Conversation with a Pastor

The reference Authors are not "your sources". The claim I was bashing was not referenced to those sources in your link. It was the biased opinion of the commentator that I specifically bashed.

This is what I said.

These type of shenanigans are typical of the disingenuous, desperate and feigned ignorant nature of the rest of your post as well.

Rather than respond to the points I make you cherry pick parts from a long article in a link and then intentionally take what was said out of context.

For example:

There are many details in the Bible that are supported by Science such as the names of various people, cultures or Places that are mentioned in the Bible such as the Assyrian Palace that bears resemblance to a description by Ezekiel which is what the above quote is referring to.

That idea this somehow validates the Biblical flood story in Genesis or shows that Genesis did not borrow from Sumerian and other myths (The topic we are discussing) is a disingenuous farce.

As is the rest of your post.

As you seem to have forgotten, the main topic under discussion is whether or not the creation and flood story in Genesis uses Sumerian/Babylonian and other related myths.

The article " The Genesis of Genesis" by Victor Hurowitz which appears first in the link I sent you is what I was referring to and not "Europe confronts Assyrian Art" by Mogens Trolle Larson which you quote from above in a completely out of context manner.

The article on the Genesis of Genesis states: P6

Hurowitz then goes not to make the case that that Genesis relies not only on the Enuma Elis epic, and not as directly as past scholarship has suggested.

This case that Hurowitz and others are now making is that the Authors of Genesis may not have relied strictly on the Babylonian epic because these same stories were common throughout Near Eastern Literature.

The key point that you desperately want to ignore is that the writers of Genesis were borrowing and restating already pre-established myth common throughout Near Eastern Literature/Religion and not necessarily so dependent on one particular story.

So Professor ... you have now been Schooled !





The notion that the biblical Creation story depends heavily on Enu¯ ma Eliš is so entrenched that most
modern commentaries on Genesis mention the connection. Any compendium of ancient Near Eastern texts
related to the Bible will include Enu¯ ma Eliš. The curriculum for teaching Bible in secular Israeli high schools has
been revised to include the teaching of Enu¯ ma Eliš. Nahum Sarna’s classic



Well, well, well... Shall I continue on your source?

How about such juicy quotes such as, "[W]ho can tell how much more remote such records may carry us into the past? The day may not be far distant when Nimrod’s Biography, Noah’s History of the Flood, and Adam’s

 

First you make a false dichotomy (giving only two possible black and white options) and then refute your own fallacy by giving a third option (aliens).

In the face of the "unknown" claiming "I do not know" is a perfectly reasonable answer. What is unreasonable is you claiming to know de facto what you do not.

2) What is ridiculous is your claim that possibilities other than "God did it" are scientifically ridiculous. In particular what is ridiculous is the idea that your fairy tale version of God in particular had to have done it.

What is patent nonsense is your claim that the theory of evolution is not science. This reflects a drastic lack of understanding of both science and evolution.

 

1) The aliens excuse is not really an answer. One would still be faced with the question of how did alien life came to be. I simply refuted myself as an unreasonable scapegoat. But you knew that.

2) Provide a more reasonable explanation to life then. By all means.

3) Evolution isn't very difficult to understand. I mean, most of us are taught it our entire lives. We were made to make assumptions on how this world formed from the evolutionary worldview. You can't say people don't understand it. We all do, and we all understand it very well. The problem with evolution is that there's no proof for it. It also has many more problems with it as well. As a matter of fact, there's literally hundreds upon hundreds, and even thousands, of scientists who agree that the Darwinian Evolutionary theory is, in fact, wrong.

I mean, just look at the number of scientists (including secularists) who have signed this petition (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660).

It doesn't even stop there...
900 scientists who signified their opposition at DissentFromDarwin.org
Source: http://www.rae.org/pdf/darwinskeptics.pdf

300 medical doctors at Physicians & Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
Source: https://www.yumpu.com/it/document/view/30239367/pssi-members-list-07232011/11

30 thousand science teachers opposing Darwin
Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/404.summary

100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that "intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution."
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20100711235435/http://musicology.typepad.com/dialm/files/religions.pdf

I'm sorry to burst your bubble. Until darwinian evolution is proven, it'll always be untrue.

