In a message dated May 13, 1998 HOWARD8984 writes:

Why would anyone think ‘god’ did reveal the ‘meaning of die [sic] to them previously’? If it is not mentioned, should we presume that Adam and Eve were taught by ‘god’ about the concept ‘death’? If you want to argue that ‘god’ did so teach Adam and Eve, what scriptural basis do you have to account for this ASSumption? If it is not mentioned that god defined ‘death’ in his threat to Adam and Eve, HOW can one state with any certainty at all that ‘god’ DID ‘define’ it??? Who are you, Howard8984, to put words into the Bible where no words were before???

No, it doesn’t, now that you mention it. Does that mean I can fill in the blanks as you presume to do in the above example? Or am I not allowed because I don’t claim to be ‘guided by the Spirit’ in such matters??

Me thinks you may be context-dropping here again, Howard. God’s threat of death has nothing to do with going ‘to the bathroom’ - it has everything to do with the nature of man, which at that time did not include death, according to the myths in Genesis, otherwise God would never have threatened them with it in the first place. (By the way, I doubt that Adam or Eve ever built bathrooms back in the ‘Garden of Eden’ - I imagine they just did their ‘thing’ wherever they were standing. Just a thought, buddy.)

Are you going to make an alter call now, Howard? You might want to first define what you mean by ‘intuitive knowledge’. On that note, what does the Bible say about ‘intuitive knowledge’? My Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible makes no entry for the words ‘intuitive’ or ‘intuition’. In fact, it seems the authors of the Bible had far more warfare on their minds than matters of knowledge, for my Concordance jumps from ‘INTRUDING’ to ‘INVADE’, giving any form of the word ‘INTUITIVE’ amiss. Go figure. Could it be that Adam and Eve may NOT have had ‘intuitive knowledge of the word ‘die’’? Yes? No? Maybe? Or a simple (and honest), "I don’t know"????

Good question! Why would ‘god’ (supposing there were such a thing) tell man anything he ‘didn’t understand’? The Bible is full of things that are misunderstood all the time, and the numerous divisions among Christian sects as a consequence of the vague approximations in the Bible are testimony to this fact. Many sects in fact do not agree even on the method of baptism - whether it be ‘sprinkling’ or ‘dunking’ or ‘wading’ or what have you. The Bible is not a source to go to as a guide for intellectual comprehension. (In other words, it does not teach man how to think, only to obey and to accept its claims on faith. This requires no genuine and profound ability to understand at all.)

Interesting. Any dialogs recorded in Genesis between Adam and his ‘creator’? Or just between Eve and the ‘serpent’? And since when do serpents ‘communicate’ with humans? I used to study ophiology (the study of snakes), and never once did I ever come across a specimen that could speak to me. Then again, I don’t eat of every herb of the garden, hint, hint. This tale of the serpent in the ‘Garden’ is nothing short of pure fabulistic fantasy, and I find the capacity to accept it as truth - especially today with knowledge and reason so readily available to individuals -TERRIFYING. You should be ashamed of yourself!!

Does the Bible say this? Where does the Bible say this about Adam and Eve? Where does the Bible elaborate on this ‘image’ theme and state what you are stating here above? Or are you just inserting more words into the Bible that were not there before? You do this with us, why wouldn’t you do it also with the Bible? Just curious.

Where does the Bible mention that ‘they knew the definition of tree’ and what is the definition of ‘tree’ that the Bible gives? In fact, on that note, does the Bible give any indication as to how man is supposed to arrive at definitions of terms if they are not ‘divinely revealed’ to us by the Holy Godhead Himself? Seems to me that the Bible is rather silent on the study of concept-formation, to be sure. You are free to correct me if you lie, I mean like (this out to be entertaining!!).

I see. And since you were not there to witness this exchange yourself, you simply believe it "because the Bible tells you so"?

SO was death an ‘option’ for her at this point, or....?? And does the Bible mention what Eve was thinking at this point? Or are you taking license again to insert even more words into the Bible that are not there?? That’s a third time, Howard. But I won’t restrict you, have at it, please continue. Interpret for us.

Her ‘previous knowledge’? Can you verify this allegation? Please explain this one, I for one would like to know your take on this.

Does the Bible record Eve saying that she placed ‘faith in the devils’ words’? Or is this another famous Howardian presumption?

