described as god in the Bible isn't really god? Perhaps the Bible is actually the work of the devil. Wouldn't that be the ultimate coup? Get people to think the devil is really god and god is really the devil. And the ultimate irony, all the hints are there: In one of the first interactions between god and Adam and Eve, this character called "god" lies to them and behaves in a very unjust manner, punishing innocents for something they had no control over. That doesn't sound like the embodiment of all good. So perhaps its actually the case that the Bible is a tool of the devil sent to corrupt people.Just a thought....

quote:

---

If you don't want to burn, TURN!

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, Theologian63. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!Well, Bob, Theologian63 has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, Theologian63 gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

"God putting a lying spirit into someone could very well be a demonic spirit. Since HE is all powerful, there is nothing in His nature that HE cannot do. Remember, YOU, used these verses to support your idea of God lying, not me. "So God can command demons to possess people in order to meat his ends? How is this right?God: "Gee, Im good I can't lie, hmmmm... Oh I know, hey belzebub! Posses that man and make him break one of my commandments!"How on earthm, can you possibly, ever, justify this?

The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus and Mesoretic Hebrew. The originals were written in Koine Greek so even th unlearned could know of God's word. The other manuscripts were writen in Uncials and classical Greek. Whose naive now?The serpent is the name given to the Devil, as you quoted from Revelation. BTW, how did the serpent know what GOd said to Adam and Eve? If the serpent was not possessed by Satan, where did he get his information?

YOu can assume anything you want. God gave you that right but Paul, under inspiration from the Holy Spririt, talks about sin entering into the world because of Adam (see Rom. 5:12) and Paul says that the woman (Eve)was in the transgression 1 Tim. 2:14. If Genesis is figurative, PAul is a liar too and then God AGAIN becomes a liar since the Holy Sprit is also God and HE inspired holy men to write the scriptures. II Timothy 3:16 and that includes Paul.

Theologian63 responds to me:

quote:

---

The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus and Mesoretic Hebrew.

---

No, it isn't. As was just stated and you agreed to, the KJV was a compilation of various other translations. In short, it was third hand. And you think there's no possibility for error?I don't recall mentioning which Hebrew versions I have. Notice how you assumed that it was one of your "corrupt" versions.

quote:

---

The serpent is the name given to the Devil

---

Nope. The devil is called a dragon and then rephrased as a serpent. There's a difference. Revelation is talking about the devil while Genesis is talking about an animal. In all the text surrounding the serpent in Genesis, he is compared to the other beasts. By what leap of logic do we suddenly find that the serpent wasn't one of them?I mean really...if the serpent were the devil, what's with the curse that was laid on him:Genesis 3:14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.The devil is going to have generations upon generations of actual children? That's not right. That's what animals do. The serpent is an animal, a very smart animal, and god is cursing it.

quote:

---

BTW, how did the serpent know what GOd said to Adam and Eve?

---

Who knows? The text doesn't say.Why do you feel the need to impose your opinion upon the text?

quote:

---

If the serpent was not possessed by Satan, where did he get his information?

---

Who knows? The text doesn't say.It's impossible that the serpent was around when god was talking to Adam?Let's not forget, Eve seems to think that if she even touches the fruit, she'll die. That's not what god told Adam in Genesis 2:17. He just said if you ate it, you'd die.So where did Eve get this idea that simply touching it was just as bad?Who knows? The text doesn't say.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

"You can assume anything you want."So can you, and so far it's all you have been doing. Assuming a bunch of stuff is true, just because you belive it to be so."God gave you that right but Paul, under inspiration from the Holy Spririt,"So, you are certain, that a guy who lived a couple of thousand years ago, claiming to be inspired by a holy spirit, and formes an OPINION on what he has read, is necissarly right?Paul has some wierd ideas ya know, he says some funkey things about how we should treat women and slaves amongst others. Do we belive those? (if you wan't to make me dig up verses you can, but Im sure you know which ones I am "misiniterpreting")."talks about sin entering into the world because of Adam (see Rom. 5:12) and Paul says that the woman (Eve)was in the transgression 1 Tim. 2:14."He dosn't say eve by name, but you are right we can say this referes to her. So? This is timothies interpretation of Genesis. How do we know he is right?"Paul is a liar too and then God AGAIN becomes a liar since the Holy Sprit is also God and HE inspired holy men to write the scriptures. II Timothy 3:16 and that includes Paul."Paul is not God, Paul can lie. But more likely, Paul can be very passionate of his belifes, so much so, that he puts fourth his opinions on an old text as truth and fact.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2003]