 

1) You claim I take your source out of context. However, your source clearly states that the babblings from Victor Hurowitz were false claims made before any expeditions ever began. Your own source claims that Victor was proven incorrect. I then quoted multiple paragraphs from your own source that amplifies that fact; the fact that Genesis was not copied from any Sumerian text.

2) You said, "The reference Authors are not "your sources"." I never claimed this. In fact, I pointed out the citation my sources used. Later on, you claimed that my sources used references, but then began talking about things without citation that you didn't agree with. However, it doesn't matter now considering that your own source was more powerful than any source I could've used. Your own source disproves the point you tried to use it for.

3) Everything else you're saying is just your own interpretation of the facts. I need not say anything else to you, because you took the little bit of rope you had and hung yourself with it. So much for schooling the professor, huh?

 

This is a nonsense statement. Science does not have any way to prove ANYTHING to be true. (It DOES provide for hypotheses to be proven false.)

Darwinian evolution will continue as the foundation of all modern biology until and unless it is supplanted by some other theory that shows equivalent or greater usefulness in predicting and explaining what we see in biology.

So far, evolution has been fabulously successful. In fact, there is no competing scientific theory.

 

And you're a materialist who believes nothing can be proven true. Your stance is self-defeating, and any truism you attempt to claim will be considered false due to your own self-defeating beliefs.

 

1) the question is how did life arise on "EARTH" and not how, given an infinite amount of time, life arose in the universe.

These are two different questions.

2) I did not make the de facto claim that some God named YHWH is responsible for creating life on earth.

It is fallacy to suggest that because there are no other proven explanations that the claim "YHWH did it" is true.

There are reasonable hypothesis for how life could have originated via laws of the universe and interactions of inorganic matter that we know of.

After reviewing some of these ideas I find that there are still unanswered questions but it is foolish to just assume "God did it" on this basis.

What would be an interesting debate is to look at some of those questions in more detail rather than having to deal with your never ending fallacies that you repeat over and over again.

For example, one question that I personally find vexing not how matter could have organized itself into proteins, DNA, cells and so on. Coming from a background in chemistry, biochemistry and microbiology I do not find this vexing at all and if you want to get into the details of this we can.

What I do find vexing is how these inanimate entities, operating under the basic principles and laws of physics and chemistry, gained knowledge of themselves ?

It is no surprise that many educated folks think there may be some God, or God-like force involved. I am one of those people.

What is abject nonsense is the claim "its YHWH" and we know this to be true because we do not have the mental capacity to understand other explanations.


Getting back to the rational behind my personal belief. Try this experiment.

Look down at the palm of your hand. Then make your index finger move. Then wiggle your pinkie.

Now try to explain how such a thing is possible. How is it that a thought, was able to manifest itself onto the physical world ?

Human beings are limited in that our thoughts are only able to manifest in the physical world within our own bodies. We can make a finger or toe move but we have yet to master the ability to make objects move that are outside of the physical body through force of will.

If one could master the ability to manipulate matter and energy "externally" through force of will then one would have godlike powers.

You should be sorry. Sorry for being a purveyor of ignorance.

Evolution is a scientific fact. It simply means that species change over time due to genetic mutations.

Not for most but you sure seem to be having trouble with the concept.

 

But, such is what Pilgrims did with the aborigines of this land. Lol

What the heck are you talking about?

Oh, yeah? where did you pull that story from? I want sources of your babbling. Please, if your statements come from a book, a historian, such will be invalid if no written records from those old times are shown. Please don't come here with the conjectures idealized by somebody else.

I'm not denying your point, but you must show your evidence.

See? you are now confronted to different sources. You don't want to follow the way the Bible validates life, on the other hand, the pattern of validate life you are following also stinks, and stinks a lot, because it is ruled by convenience. You don't kill a dog the same way you do with a rat, and your judgment about their survival is simple a different model.

And guess what, you can't attack the model from the Bible because the model you follow stinks. So, about this point, you have nothing to argue against the Bible.

No one can answer that silly question, The God worshipping is about belief, so live it just that way.

And without the existence of a God, do you think won't be the need of killing to survive? Lol.

Oh, come on...!

You just have recognized that we need to kill in order to survive.

Compassion is when you kill in that way that the animal won't suffer a lot.

