Somewhat bold. Show me two passages that to you are inconsistent, and I'll find another that reconciles the two.

Luke 3:23- "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
Matthew 1:16- "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Just one example of hundreds.

Not quite as bold.

Hundreds indeed, all of which can be reconciled from elsewhere in Scripture:

It was much more common then, for people to be called by more than one proper name, and usually people lived out the meaning of the names by which they were called:

Again:

And again:

I will answer just once more, unless you are ready to reason.

Order of creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

*edit- thats another good one dugan.

So, you've showed that in the bible some people have multipule names. Taken to extremes, that means that you cannot belive any names in there. You havent shown anywhere in the bible that Jacob is also called Heli.

I'll keep on answering, as long as the conversation isnt boring.

I'm not even sure what that is meant to mean....is it "I'll answer once more provided that you agree with me?"

Cascade hasn't said anything to indicate that he's not ready to reason. Accusing people of not being "ready to reason" is not respectful. Furthermore, in context, it looks like you meant exactly that: "provided that you agree with me."

To the OP,

I have to see evidence of satan operating. Individually or confederately.

Given the whisperings in human ears, why is it that some people give in immediately, some after some time and others not at all?

So whats your brand of politics?

OK

So we're talking religion now, here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...t/atheist1-10/

I think he means lack of variation in the rendering/translation of earlier texts, NOT that one passage in the Bible is consistent with another.

But in his subsequent posts, he did argue that one passage in the Bible is consistent with another.

Verse 1 of Ch. 1 is the complete account of the first creation. At once the earth was created, replete with lush gardens, and no decay. "Was," in verse 2 is the same Hebrew for "became."

The earth became barren when Satan was cast down;

Here, "the nations" is probably the "sons of God," probably God's servants, the angels. These are likewise mentioned in Ch. 6. Note the distinction here, which is "sons of God," not begotten sons.

Verses 2 through 31 accounts for God's provisional re-creation, taking that which was made corrupt, and administring a plan of redemption, as he does with the creation, and with the human soul.

Day 1 begins following "became." Gen. 2:1-3 occurs on day 7. The rest of Ch. 2 reverts to 1:2, proceeding from "became." That is, day 1 in Ch. 1, proceeds, together with 2:4-25, as the account of God's recreation, actually 2 parallel accounts. An honest and careful review will betray your error.

I have discourse that takes precedence over argument, and business to tend to. I'm only one man. Yet, I will answer once each objecter, as I find time, and with God's help.

I've used Scripture to prove what is already obvious--people are addressed variously, by different names, a fact that reconciles the two passages.

I've answered you and am done arguing with you. If you have questions and an open mind, not challenges, I will continue with you. I haven't the strength to go on arguing. Besides, it's not constructive.

It is obviously possible to challenge you and still have an open mind.

If you actually believe that anyone who disagrees with you is not ready to reason and doesn't have an open mind, then you should consider what that says about yourself. If you don't, then you should choose your worlds more carefully.

Wait. This is a thread that you started, about religion, titled no holds barred. Am I correct?

Tacit to all of these very pointless arguments is the idea that "this collection of sixty-six books, in the form that I now hold them in my hand, is (whatever I say it is), because I (or somebody) say so." All of God in a box. Or, rather, in a book. Got a question? Any question at all? Open your Magic Book to page ...

Neat, huh?

You can't defeat such an argument. You can never fight it under its own terms. If you are convinced that you hold the innermost truths of the universe in that book of yours, just waiting to be prized out by quibbling over words and passages (in the English translation of your choice, no less ...), then you're certainly not going to be un-convinced.

But as for this now-old phart ... I turn to the latter chapters of the book of Job. No, I wasn't there either, "when the foundations of the earth were laid," and the only thing that I am certain that I 'know' about ... well, damn near anything ... is that I know nothing. And, that I never will know more.

I know not to "lean to my own understanding." When I read, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, My ways are not your ways ..." yeah, I read You loud and clear. This is not a peer-to-peer relationship. Got that. Understood.

The dozens of inconsistencies in the first two-dozen pages of the first book? Blobs of dirt on a windshield that's covered with mud anyway. Maybe. I dunno.

"Twenty bezillion years of hellfire and brimstone in exchange for, at most, seventy-odd years of screw-ups?" Believe as you like. (But I'm not bringing marshmallows to your party, or buying a ticket on anybody's guilt trip. My choice. My fate. If anybody's gonna burn for it, it's just me. So, have a wonderful afternoon. Somewhere else.)

Well... I do know how to give a hungry man a sandwich ... and I have a few extra coats, now that you mention ... that, I do know how to do. Ain't doin' it for no brownie-points either. If someday I find myself in the boiler rooms of a celestial city, well, "what little I did, mattered a lot to that guy..." And that, for me, is enough.

With all due respect Dugan, I've stated, "when you are ready to reason." That is, in my opinion you are BEING unreasonable in these instances. Not that he is an unreasonable person. This is not disrespect, nor certainly accusation. We all make mistakes and are (sic) at times unreasonable. Christ (sic) says, "Come now, let us reason," not, "Present your challenge, and we can debate." I answer from the point of view of a Christian, meaning "engage me, and we will have discourse, and I will share some good news." But without the opportunity, if you immediately oppose what you've yet to have heard (sic), how can I freely share?"

What I've said, more precisely is: "I will answer just once more, unless you are ready to reason." I do not have strength to go on arguing. If you want some good news, then let's converse. I can't go on like this. You don't have to agree with everything, but give credit where it's due.