In a message dated May 14, 1998 HOWARD8984 writes:

And monkeys come from Mars, right? The Christian in his desperation to save his religion from valid criticism will take any verse of scripture and imbue it with a meaning that he himself invents. Look at Howard’s elaborate efforts to escape the only rational conclusion that Genesis 7:2 contained an obvious oversight amongst its editorship.

Howard in this case cites the phenomenon "walk with god" as the key to untangling this obvious inconsistency. (If this were not an inconsistency, why all the mind-stretching effort to undo it?) Again, in the manner we have become so used to expecting from our fundamentalist friend, Howard assumes the license to interpret for us what is meant by ‘walk with god’ in the effort to clear the Bible from the charges of internal discrepancy. Again, what we see in the end is more Howardian conjecture, replete with the subjectivism (which is the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness) we’ve come to know as the hallmark of his desperation.

I suppose what Howard is trying to say in his ‘rebuttal’ above is that god whispered into Noah’s ears the principles behind classifying beasts as ‘clean’ and ‘not clean’ on one of these little walks that the Bible mythologists refer to. Of course, the elasticity and convenience of little statements as "Enoch walked with God" and "Noah walked with God" are amplified in the hands of desperate men like Howard, whose antics to save his religion from reason are equaled only by the cheapest parlor tricks in any second-rate hotel in suburban Las Vegas.

Does the Bible verify at any point that the supposed ‘intimate exchange’ between Noah and his ‘god’ included instruction about the difference between ‘clean’ and ‘not clean’ beasts? Is there any biblical reference that can back up this allegation with any certainty at all? Or is Howard’s subjective and desperate conjectures the best we have?

Howard then points to the significance of the beast in his religion’s primitive love for bestial sacrifices, which he states is dated to "pre-flood" history. If there were so much concern at this time for the condition of the beast destined for sacrifice, why were there no ordinances pertaining to this concern until ‘god’ gave his ordinances (so-called "Law") to Moses, several hundreds of years later??? Could it be that Howard is inferring that the "Law" which the Bible purports to have been entrusted to that horrific character Moses was not original with god’s issuance in Leviticus?

Howard then cites Genesis 6:20, which states that ‘god’ delivered the beasts to Noah. If this is true, why the commandment to Noah to "take to [himself] by sevens...." if ‘god’ were going to see to it that the beasts were going to come to Noah without Noah’s apparent effort in ‘rounding them up’, so to say?

Then Howard, in an apparent confession of his own lack of understanding of the myth, states: "Whether Noah knew the difference of clean or unclean, God brought the exact ones He desired", which only frustrates his own line of argumentation entirely.

On top of that, he offers Ephesians 1:11, which states: "In whom [the context is Christ] also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the council of his own will". How this verse applies, only Howard and his ‘god’ know. However, now that we know what this verse says (Howard doesn’t seem too keen on quoting it himself, let alone explaining its relevancy), I can only ask in its context WHOSE will he considers all things to ‘worketh after’?? Apparently, from the foregoing, Howard’s own.

But that’s not all, folx:

Osareya also pointed out the obvious discrepancy just a few verses away, starting with the eighth verse:

So quickly the editors of this religious hoax forget the statement in Gen. 7:2? Here, in Gen. 7:8-9, it’s obvious that only two of both "clean beasts and of beasts that are not clean" went to Noah and his floating menagerie, while in Gen. 7:2, it clearly states that there will be seven of the "clean beasts", rather than only two. Can so glaring an inconsistency as this be dismissed with the wave of a few verses from other books of the Bible taken out of context? I imagine the attempt has already been made, and I imagine we’ll see such a feat attempted again and again. The Christian is notorious for running to far-off scriptural citations to justify or rationalize the Bible’s plethora of inconsistencies and direct contradictions. This is nothing new, but it still falls flat on its face.

I don’t think this ‘alleged inconsistency’ has been dealt with yet, unless of course my ‘release’ from exile is at best partial, and I’ve missed the magic post that answers all questions.

I don’t mean to nag, but......$

Tindrbox

_________________________________