The Instigator
Brendan80
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Adam & Woman, the first humans, are innocent victims of a confidence trick.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,787 times Debate No: 4699
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (15)

 

Brendan80

Pro

Having been given the gift of existence, the first humans were found to be very good. To exist they had to be evolutionary, using their environment to express themselves - that is "to be". The information to enable them to do this, the "manual" if you prefer, was built in to the Gift, which since it was the gift of existence means that it was built in to the two of them, they being the "Gift". This "Gift" was "Absolute" and not "Contingent" upon good behaviour

New information came their way, directed at their understanding of their gift, ie, their understanding of themselves. At that moment they had never encountered "good" or "evil" and could not assess this information without trying it. It was false, and in trying it they encountered the knowledge of "good" and "evil" and ruined their gift of existence. Being evolutionary, they could not go back. The confidence trick was aimed at their integrity as humans and not at their greed, arrogance, or obedience.

Christian understanding and Salvation History needs to be based upon this and not upon a false idea of guilt and shame. The confidence trick works from generation to generation because all humans share the original gift of existence, being the Gift itself. The first three chapters of Genesis need very careful examination.

Chapter 1, the making of the Gift. Chapter the content of the Gift. Chapter 3, what happened to the Gift. Humans are the Gift.

Justice for all. Brendan.
Tatarize

Con

Adam and Eve are a myth from a really old book of myths. This alone wins the debate. They are neither the first humans, innocent, victims, or conned... they are figments of a bronze aged system of myths.

Thank you.

---

Ignoring the contradictory account of Genesis 1 we see the myth pretty damned straight forward. You are reading it less than literally because you are biased to see the myth in the theological landscape it has within Christianity and how you think it should relate to Christianity. However, it isn't Christian, it's Jewish and there's a very good chance the Jews even borrowed the myth.

Adam is created out of clay. God tells Adam, do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge or you will die! He gets lonely. God creates a bunch of animals out of the ground and presents them to Adam to name and see if he wanted to have sex with any of them. This fails, and so God puts Adam asleep and removes his rib* and makes Woman out of it. They were naked. A talking snake comes around and says to Woman, "You know that tree you're not suppose to eat from or else you'll die? -- We'll that's not true. You won't die. You will know the truth of good and evil." She ate from the tree and gave some to Adam. They did not die and knew the truth of good and evil. God comes around strolling through the garden and sees they are hiding because they are naked. They fess up and the three are punished. The woman is forced to have children. The man is forced to rule over the woman. The snake is forced to eat dust and be more lowly than cattle. Adam calls the woman Eve. God makes Adam and Eve a few coats. Then says that they have become like the gods and need to be kicked out before they eat from the Tree of Life as well. So Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden, and God put Cherubim and a flaming sword at the east side of the garden to protect it.

This story is a myth. It isn't even an interesting myth. The god in the story is one God of many (probably henotheistic where other gods exist but aren't the chief God), the magic tree, and talking snake are pretty tell tale signs. The god in the story isn't all-knowing or all-powerful. He lies to Adam and the woman and threatens them with death for disobeying. The serpent tells the truth and the entire group are punished (not with dying the same day as threatened) and then God protects his other magical tree by kicking them out of the garden. The text is pretty clear cut. There's no gift here. They get the power to know good and evil from a magical tree that they were threatened with death for touching. In the story they aren't conned. They are told that if they touch the tree they will die, and the serpent says that's false and the tree will give them knowledge of good and evil and it does. God gets pissed and starts dolling out punishments.

They're was no conning going on. There was lying, truth-telling, eating, and punishing in a myth.

* Some have argued rather well that rib is a mistranslation (or another acceptable translation but one that isn't the intent of the original text) of a different bone of the ospenis which makes a lot more sense.
Debate Round No. 1
Brendan80

Pro

You have constructed a pretty good myth yourself with the version you give of the first three chapters of Genesis. In doing so you adopt the naive approach that is taken by the normal Christian interpretation of those chapters, which is to think that they represent an account of the start of the universe and humankind in the form in which those things now appear to us.

