So, my point hasn't been refuted yet?

Fucking win.

And I wasn't even trying, you people quoting the bible you.

And I agree with the angels and demons quote.

What kind of a Pinhead would say something like that?




And I agree with the angels and demons quote.

There is no good, tharuz. There is no evil. There is only flesh.

There is no good, tharuz. There is no evil. There is only flesh.

Delicious flesh....mmmmmmmm.....fleeessh.

Delicious flesh....mmmmmmmm.....fleeessh.

GREAT!!! We finally know what your butt is hungry for!

There is no good, tharuz. There is no evil. There is only flesh.

Dear god, why did an image of a zombie Bruce Lee munching on someone's arm just pop into my head?

Arrrrrrrgh, must wash brain.........................





Ummmmmm brains.

GREAT!!! We finally know what your butt is hungry for!

Dont tease me bitch.

:)

TheRuss,

I'm still failing to see what relevance you're attaching to the passage at 3:24. Want to elaborate?

Why were Adam and Eve condemned to live as tillers of the ground? Because they ate the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That was the poison fruit. That's the point I'm making.





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..."

3:19 "In the sweat of they face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return"

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 forever:"

3:23 "Therefore, the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken"




They are not in the KJV, nor are they in any other Bible I've ever seen.
I was referring to the following:
The forbidding of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to Adam and Eve
The fact that eating this fruit resulted in condemnation
The allegorical figures of Cain and Abel having 2 extremely different lifestyles
The slaughter of Abel by Cain
The rejection by God of Cain's offering
The acceptance by God of Abel's offering

They're in my King James Version. Not sure what you are denying here.



In other words, Daniel Quinn gets to pretend that t3h tru3 Genesis is whatever he wants it to be.
No. He's as allowed as anyone to posit the motivation behind the writing of a cryptic and mysterious story. And I'm allowed to find it more convincing than any others I've heard or read, and to have my worldview (i.e. the meaning and significance of "goodness") informed by it.


He demonstrates a dilettante's knowledge.
Now you're making claims without having the info to back it up. I've gone back and read the anthropological texts and the biological texts that back up the points made in his writings. I've seen the seminars he gives along with PhD Biologists. You are harping on the point that he has written fiction books and likening him to the author of The Da Vinci code without having done any of the research.

I'm still failing to see what relevance you're attaching to the passage at 3:24.

I already told you perfectly clearly in this post (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1997214&postcount=61):


It wasn't eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that killed them, it was being cut off from the tree of life.


I was referring to the following:
The forbidding of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to Adam and Eve
The fact that eating this fruit resulted in condemnation
The allegorical figures of Cain and Abel having 2 extremely different lifestyles
The slaughter of Abel by Cain
The rejection by God of Cain's offering
The acceptance by God of Abel's offering

They're in my King James Version. Not sure what you are denying here.

I already told you what I was "denying" at some length in this post (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1996007&postcount=26).



He's as allowed as anyone to posit the motivation behind the writing of a cryptic and mysterious story.

He's not talking about the Book of Genesis, though. He's talking about some other document that he's decided to interpret - despite the fact that he's never seen it.


Now you're making claims without having the info to back it up.

If the dude was a scientist, he'd be making falsifiable predictions. If he was a scholar, he'd be presenting his ideas under his own name in the non-fiction section.




I find your obliviousness to how thick with bullshit this whole affair is disconcerting. It should be patently clear that if I make up an elaborate interpretation of a document to support one of my worldview, but the document itself contradicts my interpretation of it, my interpretation needs to be reworked. I don't know whether the contradictions are your fault or Daniel Quinn's, and honestly, I don't care. In either case, someone needs to go back to the source material and carefully review it.

You keep talking about being cut off from the tree of life but ignoring the fact that this was the punishment for eating at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is supportive of the DQ theory of the origin of the story of the Fall of Adam.