The animal will die someday anyway. But, lets say, the lamb can feed an entire family for a few days. So, killing the lamb fast, will provide food for the family.

But, if you do like Spaniards, and in a coliseum you start to kill a bull slowly, making the animal suffering for a long period of time, first by hitting the legs of the animal to make them weak, later releasing the bull and hit the animal to weak it more and more, while the animal is suffering pain until is finally killed as part of a show, such is not having "compassion" for the animal.

Do you understand this part now?

The rapist was forced to work to maintain the family. Do you think that the rapist was just free to go somewhere? Forget about it. Such event of a rapist forced to get married and do nothing perhaps is a custom here in modern times, but it was not so when the government of Israel was ruling under God's laws. OK?

I'm a man, so if Bob does what you say he does to other men, according to the Police list of crimes, sodomy is penalized.

Yes, just pull your own police records, and one of the crimes is sodomy. And sodomy is what homosexuals do, and sodomy is what married homosexuals do... I wonder why police don't arrert to all those sodomites around...

As far as this discussion is in progress, your points are all invalid, and it appears that your level of intellect might not be higher than a third grade elementary school student. You must exercise and improve your reasoning.

You are correct, stick with me and ask, I have researched a lot about religion, and you are correct, many original points of the original doctrine found in the Bible have been corrupted. Just point the ones you want to know about. I think I can at least provide a guide to a better understanding of what the original doctrine is about.

You need to increase your wisdom to apply properly each one of the verses found in the Bible. You just can't discuss a Biblical point using loose verses from here and there. You must first read the entire context in orden to understand what those single verses are about.

You see? There is a difference in committing a rape against a woman thru the "right hole" and a complete different thing is raping a man thru the rectum. Even when it is a rape, the coupling of a man with a woman is in accord with our nature, on the other hand, having sex thru the rectum is filthy, anti-nature, and as God himself said it: an abomination.

Oh come on! The US is forcing everybody in the world to have democratic governments, and you are blinded following your flag. Don't start silly arguments. Let them be.

 

No, I am informing you about how scientific method works.

I am well aware that you reject science.

 

The writer of the article, my source, "IS" Victor Hurowitz.

So now you are claiming that Victor Hurowitz clearly states that the babblings of Victor Hurowitz were false claims made before any expeditions began ?

Good Grief ! Please - stop now before you make yourself look even sillier.

The source does not say that Genesis does not borrow from Sumerian/Babylonian myth. Where are you getting this from ?

It talks about the failings of previous scholarship in overstating the relationship between Sumerian lore and Genesis.

Horowitz is critical of previous claims of "direct dependency" stating rather that the authors of Genesis drew upon a range of sources of which Enuma Elis is just one.

 

1) Your source has multiple authors. The subsequent authors have disproven the babblings of Victor Hurowitz. You need to examine your source again.

2) You're repeating yourself over and over and over. You're just wasting my time. I'll show you the quotes again.

How about such juicy quotes such as, "[W]ho can tell how much more remote such records may carry us into the past? The day may not be far distant when Nimrod’s Biography, Noah’s History of the Flood, and Adam’s Autobiography, shall become standard works among the civilized nations of the earth"

and, "The similarities are really not so striking as we might expect ... In fact, the divergences are much more far-reaching and significant than are the resemblances, most of which are not any closer than what we should expect to find in any two more or less complete creation versions (since both would have to account for the same phenomena and since human minds think along much the same lines) which might come from entirely different parts of the world and which might be utterly unrelated to each other."

These are from your own source.

Let us continue: "In discussing the possible connection between Marduk and the God of the Hebrew Bible, Heidel noted that the idea of a primeval war between a god and the sea is an idea born in the West and imported into Mesopotamia, so the Bible would more likely have borrowed it from closer neighbors than the Babylonians. Here, Heidel relies on evidence in myths discovered at Ugarit (on the Mediterranean coast of modern Syria) a decade after the First World War (and ipso facto unavailable to Smith and Delitzsch). Proof that this was indeed the case comes from the words the Bible uses for the sea monster. On the fifth day of Creation, in Genesis 1:21, God creates Tannîn, often translated “sea serpents&#8221. This same creature appears as tnn, or Tunnan, in Ugaritic myth: "