In his book, A brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking recounts an occasion on which he was attending a symposium of scientists in Rome. The then Pope gave a general audience to the scientists during which he praised their efforts to discern the secrets of the universe. He gave a warning, however. When it came to the "Big Bang", that was the activity of God in creation and, as such, had to be left to the theologians. Stephen derived a certain cynical enjoyment from that, for, on the very next day, he was to address the scientists to the effect that the "Big Bang" could not be regarded as the start of everything. Although the event itself is opaque and could not be penetrated, scientifically he could show that there was something to be observed behind the event. So neither your myth nor the Christian version of the myth fit the scientific view of the universe and humankind.

As a lawyer I am not prepared to "believe" something on the hearsay of someone else, however eminent in the religious or scientific field, without examining evidence that might confirm or otherwise the validity of what was being said. Please understand what I am about to say. Evidence, however extreme or absurd it may appear at first sight, must not be cast aside as myth or anything else without examination. There is evidence of an event upon which all argument or belief must turn, for it is so "shocking" in the real sense of the word that our whole understanding of ourselves and the universe, and indeed "God" or whatever word you may chose to represent that being, must turn upon its validity or otherwise.

The event is the return to life of a human who has already died, and that human is, of course, Jesus of Nazareth. There is no historical doubt today that this man really did exist and was put to death by the Roman occupation force in the Middle East of the time. The well known Christian saint, Saint Paul, puts the point quite succinctly saying that if Jesus of Nazareth has not risen from the dead then all our faith is in vain. Quite right. The trouble is that the "event' is indeed so shocking that people are not prepared to properly examine the evidence relating to it.

This evidence does not just appear in the written Gospels. It is to be found in the fact of an occupation army keeping control in a hostile environment by brute force. It is to be found in the need of the Jewish religious authorities to deal with a man who was making, in their view, wild claims to be the Messiah while also casting doubt and criticism upon the then Jewish religious authorities and their way of religion. It is to be found in the need of the Roman control in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate to keep control of a real occupation hotspot during a vast Jewish religious festival with the accompanying crowds in the city. It is to be found in the actions of the Roman Governor, the Jewish King Herod, the actions of the Jewish religious authorities and their need to avoid repressive measures by the occupation force, leading to their handling of the Governor. It is to be found in the actions and reactions of a Roman Governor who sees himself being manipulated by the very people he is supposed to control, in the composition of the execution squad under the control of a Centurion, no less, and in the behaviour of that Centurion during the events of the execution. It is to be found in the extraordinary Non-behaviour of the Jewish religious authorities when the body of Jesus has apparently disappeared, and in the extraordinary behaviour of his followers, all Jews, who put forward the apparently extraordinary claim that he had been seen alive after the burial. It is to be seen in the just as extraordinary behaviour of those Jewish followers who were prepared to cast themselves adrift, even as Jews, from their fellow Jews.

I am aware that a completely separate debate could be set up around the proposition of a Resurrection that could well take up all and more of the characters allowed for debates such as this. I am not trying to persuade you, or anyone else of the validity or otherwise of that proposition. What I am saying is that the evidence surrounding the events in and around Jerusalem all those years ago can be examined - and indeed some of that evidence becomes particularly persuasive given our modern experience of occupied territories from 1939 onwards - and must not be dismissed as not being susceptible to examination because the events took place so long ago.

As a lawyer who has attempted to some extent to examine that evidence, I find that it certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand, and that it has a clear connection and bearing upon the proposition that has given rise to this debate. I would certainly accept that if the return to life of Jesus of Nazareth is not a fact then I must abandon my initial proposition. On the examination of the evidence that I have undertaken, however, I have to say that the case for a Resurrection, however wild that idea might be, is very strong.

In a way I am sorry to see your counter argument cast in terms of "Myth". If you look carefully at the original topic for debate you will see that it is really directed towards the prevailing Christian view that the first humans did something almost infinitely wrong, and that, as a result and without explanation as to how it might be, all humans have a fallen human nature and stand always in danger of infinite punishment. My proposition that the prevailing view simply cannot be right on the basis of the first three chapters of Genesis turns to some extent upon the third chapter.