Can you define what you mean by the word ‘bad’? How does the Bible define the word ‘bad’? Is this the same thing as ‘evil’? Is this just another one of your subjective inferences?

Perhaps Adam learned this behavior of evasion from someone he admired? Like ‘god’?? No, the Bible doesn’t say, but to argue that he didn’t do so would invoke the ‘fallacy of the argument from silence’, right? Please explain this fallacy for us, and tell me why it applies to Osareya’s statements, and not to yours.

The rest of Howard’s post was just as pointless as the parts I included here, but I wanted to show how ‘holey’ his style of ‘argumentation’ is. Most of it is based on pure subjective conjecture.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * $

However, here is a part of the Bible that I ahve apparently failed to ‘understand’ - whatever that means in biblical terms, and would welcome Howard’s input. I copied the following from a post I submitted to the group back in early March - long before Howard and several others joined the group. Since they did not have a chance to submit their opinions on this matter, I here provide them the opportunity. When I submitted this question back in March, I did not receive any response from the Christians of the forum, none that I remember indeed. In fact, I imagine the Christians of the forum who considered my following question did not know how to answer it. I’m sure it will give Howard plenty more opportunity to ‘interpret’ the Bible, a talent he’s developed to the point equal to any palm reader in town.

Here it goes:

Begin quote:

Subj: Two Questions About The Flood (see Session 3)

Date: March 2, 1998

• "god can get frustrated with people
• "god can be vengeful and evil
• "god can be destructive
• "in the long run god promises to work in cooperation with humanity to bestow blessing on ALL of creation (even you atheists -- smiling) 

To which Tindrbox (me) responds:

Not so fast.

Before we put the Flood myth in Genesis to rest as what it really is, a myth, I would like to ask those who accept the Genesis tale of Noah, his ark, and the aqueous deluge as genuine knowledge a couple questions that I myself find quite uncomfortable to answer, from the Christian’s perspective anyhow. That question proceeds thus:

In Genesis 7:2, ‘God’ allegedly commands to Noah:

My question is this: How was Noah supposed to know which ‘beasts’ were ‘clean’ and which ‘beasts’ were ‘not clean’, when these notions are not laid down until the "Law" was revealed to Moses?

The particular laws and ordinances that the ‘almighty’ revealed to Moses about supposedly ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ beasts was not an issue until long after Noah and his little barge of beasts were a done deal. If you look in Leviticus chapter 11, you will see an account of the Law as ‘revealed’ to Moses regarding ‘clean and unclean beasts’. Did this happen before or after Noah and the Flood?? Well, for that matter, who preceded whom? Did Moses live before Noah, and his accounts are just told after those of Noah? Or, as the order of the books in the Pentateuch suggests, did Noah’s lifetime predate that of Moses?

It seems that the notion of ‘clean and unclean beasts’ certainly came about long after Noah and his days preceding the Flood. In fact, according to my Concordance (Strong’s Exhaustive), the very first use of the word clean (in any sense) appears in Gen. 7:2, which I quote above. Therefore, I just wonder how Noah was supposed to understand this directive from God. There was no such thing as the ‘Mosaic Laws’ at the time Noah and his ark set sail. And to boot, there is no mention of God giving Noah foreknowledge of these ‘Mosaic Laws’ at the time of his little sailing excursion. In fact, the issue of ‘clean and unclean animals’ seems to be nothing more than an oversight of the Jewish authors of this version of the flood myth. (There are, according to Lloyd M. Graham, numerous versions of the flood myth, all of which either predate the Genesis version or appear completely independently from the version given in Genesis. See Graham’s Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, chapter VI, "Noah and the Flood" pg. 85 ff.)

Is this one of those pesky discrepancies that everyone’s always talking about? Or is this merely an oversight of the editors of the biblical tales who forgot that Noah predated Moses and his legal ramblings? It certainly seems inconsistent with the CONTEXT as laid down by the various books that open the Bible, or perhaps I’m taking everything out of context here. Hmmm, I wonder.

Have at it, folx!! I would certainly like to know how the Christian is supposed to defend this one. (I think I already know: "God knew in advance that ‘clean’ beasts would have to be more plentiful after the flood...." Spin that yarn, buddy!!)

May you each get what you deserve,

Tindrbox$

_________________________________