And, "Assyriologist Wilfred Lambert, who is preparing the eagerly awaited authoritative edition of Enu ̄ ma Eliš,notes that many of the parallels between the Babylonian poem and the Bible are as common throughout Near Eastern literature as to be insignificant.16 The watery beginnings of the universe have parallels not only in other Mesopotamian Creation myths but even in Egyptian and Greek texts and thus cannot be evidence of particularly Babylonian influence. The splitting of the waters (in Genesis, on the second day) is uniquely parallel to the splitting of aqueous Tiamat in Enu ̄ ma Eliš, although the splitting of other substances is well attested in Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Egyptian and Greek myths. As for the third day, Lambert finds a Mesopotamian parallel to the separation of the sea from the dry land, but it is not from Enu ̄ ma Eliš. The most important parallel Lambert finds is with the seventh day, the Sabbath. Man is created in Enu ̄ ma Eliš to give rest to the gods. If so, both Enu ̄ ma Eliš and Genesis 1:1–2:4a climax with divine rest.17 All told, Lambert sees the connections between Genesis 1 and Enu ̄ ma Eliš as relatively few in number. "


And, "As recent scholarship is making clear, simplistic comparison between Enu ̄ ma Eliš and the biblical tradition—as if the Bible were directly dependent on Enu ̄ ma Eliš and it alone—is patently untenable."

 

Rubbish. I haven't said that at all. What is said is that certain peoples have not evolved a part of the body as far as others due to lack of differing circumstances. Different nations have evolved different skin colours, not because one is superior in any way, but because of climatic circumstances.

 

Its your belief that truisms don't exist. Therefore, you can't make such statements.


- - - Updated - - -

If its scientific fact, then prove it. Show me evidence of Darwinian evolution at work. Do it. Otherwise you're just wasting my time.

 

I was talking about the Bible. The book that you seem to think we should be basing society on.

That's what happens in the Bible. Funny that you are claiming we should use that book as a moral guide to "valuate life" but, you do not seem to know its contents.

You need evidence that the Bible has God ordering the killing of women, children and babies in some cases but allows the virgin women to be kept alive in others ?

I will be happy to look up the exact passages for you in Deuteronomy and other books from the Bible if you like but I am thinking perhaps we are not on the same page here ?

You have no clue what ideology I use to validate life so why are you making claims about something which you have no clue ?

Even if the model I did have stunk, this does not negate claims in relation to the Bible. Fallacy.

I am not the one claiming that the Bible validates life. You have given nothing to back up this claim other than faith in some unproven God.

You are not using your brain. Clearly an "all powerful God" could have created a being whose survival is not dependent on the death of other living things.

What does this have to do for your suggestion that one person be punished for the crimes of another. In this case the person raped being forced to marry the rapist ?

You are the one claiming that a rapist should be forced to marry the person who got raped. Gender matters not.

How come all of a sudden if it you who was the one who got raped, all of a sudden you are trying to wiggle out of this rule that you think is so good ?

Kind of ironic that the fellow who makes all kinds of claims about things of which he has no clue then turns around and refers to others as 3rd grade intellect.

Now because I said something you agree with all of a sudden I am no longer 3rd grade intellect.

I would be happy to talk to you about context in the Bible but you need to seriously up your game. So far all I have seen is ignorance of what is actually in the book.

Once again I have not seen any understanding of the Bible coming from you so far. Hopefully that will change.

What is perhaps more disconcerting is the lack of logic you have displayed so far.

So you are now claiming that a woman should be punished for the crimes of the dude who raped her because the crime of rape is not an abomination to God and the same punishment should not be given to a man because this is an abomination to God.

Yet previously you admit that we do not know the thoughts of God and thought me even stating such an obvious fact was silly.

Its called logical consistency, Get some. If we do not know Gods thoughts, then you can not claim to "This is an abomination to God and this is not".

Not does it follow, even if we knew the thoughts of God in relation to what kind of Sex he was okay with, that the victim of rape should be punished for the crimes of the rapist.

Get an Argument Mr. calling others 3rd grade intellect.

"God Himself said it" ?? What, ... did you sit down with God over tea the other day ?

 

Victor Hurowitz (1948-2013)

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff • 04/10/2013

It is always a special tragedy when a scholar dies relatively young. Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, a widely respected professor in the department of Bible, archaeology and ancient Near East at Ben-Gurion University, died unexpectedly in January at age 64 in the course of a hospital operation.

