Replies

I was referring to Genesis, the quote from which you so kindly provided, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Mark still doesn't specify the creation of what.

Your demand that the Bible be inerrant gives rise to the question of why God gave us brains and the ability to use them, and then covered the earth with false evidence.

You still haven't replied to this part of my post 146 to this thread:

Are you saying here that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally? You must believe, then, that locusts have four legs, that rabbits chew their cud, and that wearing linsey-woolsey shirts and rounding the corners of your beard are offensive to God. You must believe that slavery is okay as long as you follow the rules outlined in the Bible for the treatment of slaves. You must believe that witches not only exist, but you must kill them whenever you find them.

Oh, and you must also believe that bats and birds are the same thing.

*** Mark still doesn't specify the creation of what.***

The "beginning of the creation" couldn't be more clear.

***why [would] God gave us brains and the ability to use them, and then covered the earth with false evidence.***

When God created Adam, He create a fully formed, mature male human - not an embryo. Would it be any surprise that He created the universe in a mature state?

***Are you saying here that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally? You must believe, then, that locusts have four legs****

For starters...

Leviticus 11:20-23 is discussing what types of locusts/grasshoppers are kosher/not kosher and may not/be eaten. Now, we all know that all insects have six legs, not four. Thus, the expression "that goes on all fours" is, in fact, a Hebrew idiom - the original Hebrew says: ha holekh al arba, literally "which goes on four".

The Torah in Vayikra/ Leviticus ch 11: verses 20-23 says: "Every flying insect that uses four legs for walking shall be avoided by you. The only flying insects with four
walking legs that you may eat are those which have knees extending above their feet, [using these longer legs] to hop on the ground. Among these you may only eatmembers of the red locust family, the yellow locust family, the spotted gray locust family and the white locust family. All other flying insects with four feet [for walking]
must be avoided by you."

The four types of locusts stated in the Torah are known according to Yemenitetradition to be the following: The "red locust" ["Arbeh" in Hebrew] is called "Grad" in
Arabic. The yellow locust ["Sa'lam" in Hebrew] is "Rashona" in Arabic. The spotted gray locust ["Chargol" in Hebrew] is "Chartziyiya" in Arabic. The white locust ["Chagav" in Hebrew] is called "Gandav" in Arabic.

According to Yemenite tradition as recorded in the work Arichat Hashulchan, the locust called "Al j'rad" is Kosher, and has three Kosher sub-species all known by that
name.

The Halachah/ Jewish Law regarding locusts is that one is allowed to eat a specific type of locust only if there is a "continuous tradition" that affirms that it is Kosher. It is
not enough that the locust seems to conform to the criteria mentioned in the Torah. This does not mean that one must possess a 'personal tradition' in order to eat
locusts. If one travels to a place where the people do have a tradition, the new arrival would also be allowed to eat them. Interestingly, the author of the Arichat Hashulchan
points out that locusts were never really considered a 'delicacy' -- rather they were generally food for the impoverished.

*** Oh, and you must also believe that bats and birds are the same thing.***

It may help clear things up to note that the Hebrew owph (rendered as "fowl" or "birds" usually) may be more precisely rendered as "flying things," in which case the references to "owph" which go on all fours = references to winged insects which use four limbs to walk.

The above identify insects which fit that description.

(Btw, the broadness of the word "owph" also explains how the bat is included in the list in Lev. 11:19.)

and then covered the earth with false evidence.

He didn't cover the world with "false evidence". He covered the world with people who, having independance of will, decide to spin the evidence rather than dealing with it honestly. Whether that amounts to lying, or speaking from ignorance would be the deciding factor. Evidence you see one way is explained readily in a Biblical fashion with no problem. That isn't exactly false evidence. What is false is the claim that the evidence is misleading. It isn't. Your theories get in the way of an objective analysis. Your theories and blind following of them pigionhole you into a position that can't lead you down any other path but the one you prefer. By cutting off your options, your tree of knowledge is a wreath. It may be shocking to you that it has produced club foot in your circles; but, to us, it's an expected end result.