At the beginning of that chapter you will find the two humans being given information which they were not in a position to assess but which, appealing to their integrity, told them that they were falling short of their "being" as they were, and that they could be as "Gods. The Christian view is of course, that they never could be as Gods and the information was a lie. But look at the very end of the chapter. There it is said that God has put an angel with a flaming sword at the gate of Paradise lest the humans return and eat of the Tree of Life, thereby becoming as "Gods". An analogy of course, and the two humans, being purely evolutionary, could never return, but there we see the big lie now in the mouth of God. HOW COULD THAT BE.

Looking at the evidence, in computer terms those first humans, working to their very own software, installed at the beginning by the one who gave them the gift of existence, were infected by a "worm" which they did not recognise and which wrecked their programme. Since the "gift" was absolute and not contingent, some action within the gift, that is within humankind, was needed to put things right. Christians call that action the "Incarnation", but the proposition up for debate suggests that their understanding of the events leading to that action is not soundly based.

Forget impatience with Christians, myths and so on. See this as just a debate upon the original proposition. How do you go?
Tatarize

Con

The story of Adam and Eve is a myth. It need not be taken by Christians as the fall or the origin of original sin. It need not be tugged and pulled and forced to fit into our understandings of the actual formations of the universe, earth, and mankind. It isn't a true account of true events. It is the cosmogony of an ancient Jewish tribe. Likewise when reading the Norse legend of Odin and his brothers making the Earth out of the body of a large giant and mankind out of the driftwood he found on the beach, I need not make it fit anything at all. The story is exactly what it says it is. It is the creation story of this particular group.

6000 years ago, the Babylonians were brewing beer, the Mongols were running around with domesticated dogs, the Americans were hunting buffalo, and all the other humans across the planet were well established. All of these groups have creation stories (actually there is one odd tribe which doesn't, but lets ignore that) to explain how they came to be where they were.

--- (READERS: This section addresses an off topic set of claims made by Brendan)

"Evidence, however extreme or absurd it may appear at first sight, must not be cast aside as myth or anything else without examination."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not discounting them as myths, and I think you're taking the word myth as a pejorative when that is not what I intend. I am describing the first three chapters of Genesis as a myth because that's what they are. They are a myth. We should consider "shocking" claims but note that they need "shocking" evidence to support them. Where did the above claims of not wanting hearsay or really bad evidence? As David Hume wrote on the subject of Miracles: "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish" -- We need good evidence that such events transpired when what we rather have is a good deal of extremely unlikely claims on no or poor evidence. As such, we should be more inclined towards the explanation of "myth just like those of every other culture" than "truth which is accurate even though it completely fails to fit the data of the natural world."

You then go on a rather long tangent with wild claims like, "[t]here is no historical doubt today that this man really did exist and was put to death by the Roman occupation force in the Middle East of the time." -- Actually, there's no good evidence that such an individual existed. There is a sort of hero-legend-tale and several variants. Scholars tend toward Mark being written first followed by Luke and Matthew and then John. These different versions are all very largely derived from each other. Further many of the additions of Matthew and Luke are taken from Q and those which aren't are largely contradictory. This isn't regarded by any reasonable scholar today as four separate eyewitness accounts by actual people but rather one text with details being added as time goes on. In this regard I recommend the book "Misquoting Jesus" or any of a vast array of very good books on the subject. Claiming that there is "no historical doubt" is completely false. I know some historians who are quite agnostic on the claim: there might have been some figure somewhere but the stories could still exist without it.

Much of the evidence which you claim is "not only written in the Gospels but" is actually just the stuff written into the Gospels. Surrounding a story with some historical figures doesn't make it true. Gone With The Wind is surrounded by very real events and works in a historical context. Every argument you made about this "other" evidence could equally be made about Gone With The Wind. The fact that I can succinctly waylay your claims with a quick and dirty reference to Gone With the Wind, does not bode well.

Looking back to Hume if the claim that the stuff in the Gospels didn't happen is more believable than the claim that it all happened exactly like that. Considering the dearth of evidence for any of the events of the gospels and the "shocking" claims made... one should be far more inclined towards the falsehoods of the gospels on the basis of evidence.