Alexander Heidel
Heidel aimed his book not at other Assyriologists but at biblical scholars and Christian ministers, and it should be regarded as a work of Christian apologetics rather than as a contribution to Heidel's own field of Assyriology. Many of his arguments stressing the uniqueness of the Genesis creation story have been overturned by later scholarship, but at the time of its publication the book was a milestone in introducing the wider public to the parallels between Mesopotamian and Hebrew mythology.

Enuma Elis is just one interpretation of Creation's story. Note

The Bible isn't dependent on Enuma Elis, there are many other similar stories much earlier than Genesis.


Most creation stories draw on each other. The Story of Noah draws on previous stories. Most of the 10 commandments draw on early civilisations. Moses instructions often follow early traditions.

 

The entire article "The Genesis of Genesis" was written by Victor Hurowitz. http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/babylonbaghdad.pdf

There are different articles in the link but these articles have nothing to do with "The Genesis of Genesis" which is the topic under discussion.

There are no other Authors of "The Genesis of Genesis" article, never mind Authors which have disproven any of what you call babblings.

You are making yourself look really silly.

You give this quote claiming that it is a quote from some other Author refuting the babblings of Hurowitz but THIS QUOTE IS FROM HUROWITZ !!

You are hopelessly lost and confused.

I myself quoted this passage in my last post and explained it to you. I however quote the stuff you conveniently left out which puts the quote into perspective. You sneaking disingenuous cherry picking sneaker you !

Hurowitz does not say that Genesis does not borrow from Sumerian/Babylonian myth as you previously claimed.

He talks about the failings of previous scholarship in overstating the relationship between Sumerian lore and Genesis.

Horowitz is critical of previous claims of "direct dependency" stating rather that the authors of Genesis drew upon a range of sources of which Enuma Elis is just one.

Horowitz is the one doing the criticizing of previous scholarship. There are no authors in this article criticizing Horowitz as you desperately seem to want to claim.

You argument is hopelessly lost.

 

You are so hell-bent in your pursuit of mindless ignorance that you did not even realize that part of my last post supports your claim of God being involved in creation.

Are you so ignorant of evolution that you need proof that genetic mutation happens ?

Here is a list of diseases caused from genetic mutation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

Much of the time genetic mutations are harmful but occasionally they are beneficial.

Did you not know that differing eye color is from genetic mutation ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

Most differences from one human to another is due to a genetic mutation somewhere down the line.

These mutations are how species evolve over time.

 

1) No one argued that mutations don't happen. However, mutations remove information. They don't increase it.

2) What's so beneficial about blue colored eyes? As far as I can tell, people with light-colored eyes are more prone to macular degeneration in the eyes (a disease).
Source: https://www.enhancedvision.com/low-vision-info/eye-conditions/causes-of-macular-degeneration.html

Also, it is caucasian men who are more prone to being color blind than any other race in the world.
Source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/45100

So, I really don't see the benefit in such a mutation. Whatever the case may be, that mutation has been added into the DNA genepool within caucasians of European descent. It's much like a poodle. Poodles look cute, but the number of genetic mutations they've acquired has made them prone to a large multitude of genetic health problems
Source: http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/health/standardpoodles.html

1) Your source is one PDF that talks about one subject. That subject is divided into multiple sub-topics. Yes, Victor authors Genesis of Genesis. However, there are other sub-topics to your PDF source that speaks upon the same main subject that disproves the claims written by Victor.

2) No one argued that anyone but Victor wrote Genesis of Genesis. You're missing the point here.

3) It's not another article. Rather, it's the same source, same article, same topic, different sub-topic. Listen, man. When in school, when you read about a book designed to disprove a subject or person, that book usually goes over that subject or person it's trying to disprove first. After it goes over that, it then provides evidences, reasons, quotes and sources disproving it. That's what's going on in your source. I'm fascinated that you haven't caught on to this.

4) This is you reiterating your confused interpretations. I'm not interested in it.

 

Are you trying to make a point? If so, its not clear.

You didn't need to say it to suggest it. You're suggesting whites are evolving more than any other human. If you're not suggesting this, then simply deny that whites are evolving more than any other human.

