Picking up where we left off in Part 1 (below), we have America's Dumbest Wanker demonstrating that, for a rabid Christian, he knows virtually nothing about Christianity as he appears to take the position that there can't possibly be anything resembling an internal contradiction anywhere in Holy Scripture. According to Weasel Boy:
Ah, yes. The old "two different versions of Creation" canard that skeptics love. I won't go into detail here (esp. since others have done so elsewhere online), but the short-short explanation is that Genesis 1 contains a detailed account of the whole Creation while Genesis 2 concentrates on the creation of man.
The above refers to the painfully obvious observation that there are two accounts of creation in Genesis, and they contradict one another -- we shall return to this shortly.
Generally, the devout who disagree with the above take great umbrage with the thought that there could be anything resembling mistakes or contradictions in the Bible such as, say, these, from which we can pick some real Biblical howlers.
As a start, how many animals were taken on the Ark?
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
Apparently, God has trouble counting to seven. Bummer, that. Or how many stalls did Solomon have for his horses?
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
Darn. Poor God -- still the mathematical imbecile. Or one of my favourites, in which Christians are never quite sure whether they should strive to be intellectuals or not:
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Man, there's a conundrum, isn't there? To be or not to be a moron. Tough choice. But returning to WB's original carping about the creation stories in Genesis:
The old "two different versions of Creation" canard that skeptics love. I won't go into detail here (esp. since others have done so elsewhere online), but the short-short explanation is that Genesis 1 contains a detailed account of the whole Creation while Genesis 2 concentrates on the creation of man.
Once again, WB is so full of crap, it's a wonder he doesn't explode. It's well known by Biblical scholars (which WB most assuredly is not) that there are two distinct creation stories in Genesis, as you can read here. The first account begins with Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:3. Then, for no apparent reason, God felt the need to repeat himself and started all over again with Genesis 2:4, changing the details in pretty significant ways and now going by the name "P. LORD God", except he eventually dropped the "P." 'cuz it was getting between him and his fans, ya know?
Rather than explain the mutual contradictions between those two accounts, I'm going to leave this as an exercise for the reader and I'm even going to make it worth your while. I will donate one hundred dollars to any charity of the choice of the first person who can come up with a rewording of the Genesis creation myth that a) incorporates all of the details given in both accounts above, and b) does so in an internally consistent way, particularly chronologically.
Go wild, and post submissions to the comments section. Only the first acceptable submission will be a prize winner, no friends or relatives of CC HQ are eligible and any submissions that incorporate shucking, jiving or tap-dancing of the form "Well, if you just mangle the English language and interpret it this way" will be held up to public scorn and ridicule, then disqualified. (Submissions that insist that one can reconcile the accounts only if one reads them with an "open heart" or some such rubbish will be printed, run through a shredder, set on fire and then held up to scorn and ridicule. Don't even think about it.)
Take it away.