Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.

Minichan

Topic: Let me clear up this 'incest' issue once and for all, for you 'scientists'

Anonymous A started this discussion 2 months ago #63,772

The Bible tells us that God made Adam and Eve first. It says nothing whatsoever about who he made next, or how he did it. Neither does it suggest Adam and Eve were brother and sister. He created them as husband and wife. They then had children.

The Bible does not say which other tribes God made immediately after the expulsion, though in the lineage of Christ, given in the Gospel, we can see there were many. So the children of Adam and Eve 'mated' with people whom God also created. Thus, they were not related, no more than if someone from Canada were to mate with someone from Mexico. Both have a common maker (God and nature), but that does not make them relatives! Only an idiot would fail to underatand this.

So, the human race did not begin from 'incest'. Some MC regulars, however...

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #796,406

Every man alive today is descended from Mitochondrial Adam, so all gay sex is Incest.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 13 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #796,410

@OP
Oh look, it's another of those threads in which OP expresses sentiments that he knows to be drivel in order to gain attention and alleviate the boredom and loneliness that pervades his life.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 4 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #796,416

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)

> Oh look, it's another of those threads in which Heffers rages within minutes of it being made

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 2 months ago, 56 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #796,419

@previous (A)
Whomfor, praytell, is "Heffers"?

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #796,420


1 Chronicles 1
1 Chronicles 1Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

1 Adam begat Seth; and Seth, Enos, [Adam, Seth, Enos,]

2 Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered,

3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech,

4 Noe, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

5 The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, and Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.

6 Forsooth the sons of Gomer were Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

7 And the sons of Javan were Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

8 The sons of Ham were Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.

9 And the sons of Cush were Seba, and Havilah, Sabta, and Raamah, and Sabtecha. And the sons of Raamah were Sheba, and Dedan.

10 And Cush begat Nimrod; this Nimrod began to be mighty in [the] earth.

11 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,

12 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, of which the Philistines and Caphthorim went out, or came. (and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, and Caphthorim, from whom the Philistines came.)

13 And Canaan begat Sidon, his first begotten son (his first-born son), and Heth,

14 and (the) Jebusite, and Amorite, and Girgashite,

15 and Hivite, and Arkite, and Sinite,

16 and Arvadite, and Zemarite, and Hamathite.

17 The sons of Shem were Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. And the sons of Aram were Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech.

18 And Arphaxad begat Shelah; which himself engendered Eber. (And Arphaxad begat Shelah; and Shelah begat Eber.)

19 And to Eber were born two sons; the name of [the] one was Peleg, for the land was parted in his days (for the land was divided in his days); and the name of his brother was Joktan.

20 And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,

21 and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah,

22 Ebal, and Abimael, and Sheba,

23 and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the sons of Joktan.

24 Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah,

25 Eber, Peleg, Reu,

26 Serug, Nahor, Terah,

27 Abram; this is Abraham.


Now pay close attention. Adam and Eve's son "Jered" was infamous for his footlong. He is not featured with any offspring because he kept putting it in the younger men of his tribe.

Please take note that not until #18 the first named female is "Shelah"

Eve was a very busy women taking care of all of her sons and she must have been pleased Jared left her alone.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 7 seconds later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #796,421

@796,419 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Keep it to one thread, Heffy

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #796,422

@796,420 (D)

Which part of 'God made different tribes which the Bible doesn't need to mention' proved too difficult for you to understand?

Also - using the 'Wycliffe Bible' for your information? LOL!!!!

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 19 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #796,423

what is your point? the bible featuring incest or not does not make it more or less true

Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #796,428

@796,422 (A)
Where in the bible is the mention of different tribes?
Genesis 49New International Version (NIV) - If this version does not suit you please offer a suggestion.

So as with the Begats. Tribe #1 with Adam and Even. The Torah does mention the first daughter of Adam and Eve -

Genesis 4 tells of the birth of Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve's first children, while Genesis 5 gives Adam's genealogy past that. Adam and Eve are listed as having three children, Cain, Abel and Seth, then "other sons and daughters", Genesis 5:4.