 

What a beautiful crap.

Black holes do not exist.

The whole idea of black holes is pure fantasy.

From this fact that black holes do not exist, the quantum evolution idea is nothing but insane thoughts. Lol.

 

Cameron, I do not think he's going to understand what you're getting at here. I certainly do, since you're actually pointing out that the existence of black holes is actually shown by deferred evidence. However, I'm quite confident he's not going to catch on to that.

 

The children of the Pilgrims used to know by heart entire parts of the Bible. The "Thanksgiving Day" you celebrate the last Thursday of November is the Biblical Feast of Tents which usually is celebrated sometimes in September and sometimes in October.

See? The pilgrims used to worship their god in accord to the biblical feasts, not so with the Anglican religion. Later on, when the first generations passed away, the descendants got corrupted, invented a new form of government separating church and State, and changed the Feast of Tents (a harvest feast) to November. Amazingly, this is what Jeroboam, a former king if Israel did with the same feast, because he wanted to impede Israelites going to the kingdom of Judah to celebrate this feast at the right time. So, this Jeroboam invented his own feast, as today this nation celebrates trhe biblical feast of giving thanks to God in a different month.

The point is that the origins of this nation carries innocent blood that was spilled on the ground when entire families were murdered by the colonizers. You just can't cover up this sad part. For this reason, you can't judge other peoples, other beliefs, actions in base of beliefs, because this nation did exactly the same.

Got it?

Well, if you say that it is in the Bible, then please write where is it... I want to check how virgins were saved for.... for what? Explain your point giving the correspondent biblical text.

Great! I like that.

It seems that you are getting better in this discussion. So please, take your time, order your findings, and bring here your statements about virgin women kept alive while the rest of women can be killed. I'm thirsty of knowledge, and you are bringing me something new that I want to learn. Thanks in advance.

Do you know what?

You are correct!

Then, please tell me how you valuate life. Please expand your position when is about humans and when is about animals. (Please do not argue that humans are also animals, when I ask for a separate explanation of your position is because we are the same species, and even animals are found in their majority to treat different when killing one of their own and when killing other species.

After knowing your way of valuating life, we can compare it with the biblical way. Remember that this is not about looking for a winner, but it is just about different opinions.

OK. So you(*) are a criminal killing tens of persons, but you say that the bible is not just because also shows that its followers have killed tens of persons. Then, your position is not just either. How dare you complaint against the bible?

(* "you" means "non believers")

What I'm telling you about the Bible, that such is a model to validate life. You can follow it, you can ignore it, you can reject it, and so forth. But, because you disagree with the model given by the Bible, by no means such is an indication that you can state that such model is barbarism, because today, in modern times, the US army, the people in the cities in the US, are killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and you don't care. You are happy filling up your car gas tank which is cheaper by the gallon of gasoline because innocent children were murdered by US bombs dropped from airplanes. This is to say, you don't care of filling up your car gas tank with bloody gasoline, and on the contrary, you may be happy seeing the US army destroying other cou8ntries to control them and practically steal their goods so you can enjoy a wonderful life... however, if God tells you to do the same... then you complaint... what is wrong with you?

Why not?

Explain. Show a different version of life on earth where there is no need to kill other animals to survive. What in specific is wrong with the killing of animals in order to survive.

Oh... I see.

Do you know what is your big mistake?

I will tell you.

You are missing one big point here. You are judging the biblical order in base of today's society.

In order to understand this biblical order, you "have to" think and experience what those men lived in those times.

For example, today people can be religious, straight, decent, homosexual, crooked, atheist, and more by their own. This is to say, there is no a single pattern for everybody in general. People can believe whatever they want to believe.

In the case of those biblical times, people had a common pattern, which was the biblical doctrines. You see, even rapists were religious people. Do you understand? And they worshiped the same God. Did you get it? And they have the same rules in the whole nation, comprende?

Then, the rapist, who took a woman to have sex, he was a religious person who committed that fault. The woman, the victim, was also a religious person. Both were followers of the same religion, they lived a life based in religious doctrines. They weren't perfect, but they received since childhood the religious teachings.

They understood the same laws since childhood, they weren't ignorant of the laws of the bible. Even the apostle Peter told his god that he never put anything impure in his mouth when in a vision he was told to eat impure animals. See? a common fisherman knew the laws of his god.

