In a message dated March 5, 1998, RghtWnger writes:

Again, the religionist will indulge himself in an endless round of word games and Greek word divining in order to evade the faults of his precious 'scriptures', which are obviously no more than the preachings of a priestly elite utterly unconcerned with the 'love' and 'mercy' they touted so pretentiously. What amazes me is that some individuals in modern times actually believe this inane and absurd doggerel. Then again, there were the Heaven's Gaters of 1997 trying to steal a ride on some renegade comet on its nearest passing to earth. Some people will believe anything, even at the expense of their own minds.

Notice RghtWnger's own statement above: "Please notice that it is better translated along the lines…"

"Better"? Better for whom? Better for your agenda? You have listed a whole series of possible ways to translate the 'original' Greek words, without offering any kind of argument whatsoever as to why one should arrive at the conclusion that your preferred translation is "better" than the one that is "generally accepted".

You have completely defaulted on any reference to the text from which the 'original' Greek word in question was extracted, and thus you have completely forsaken the ever-precious context of the 'scriptures' that we keep hearing about (I'm surprised Justin didn't jump on that… Oh yeah, RghtWnger's 'argument' [a list of possible English synonyms] is okay, since it furthers a fellow 'Christian' in his defense against a wicked atheist!).

The fact is: the New Testament writings are very unclear and ambiguous on the whole doctrine of its position of the Old Testament's "Mosaic Laws". One can draw upon these verses - either in the 'original' Greek, or in English, or Outer Slabovian for that matter - and conclude anything one wishes to.

One thing is for certain about the writing of the precious 'scriptures': It is certainly foolish, and it is by no stretch a tool of arriving at certainty itself, certainly not one that I will ever use.

Exactly my point. All 'flesh' is basically all 'life'. I imagine that there is a tendency for some literalists and fundamentalists - when challenged on the issue of the Flood myth's absurdity - to draw on certain verses of the Bible, such as in this case Gen. 6:17 and 7:15, wherein the 'scriptures' mention the phrase that RghtWnger points out 'flesh with a breath of life'.

If RghtWnger is attempting to argue that this phrase 'flesh with a breath of life' is supposed to distinguish the flora from the fauna, and that the Flood myth thus excluded the flora (vegetation) from Noah's gathering list as dictated by his beloved 'God', then I say he has a long way to go to substantiate the argument.

The term 'flesh' is quite commonly applied to the flora: many varieties of fruits and vegetables are said to have a 'flesh' about them: peaches, apples, watermelons, eggplants, pumpkins, squash, zucchini, all have flesh. So do nuts. In fact, I have often heard the kernel of a nut referred to as a 'nut meat', and there is nothing more 'fleshy' than the notion of meat. So, to try to use this verse as some sort of excuse of the vegetable kingdom from requiring divine protection on Noah's ark is nonsense.

Also, look at the insects. Insects ("creeping things") were definitely on Noah's list of carry-ons in his pre-Flood preparation efforts. However, since when has it been that one refers to insects as having 'flesh'? If RghtWnger's objection were to have any consistent legitimacy, referring to insects and other tiny critters would have to be customary, but indeed it is not.

Furthermore, if you want to take a look at the latter half of the phrase that RghtWnger likes so much, namely the portion that says 'the breath of life', I ask: What life does not require some kind of respiration? By respiration I mean: the constant act of inhaling and exhaling, whether that action is of oxygen, as in the case of land animals, or of carbon dioxide, which I understand is the 'breath of life' of most plants?

Is this another attempt to evade the fact that the writer(s) of Genesis forgot to mention anything about 'God's plan' for the vegetable kingdom? Or, is this just more inane absurdity that I've come to know religionists for so consistently?

If someone tries to argue that plants do not have any kind of 'breath of life', then I think he ought to re-examine his premises. The fact is, plants rely on respiratory action just as do land and water animals, only it is a different process. One could not hold the ancient writers of myths to be aware of the discoveries of modern biology, but one could expect mad of modern times to read up a bit on basic science - not to mention logic! - in order to avoid the kind of obvious mistakes RghtWnger is walking into with these inferences.

It has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes, it has to do with reason, silly.

This one's the best yet! If it weren't so funny, I could probably try to take it seriously.

Again, the apologist for biblical myths must backpedal in order to rationalize the obvious oversights of the myths he's trying to defend.

Fact: There's no mention of the surety of the vegetable kingdom's survival during the Flood as told in the biblical version of the this common myth. All we have are biblical verses testifying that "every thing that is in the earth shall die" (Gen. 6:17). From such a universal statement as this, it is only logical to conclude that 'every things [which is living] shall die', since the concept 'death' only applies to living beings (metaphors notwithstanding).

Therefore, if 'every thing' includes plants, bushes, trees, lichens, etc., which could not survive half a year submerged underwater ('every thing that is in the earth shall die'…), then they too would face the same fate as all of 'wicked, evil mankind' too, right?

Does anybody really have a problem with my reasoning here? Or, am I the only one who sees this problem in RghtWnger's argument?

I certainly don't remember any verses that eluded to 'food that was left over from the trip' (some trip!). Can you show me a verse that indicates this? There may be a verse that addresses this issue, however I don't know of one, I could have overlooked it. Perhaps you're 100% correct, and I'm just another wicked, depraved and SELFISH man (I would agree with this last assessment of being selfish - Yes, I live for my own sake, and I am quite selfish, and I challenge anyone - whether religionist or atheist, whether anarchist or communist - to explain to me one valid point why SELFISHNESS is immoral in any way, shape or form!).

RghtWnger, you have shown:

1. That your lists of English alternatives for Greek words is essentially contentless in your attempts to argue your way out of the arbitrary nature of your religion's beloved 'scriptures';
2. That you cannot construct a valid argument;
3. That you cannot construct a sound argument;
4. That your evasions and rationalizations of obvious flaws are typical, predictable and tiresome; and
5. That your religion is still primitive. 

Either that, OR you just cannot tackle them.

Since we have not been shown how they are irrelevant, and you have not tackled them, I would conclude the latter.

Good day.

Tindrbox

_________________________________