He's talking about the Fall of Adam story and how certain aspects of it have always been cryptic to us, yet would be less cryptic if viewed as parts of a story written by the Semitic Herders of northern Africa at the time of the origins of the story, rather than the civilized agriculturalists to their north.

The theory that the origins of the story of the Fall of Adam originated with the Semitic Herders is falsifiable, if there were evidence of it originating elsewhere, but I don't think it's likely that any evidence will be found that shifts the probability scale one way or the other. The best method is to look at the story itself and do the best we can to divine the intentions of its writers, which might give us an idea of who the authors were.

Why not read the link I posted? I've compared it to the text (King James Version, the only onoe I have on hand) repeatedly and found it enlightening. If I'm failing to do the analysis justice, that's my shortcoming. If you're refusing to read it, then why am I wasting my time re-reading and citing the Bible over and over to reinforce the points I'm making?

Here's the link for you once again:

http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/southwestern.shtml

GODDAM WHAT A DERAIL.

This investigation of the stories in Genesis was not, for me, an exercise in biblical exegesis. I'd gone looking for a way to understand how in the world we'd brought ourselves face to face with death in such a relatively short period of time--10,000 years, a mere eyeblink in the lifespan of our species--and had found it in an ancient story that we long ago adopted as our own and that remained stubbornly mysterious to us as long as we insisted on reading it as if it were our own.

He is full of **** and pushing an agenda. He knows it. He admits it.

When you're ready to actually learn, let me know. Until then, I'm not wasting any more time trying to explain things to you.

Skillful, why are you avoiding me?

Can you answer my question?

You claimed that Mesopotamian civilization expanded to conquer "tribal" peoples. Which Mesopotamian Civilization? Which Nomads/Which type of Nomad? When?

GODDAM WHAT A DERAIL.

AGREED! So lets get back on topic, and back to the real question....length or width?

TheRuss,

I'm not the one who's making vague statements and refusing to clarify when asked. All I did was explain the theory of the genesis of the story of the Fall of Adam in the Book of Genesis to which I subscribe and how it relates to my feelings/thoughts on the subject asked by the O.P. You decided to challenge me without ever explaining your grounds, demand scientifically falsifiable hypotheses and act high and mighty about the vague statements you refuse to clarify.

I have been polite all along, done my best to explain why I believe what I believe, even citing specific passages of the bible. When you're done being pretentious, we'll have a conversation.

Skillful, why are you avoiding me?

Can you answer my question?

You claimed that Mesopotamian civilization expanded to conquer "tribal" peoples. Which Mesopotamian Civilization? Which Nomads/Which type of Nomad? When?

I have been polite all along, done my best to explain why I believe what I believe, even citing specific passages of the bible.

You have quoted a grand total of three verses* on the sixth page, and those were a verse that I told you to read and two that you thought I told you to read.

You have "cited" a chapter and a half that I had already quoted from to show you that it doesn't say what you think it says.


You decided to challenge me without ever explaining your grounds

The very first thing I said to you was this:


At risk of taking this thread far more seriously than it deserves... that's unsound exegesis.

Right there. Those are my grounds for challenging you. Unsound exegesis.


demand scientifically falsifiable hypotheses

You're confusing my criticisms of Daniel Quinn with my statements to you.


and act high and mighty about the vague statements you refuse to clarify.

How can I clarify the stuff I've said in this thread any further?
-If you don't know what specific words like, say, "exegesis" mean, then either consult a dictionary or ask me.
-If you don't understand how B follows from A, then quote A and B and ask how they follow.
Don't ask me "Want to elaborate?", because I don't.
-I want you to read the first five or so chapters of Genesis and spot the errors in your own analysis.
-Failing that, I want you to re-read the posts where I've already pointed out contradictions between the text and your interpretation. Don't just cherry-pick, read all of them.
-Failing that... ask your questions, but be clear and specific.


And what you're reading as "high and mighty"... isn't. It's me trying very hard not to have a Goddamned aneurysm.

* EDIT: I forgot about the other two. Point still applies.