Then, when the fault was made, this religious man, the rapist, had to marry the victim, who also was a religious woman.

In the US things are different. The rapist may be a religious dude, the rapist may have never been informed of the biblical laws and teaching, perhaps yes, the victim may be a religious woman or, perhaps not... the ideologies and way of life are completely different.

For this reason, you can't swallow the biblical teachings and laws, because you have grow up in a different kind of culture.

You are judging the marriage of the rapist with his victim in base of "your culture" which is different than the biblical culture.

See? you are trying to be sneaky... and ridiculous. This current tendency of not making difference between gender in humans is laughable.

Look, I have no idea about what your goal is when you suggest such a stupidity, but even you don't believe what you just wrote. OK?

Perhaps you think that you must "win" this argument at all costs, but I will tell you this, your efforts are demonstrating that you won't care becoming a complete fool in order to write anything in order to respond my argument.

Please stop writing more incongruences.

An elephant see things different than a flea. The same as well, an indoctrinate person who is not living the same culture established in the Bible will find the laws as not appropriated to solve a case of rape. But remember, it is not because the Biblical laws are incorrect, but because you belong to a different culture with different ways to solve a rape.

That's all.

OK, OK, I will give you a higher estimate, lets say, 4th grade in public elementary school or 2nd grade in private religious school. Don't push it now...

It is not about a disagreement with you, but face it, you are saying things that are so ridiculous... sheesss!

You are entitled to your personal opinions. Still, if you have a point which shows ignorance in the historical or moral context, please feel free to discuss it. No one will argue that the bible lacks of errors, however, when you read the US Constitution and the first words say "We the People" in the time this document was written, "We the People" never had the meaning of men, women, servants, etc.. but solely a small group in society. Women can't give opinions in public about politics, slaves have no voi8ce at all, servants can't say anything as well, the common carpenter had no voice... and even today, "we the People" still is about the ones in power, because regardless of what people claims, politicians and judges will do what the powerful order them to do.

So, "We the People" is actually a big error, it should say, "We, the powerful people".,

Same as well, there are some inconsistencies in the bible, but, neither the bible nor the US Constitution are obsolete just because some errors found inside them. Got it?

As far as this discussion has reached, you have wrote lots of words against the bible, lots of critics based on a different culture than the biblical times, and nothing concrete to state that the bible is invalid, not the right model, and so forth.

If you are looking for logic, lol, neither science accepts logic as valid in order to make an argument.

This situation has been explained right above.

You forgot to mention that God himself called homosexuality an abomination. We for sure know God's thoughts about homosexuality,

We know what kind of sex God wants humans to have: a man will take his woman.

You can't argue about this biblical fact.

Don't try to play games about it.

To God, all this fuss about gays is abomination, and according to the penalty, all these people doing filthy sex will die, this is to say, they won't enjoy eternal life according to God.

So, believers and non believers who do abomination will die forever.

So, if you do abomination, you will die forever... you will be burnt and become ashes... such is the penalty according to God.

 

Not always, depending on the type of or the process of mutation.

Information can be altered, substituted, inserted or lost. Look it up.

 

Inserted data would mean new data. Show me one mutation that increased data, please?

 

Numbers 31 is one example when the Israelites are fighting the Midianites

In other cases they just killed everyone:

Deuteronomy 2 - After defeating King Sihon's army (who they fought because God had hardened Sihon's heart such that he did not agree to let the Israelites pass through his land), rather than just proceed through the territory they killed all the townspeople.

Exterminating civilians does not rank high on my list of good ways to "valuate life" but you are welcome to your opinion.

It is not surprising that someone who thinks logic and rational thought not valid would think that extermination of civilians on the basis of what some defeated king did is a proper way to valuate life.

Again you lack of logic is affecting your ability to make a valid argument. Just because some human wrote some stuff about some God he believed in thousands of years ago does not make what this fellow wrote "The word of God".

There you go again, speaking for God and pretending to know the thoughts of God.

Silly as your belief that you know God's will may be, what is even sillier is that you do not even understand the book from which you claim your beliefs come from.

Where in the Bible does God say that believers and non believers who do sin/abomination will die forever ?