- Israel was established because people wanted it to be established. I could go to the casino and if I glued a roulette ball to 20 black, one should not be shocked if I win 20 times in a row.

--- (READERS: Back on Topic)

"My proposition that the prevailing view simply cannot be right on the basis of the first three chapters of Genesis turns to some extent upon the third chapter." -- The prevailing Christian view is quite obviously wrong and I agree with you there. The theology of original sin and the fall of man is almost certainly a Pauline concoction woven into the later iterations of the gospels. The same could be said of Trinitarianism or a number of the other views added into the religion later. However, the claim you are making is fairly easy to refute, you claim that Adam and Eve are victims of a confidence trick. Reading the story one is not lead to this conclusion.

Adam and Eve aren't told that doing so will make them like the gods. They are told initially (Adam is told, Eve is informed later) that if they touch the fruit they will die! The serpent says that they will know good and evil and eating it won't kill them. They eat it and God punishes them all and keeps kicks them out to keep them from the Tree of Life. This isn't a confidence trick. They weren't fooled. They weren't tricked. They were threatened and then told that the threat was hollow. They ate the forbidden fruit and got kicked out. Where's the con?

"but there we see the big lie now in the mouth of God. HOW COULD THAT BE." --- The god in the story lied; many Creation Stories involve trickery.

I don't see how any of this "worm" or "gift" or "programme" were remotely covered by the story. How are you supporting this claim? You think the God in the story wanted them to fail and arranged for them to fall? This is largely the belief of the Mormons (a little off but close enough) and several other religious groups. "The fall was a necessity of mankind" or similar theological claims. However, this is simply your bias cropping up again. When you read Genesis you think of the God of Genesis is be the modern iteration of divinity, an omnimax deity, able to do everything including the stuff he can't do. However, Genesis is pretty straight forward. The power of the gods are pretty much to live forever (Tree of Life) and to know right from wrong (Tree of Knowledge). This seems to be a pretty obvious etiology to explain the universe and mankind (just like every creation story). Why is man different than animals? Because he's half-way to godhood? Why? Because he knows right from wrong? Why? Because he ate the forbidden fruit... Things have thorns because of the fall. Women has birth pains to punish her. Man must rule over the women because he was beguiled. Snakes crawl along the ground because God punished them by taking away their legs and forcing them to eat dust (they don't eat dust).

The story is straight-forward and your interpretation doesn't seem to be a reasonable one in context.

---

Your argument is incorrect for the following reasons:
1) The story is a myth and is not true. Adam and Eve were not the first humans and the entire argument you've had thus far is based on that claim.
2) The story involves no conning. Adam and Eve we're given a hollow threat and ate it anyway after being told the threat was hollow.
Debate Round No. 2
Brendan80

Pro

In each leg of your argument you begin with a reference to the existence of a system of myths, and you include the story of Adam and Eve - in fact an incorrect description because if you read the first three chapters of Genesis carefully you will find that the correct description should be "Adam and Woman" - in this system of myths. You then make the statement that this alone wins the debate. You repeat much the same thing at the end of the second leg of your argument, and it seems that you assume that, because myth is involved, no other evidence is needed to show the fallacy of the proposition that this debate is founded upon. In other words, your argument must be correct because you say it is. A big assumption.

Before going further into that, I must first deal with another assumption you make, which you seem to think bolsters your argument. You allege that I am biased to see the myth in the theological landscape it has within Christianity. That is an assumption that is based upon no knowledge of me whatsoever, and hardly serves to advance the strength of any argument you may have. I must however draw your attention to the content of the second leg of my argument where I explained my position as a lawyer. In fact, I have spent some 60 years operating as a lawyer in the English legal system, during which time I have been involved continuously in the examination and analysis of complicated documents, correspondence and legislation in order to arrive at a full understanding of the meaning, relevance and effect of all those things. For this to be done effectively bias had to be eschewed, and I have had virtually a lifetime working with this in mind. You have no evidence for your assumption, and I refute it entirely.