FYI, Paul wrote I and II Timothy NOT Timothy. Yes, I believe an old man thousand of years ago was inspired by God to write books of the bible and in doing so he COULDN'T lie. Remember II Timothy 3:16? "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God...
I would like to see the verses where Paul says "Funky and weird things about slaves and women." He tells husbands to love their wives in Ephesians 5:25 JUST as Christ loved the church and died for it. YEAH, that's real funky. AND just before that he tells the wives to be in submission to their husbands. Now THAT's REAL funky especially in liberal, humanistic America where the women are running the homes.
The scriptures are NOT interpretations. God told the writers what to say. II Timothy 3:16 Did you read it? How about II Peter 1;19-20?

As opposed to?What inherent in having a penis do you think makes men so great at running a family? Better than, say, two people in love working together in concert? You take a pretty dim view of marriage, if you reduce it to a game of master-slave.

If you recall I said ORIGINAL HEBREW. How is that a corrupt version? You are only hearing what you want to hear or in this case, read. Granted the KJV translators used other versions to check the translation but the TEXT was TR. You have to understand the level of knowledge the scholars had. One translater, John Bois, knew Greek,Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic and several other languges FLUENTLY. King James got the BEST translators around to work on the AV.BTW, you are imposing YOUR opinion upon the text too. Since Adam and Eve didn't drop dead on the spot, you naturally assume God is a liar. To that I say BWAA-HA-HA.You fail to convince me that the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 is for mankind. Mankind is called it, the seed of the woman, but "his" is a personal pronoun for ONE person. The Jews DIDN'T exist at that time so your rejection of Christ as the Messiah argument is fallible. Do you know what Jew means? Many people prior to the birth of Jesus looked for the Messiah. It wasn't UNTIL HE was born that they rejected him. AND MANY Jews accepted Him as the Annointed One.

Who said anything about master-slave? I was talking about God intended for the man to be the leader and the woman to an "help meet"
You get much exercise jumping to conclusions.

"FYI, Paul wrote I and II Timothy NOT Timothy."Realy? I thought there was still contraversy to this day about all scriptural origins... but that's for another discusion.Thanks for correcting me as to the common OPINION of chritians."Yes, I believe an old man thousand of years ago was inspired by God to write books of the bible and in doing so he COULDN'T lie."Ok fine, so you belive it. It's just your opinion then, because you have no rational reason too.I have a corny UFO conspiracy tract that says it's for real, guess I should belive that too."ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God..."Ok 2 things. First, the obvious:So you belive the book, because the book says it's true. Not God, nobody else, your reading a book, a pile of glue and paper. And it says it's for real. So it says it's real, and you belive it, for no other reason than that cool.I think Im gonna put on that tinfoil hat and go live in a compund awaiting the mothership then.Second:What is the meaning of God inspired? Could I not interpret this as it is inspired by God, and contains some of his knowledge, yet the term inspiration does not necisserely conote verbatim 100% acurate truth.No where in the bible does it say "God told them what to write", if anything your only leg to stand on is the term "inspired". Which is again, ambigious, subjective, and subject to opinion.It can easely mean (and more likely) that the people who wrote it were so passionete about their belifes that they were inspired to write what they thought about it. Couldent it? What makes me wrong?"He tells husbands to love their wives in Ephesians 5:25 JUST as Christ loved the church and died for it. YEAH, that's real funky."no not that..."AND just before that he tells the wives to be in submission to their husbands. Now THAT's REAL funky especially in liberal, humanistic America where the women are running the homes."Ah! there it is.Im gonna let your venomous tounge and backward resoning be teh judge of you, and your belife system. Lest you can actually provide factual justification as to why women are somehow inferior to men that they cannot lead the household?"BTW, you are imposing YOUR opinion upon the text too. Since Adam and Eve didn't drop dead on the spot, you naturally assume God is a liar. To that I say BWAA-HA-HA."well woop ti doo. And your not?"You fail to convince me that the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 is for mankind. Mankind is called it, the seed of the woman, but "his" is a personal pronoun for ONE person. The Jews DIDN'T exist at that time so your rejection of Christ as the Messiah argument is fallible."No, by the same token, Christ didn't exist yet either.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2003]