More Stupid Religion Bollocks!

[Dr Strangelove]

I wonder if the Church in Paul's time distinguished deacons from priests? For that matter I don't think the position of bishop existed. Formal training for Christian priests did not exist yet. There were no seminaries. AFAIK none of the original disciples had formal priestly training.

[Elok]

I wonder if the Church in Paul's time distinguished deacons from priests? For that matter I don't think the position of bishop existed. Formal training for Christian priests did not exist yet. There were no seminaries. AFAIK none of the original disciples had formal priestly training.

See Acts 6:1-7. While the seven young men chosen are not named as "deacons" in my version (Orthodox Study Bible, NKJV), they are understood by my church to be the first deacons. See also 1 Timothy chapter 3, in which Paul outlines the qualifications for Bishops and Deacons. My OSB notes that the word translated "wives" in v.11 could also be translated "women," and thus possibly refer to deaconesses. Romans 16:1 says "I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant (lit. "deacon") of the church in Cenchrea."

[germanos]

And Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are in direct contradiction to each other. Face it: the Bible is one of the most inconsistent pieces of fiction ever written.

[Elok]

That's nice.

[DaShi]

And Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are in direct contradiction to each other. Face it: the Bible is one of the most inconsistent pieces of fiction ever written.

True, God could have used an good editor.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I blame the Jews!!

[Dr Strangelove]

See Acts 6:1-7. While the seven young men chosen are not named as "deacons" in my version (Orthodox Study Bible, NKJV), they are understood by my church to be the first deacons. See also 1 Timothy chapter 3, in which Paul outlines the qualifications for Bishops and Deacons. My OSB notes that the word translated "wives" in v.11 could also be translated "women," and thus possibly refer to deaconesses. Romans 16:1 says "I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant (lit. "deacon") of the church in Cenchrea."

OTOH Paul often used the word servant figuratively.

[Nikolai]

And Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are in direct contradiction to each other. Face it: the Bible is one of the most inconsistent pieces of fiction ever written.

Have you actually read Genesis 1 and 2? They are not in contradiction. They are the same story told with two different point of views.

[MOBIUS]

I blame the Jews!!

So do I. The Jews are obsolete, that's why God sent Jesus to tell them so.

[germanos]

Have you actually read Genesis 1 and 2? They are not in contradiction. They are the same story told with two different point of views.

Yes, off course i did read them. What kind of question is that? I pitty you for your paranoia.

And they do contradict each other. Most notably in Genesis 1 humans (male and female at the same instance) are created after plants, fish, birds and land animals, while in Genesis 2 it starts with the male (the absence of plants and any other life is specifically mentioned) then he creates Eden (all other life) and then a female.
Contradiction.

[Nikolai]

I have no paranoia. It's just that it's painstakingly clear that you haven't read and understood. Genesis 2 is viewed as a more detailed account of the last part of Genesis 1. Eden is not the whole of creation, it is where man is placed by God. The creation of plants and other life is clearly, as in Genesis 1, done before humans. See Genesis 2.4-6, which attests to Genesis 1 up to verse 26. Then, in verse 7 and onwards, the details of Genesis 1.26 and onwards are given.

[germanos]

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So, no plants before a man

18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

So, no animals before man.


And I haven't read?

[Provost Harrison]

It's just some old book, of course it is going to be flawed. But I don't think there is any point in taking it seriously when we have empirical methods for obtaining the information we need regarding the origin of man.

[Nikolai]

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So, no plants before a man

18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

So, no animals before man.


And I haven't read?

You haven't read properly. There's a difference. Verse 19 says that animals had been created. At some point after that, they are sent to Adam to name them. And the problem is? Genesis chapter two isn't following the events step by step, that is Genesis 1's job.

[Nikolai]

It's just some old book, of course it is going to be flawed. But I don't think there is any point in taking it seriously when we have empirical methods for obtaining the information we need regarding the origin of man.

Another point. The Bible tells us why we are here, it's not a scientific hand book in how we got here. The details given is not meant to be taken as scientific analysis or anything.