In fact, if you look carefully at the proposition that leads to this debate, you will see that I specifically state that the common view of the Adam and Eve (sic) myth cannot be correct upon a proper analysis and examination of the first three chapters of Genesis. Over and beyond that, it is interesting to see that, when purporting to set out that myth in your own argument, you present it in terms which are commonly used in the Christian approach to the myth, which terms my proposition denies and which my argument asserts cannot be correct.

The existence of myths is of course evidence in itself. It is clear that down the generations humans have always tried to provide for themselves a picture that will explain how they came to be in their then present state. The Adam and Eve picture is one such, which may well have been based upon earlier material but which served the purpose of its time. That in itself made the picture neither true nor false, but served a generation, and indeed perhaps many generations, who knew nothing of evolutionary theory or quantum mechanics, to say nothing of the Schrodinger's cat or Hilbert Space.

Today we have a new myth, namely the Theory of Everything, which the scientists pursue with great determination. Stephen Hawking presented this myth in its most complete form. When we have that Theory, he said, we will know the mind of God. But it remains a myth, because it cannot be proved. If it is to be removed from the realm of myth it will have to be proved, and there will always remain the possibility that the perceived "Everything" is actually "Everything" minus 1.

This is an extremely complicated topic. You will see that the Moderator, or whatever he or she may be called, refers to the introduction by me of an off topic set of claims. This of course relates to my reference to a Resurrection and it place in Christianity. In fact it is not off topic at all, given the way you have chosen to attack the proposition under discussion. Effectively you say the the proposition relates to myth which automatically makes it false, but you adduce no evidence to support that allegation. So you dismiss the topic on the basis of your own opinion.

I accept that the Adam and Eve story can properly be described as a myth constructed for a specific purpose, and as you have seen I contend that as such it has been ineffectively examined and analysed. The so called off topic, the Resurrection, or return of a specific individual from the dead, is entirely bound up with and can only be properly explained and understood following the correct analysis and explanation of the myth. To go into this would be to develop a subject which would use up all and more of the space available for this debate, and indeed it has been and is in recent times the subject of much debate in Christian churches other than the Catholic Church. And even there.......! Nevertheless, any evidence appertaining to the possibility that an individual returned from the dead is "evidence", requires consideration and examination as evidence, and cannot be brusquely dismissed because it does not match a preconceived view of human reality. It is precisely because it opens out a different view of the reality of human existence that it appertains to and forms part of the consideration of the Adam and Eve myth.

It is clear that there is a division between so called Creationists and so called Evolutionists. It is clear too, that at the end of the day both sides find it difficult to provide evidence that would prove conclusively there could only be an evolutionary world or there just had to be a created world. I use the word "world" for convenience, but really the word should be "Universe". The evidence for evolution is immensely strong, cannot be denied, and ought to be accepted without a qualm by any Creationist. It does not, however, undermine or destroy the purpose of the Adam and Eve myth, which supplies an explanation for something which generations of humans have thought needed that explanation. The Evolutionists deny that need. Many scientists say that there is no explanation as none is needed. The universe just "is", and we are its evolutionary products. The so called "off topic", a human back from the dead, is evidence that those scientists are guilty of failing in the rigour of their own pursuit, for the "Off topic" has not been regarded by them as worth examination. Too "shocking".

To return to the wording of the proposition, the conventional Christian view of the Adam and Eve myth, the view that you yourself adopt as the one to be considered and as the one that proves the falsity of the proposition, cannot, as you see I assert, be supported by a proper reading of the material available. There is no magic in this assertion. It can be seen to be correct if one does nothing more than read the material and take in its significance on the page. Simply doing this must convince anyone that the standard view cannot hold, which of course is the statement set out in the proposition, and that an injustice has been done to the first humans, who of necessity under their gift of existence set the whole evolutionary process going. Read the material without any preliminary bias.

In short, good Tatarize, you run the universe, and could be accused of making a complete mess of it were it not for the fact that I and all the others run the universe as well. With all of us as cooks, the broth is totally - well there are many terms, but since this is a polite group debate, let's just say messed up.

It was good of you to take up the gauntlet laid down by an eighty year old man. If you look at my profile you will see me raising a bottle at the seaside at the start of a BBQ given by my family in celebration of that birthday. I raise the bottle to you too, good Tatarize, and buy you a metaphorical drink.

As the Irish say, may the road rise with you. Brendan.
Tatarize

Con

Pointing out that the story is a myth simply goes to show that the topic is certainly false. Adam and Eve were not the first humans and were not the victims of a confidence trick. This suffices to undercut your argument which prefaces on them being real for the most part. However, if one assumes the topic is not intended to describe true events then certainly there is a story there which can be evaluated in a literal manner. The story does not include any confidence trick. They were told not to do something and did it anyway. That's not a confidence trick. Further, to say the story is a myth is not an assumption on my part. I gave similar examples of similar creation myths. Further the talking snakes and magic trees are a pretty good mark in my favor on this point.

However, that point isn't required. The story if evaluated as if it were truth, suffices to show the falsehood of the above topic. The story is quite straight forward and I recounted it quite exacting in my round 1 argument.

I don't care that you're a lawyer. Furthermore most people who think that their job should give them cred are often very bad at their job. Simply because you can look at documents doesn't make you a biblical scholar. Further, despite your professional training you still seem inclined to make more than a few common and critical errors when it comes to analyzing myths.

I'm quite certain the common Christian interpretation is wrong, and pretty sure the Jewish interpretation is pretty good or at the very least leaps and bounds better due to the lack of extraneous theological baggage.

"The existence of myths is of course evidence in itself." -- Evidence that people make up myths.

"That in itself made the picture neither true nor false" -- Let us say for the sake of argument that because the depicted events didn't happen they are false.

"When we have that Theory, he said, we will know the mind of God." -- Flowery language when talking about science makes one a good communicator not the creator of a mythos.

"Effectively you say the the proposition relates to myth which automatically makes it false, but you adduce no evidence to support that allegation. So you dismiss the topic on the basis of your own opinion." -- No, if you look I drew numerous parallels with similar creation myths, I pointed out the absurdity of it, I put it in a historical context, and did I mention the talking snake and magical trees?

"I accept that the Adam and Eve story can properly be described as a myth constructed for a specific purpose," -- Then why whine about it? Argue the point you claimed to be making and go into the argument. The story being myth could easily be seen to contradict your clarifying subclause that "Adam & Woman" were "the first humans" but it isn't too hard to argue that that isn't a required claim of your argument. It's part of the topic. As con, and because that is false, I feel inclined to knock it down. However you seem stuck on the point which I would readily concede if nothing else than to focus on the actual argument.

"cannot be brusquely dismissed because it does not match a preconceived view of human reality." -- It's a postconcieved view of reality. Due to the apparent "never happens" status of miracles like those in the Bible vs. the "happens all the time" status of the creation of fictional stories and myths. One should lean towards the premise that it's a myth until the evidence is far better. We should require evidence strong enough that the rejection of said evidence is less likely than the proposition it means to establish.

It is clear too, that at the end of the day both sides find it difficult to provide evidence that would prove conclusively there could only be an evolutionary world or there just had to be a created world." -- Um. Not really. There's literally a world of evidence for this planet being filled with evolved life and which suggests a creator (save the special pleading of "it's here isn't it, where else could it have come from"). http://www.talkorigins.org...

"which supplies an explanation for something which generations of humans have thought needed that explanation." -- You don't need lies as placeholders.

"The Evolutionists deny that need." -- No. Evolution supplies that explanation with a robust and understandable theory which works and moreover explains more than just the questions asks.

"a human back from the dead, is evidence that those scientists are guilty of failing in the rigour of their own pursuit," -- Failing to seek out Superman who reportedly was killed by Doomsday only to return from the dead does not negate scientific rigor. Those making the argument have the burden of proof. If they wish to prove that Jesus is guilty of rising from the dead they should prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, as there's nothing but hearsay from a really old text of numerous unknown authors and a heavy editing process... I'm pretty sure that that dog don't hunt.

----

TO THE READERS: What the hell was Brendan's argument? Why should I or anybody believe that Adam and Eve were conned? If you can answer that question, I encourage you to vote for him. Anybody?

Apparently being a lawyer taught him to write long nonsensical gibberish not even relating to the topic. This honestly this felt a bit like the chewbacca defense. I'm not even sure what the argument was suppose to be. My argument was basically that the story is a myth and events did not occur and simply reading the story doesn't have any incidence of them being conned.

--Don't eat from that tree or you'll die.
- You won't die.
*munch*
--You bastards!

That's not a con.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Tried fixing ><
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Is Brendan80 a lawyer? I couldn't tell...
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Your claimed "better translation" can't be said in ancient hebrew. There is only a perfect tense and an imperfect tense. There are a couple tricks to imply such thing as past tense but it pretty much requires that things are plainly said and generally chronological. If you actually wanted just start taking everything as past tense or future tense the predictions of Daniel might as well be said to be reports of what happened before the creation of the universe.

They say what they say. Pretty clearly, if you look at the sentence in Hebrew you'll see all the verbs are imperfect tense which is exactly what they should be so long as things aren't occurring presently.

http://www.blueletterbible.org...
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
Apearently you don't understand grammar well enough, because you are not as leaned in it as hebrew scholars, and hebrew scholars agree with me. I don't know why that is so hard to accept.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Sorry I understand grammar a bit too well, even with simple perfect/imperfect tenses. The fact that apologetics often borrow from each other and use the same silly argument isn't any indication of veracity.

For example Luke 3 and Matthew 1 both give the father-son line from David to Joseph even though it doesn't matter and neither line has nothing to do with the other. The general apologetic is that one of them is lying and giving Mary's line, even though it says it's giving Joseph. And this is because people are sexist and want the paternal line even though that whole born of a virgin stuff. This apologetic gets worse for Catholics who already have a traditional names for Mary's parents. -- The fact that you can run across the same apologetic for the same problem many places doesn't make it a valiant effort. Jewish grammar can't say what you claim it says, and the only reason you claim it says that is because what it actually says doesn't work with what it says somewhere else.
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
Sometimes I really wish you could see yourself from the outside looking in.

You might keep your mouth shut a little more often.

Heh.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
They use the same argument. My gosh, why didn't you say... I've never seen apologetics cling to the same really bad argument.
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
You are not quite understanding me.

You have made a valiant effort, but you are still failing. If you look at what hebrew scholars say, you will find that they side with me.

I am currently reading from the MacArthur Study Bible, and it actually has a footnote that says exactly what I am telling you.

The people who translate for Answers In Genesis are not idiots, and know the language far better that you or I. To say that you can disprove them off of the top of your head is most arrogant.

Google the creation order "contradiction" and you will find that all defending it use the same argument as I did.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is buddy.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
No. Though Kudos for AIG for trying.

If you're every wondering about the tenses etc. I'd suggest reading Young's Literal Translation:

http://www.biblegateway.com...

18And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.'

19And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name.

-- The ancient Jewish tenses are such that if talking about something not happening presently there's no past, present, or future tense. The story must be told chronologically or it doesn't make any sense. What you propose is certainly not a literal translation or more literal translation, in fact, it's something that the Jewish tenses simply couldn't say "having formed". Further why not just bring them in?

It says a helper, a counterpart, a help meet... the role the Woman finally fulfills. Though the second story changes a lot more than just the timing. Plants grow on the third day rather than the 6th, the fowls were brought forth from the water then from the air, etc.
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
Oh, it is actually very simply if you actually TRY to understand it.

Genesis 1:24-26 give the chronological order of creation.

Genesis 2:19 is simply looking back. Having read the AIG site, a more literal translation of the text in verse 19 would read:

And God, having formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. Whatever Adam called each creature, that was it's name.

First off, notice that sex is not mentioned. Ahem.

Second, if you look into the tenses, you will find that there is no contradiction.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
Brendan80TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Brendan80TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Brendan80TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TwinDragon 8 years ago
TwinDragon
Brendan80TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by B2BCHAOS 8 years ago
B2BCHAOS
Brendan80TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
Brendan80TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Brendan80TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Brendan80TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by currie_jean 8 years ago
currie_jean
Brendan80TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by KGhost 8 years ago
KGhost
Brendan80TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30