According to the Book of Jubilees (which is usually not considered canonical), Cain married his sister Awan, a daughter of Adam and Eve

As a side note the candy jujubes was named after Jubilees.

Incest in not even prohibited until Leviticus 18:8-18 with a time line about 2500 years after Genesis.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #796,429

@previous (D)
Oh look, it's another of those threads in which OP uses another UID to pretend to argue with himself.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #796,431

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Your detection skills require improvement.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #796,435

@796,428 (D)

> Where in the bible is the mention of different tribes?

*sigh*

I explicitly said:

@OP

> The Bible does not say which other tribes God made immediately after the expulsion

Sorry bud but I think you're just trolling here. You just want to make Heffers spend his entire day obsessing over who is writing what on an obscure internet forum, and that's no fun for me because it's so easy to do.

Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #796,441

@previous (A)
lol
> The Bible does not say which other tribes God made immediately after the expulsion

Nor does the bible say a single thing prohibiting incest until 2500 years later.

It also comes to mind - The bible does say God made man in his image - If this is true how is it Eve committed sin unless God was a sinner

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #796,451

@previous (D)

> lol
> >The Bible does not say which other tribes God made immediately after the expulsion
>
> Nor does the bible say a single thing prohibiting incest until 2500 years later.
>
> It also comes to mind - The bible does say God made man in his image - If this is true how is it Eve committed sin unless God was a sinner

Man, you're all over the map here. Jumping from one unrelated point to the next without addressing the flaws in your stance on any one issue. But ok, I'll educate you a while longer. "In His image" is an instruction to respect and honor the divinity we see in each other. It doesn't mean we all look like God and have His exact nature.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #796,454

Oh and I see from your picture that you're still struggling with the incest issue (you're so obsessively keen to hold onto this idea that you were born of incest, is there something you want to tell us all?). Follow the reasoning here, ok?

1. God makes Adam and Eve in one place (place A)

2. God makes another group of people in another place (place B)

3. Children of place A mate with children of place B.

Understand, finally? Where on earth have you got this idea from that "Eve was the only female on earth"???

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #796,460

@796,431 (D)
Keep telling yourself that, OP.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #796,462

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Stop molesting children, Heffy

Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 12 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #796,463

image means what something looks like

so the Lord has two legs and shit like that

Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #796,464

@796,454 (A)
> 2. God makes another group of people in another place (place B)

Which version of that bible do you use? Everyone I look at says in the beginning

Old Testament
The Beginning

18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ 19So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man* there was not found a helper as his partner. 21So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23Then the man said,
‘This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,*
for out of Man* this one was taken.’
24Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

Now jump forward to Genesis 3
20 The man named his wife Eve,* because she was the mother of all who live. 21And the Lord God made garments of skins for the man* and for his wife, and clothed them.

22 Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’— 23therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.

JUMP to Genesis 4 Where Cain kills Able -(Gets rid of competition so Cain can have Eve because clearly Adam is worn out by now and his sister has nice ta ta's

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #796,465

@previous (D)

> Which version of that bible do you use? Everyone I look at says in the beginning...

And how many have you looked at?

Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,470

@previous (A)
I gave up on the many versions of that new testament. After all it was written 1000's of years after the old testament.

Bottom line. Old only mentions the first two humans and their offspring. Does appear to leave out a lot of necessary details. Considering how these early people could not even utter words to each other to ask if it was ok to fuck.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 2 months ago, 29 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,474

@796,462 (A)
Obsessing over strangers on obscure internet forae is OP's life now. It's all he has left.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,475

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)

> Obsessing over strangers on obscure internet forae is Heffy's life now. It's all he has left.

Nice self-awarenesspost, Heffers!

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 58 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,476

@796,470 (D)

> I gave up on the many versions of that new testament.

That's why there are gaps in your knowledge and understanding of this issue.

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,478

> 20 The man named his wife Eve,* because she was the mother of all who live.

Pretending there was another tribe to explain all the incest goes against god and his word

Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 8 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,479

@796,476 (A)
Gaps there may be. You have gaps as well. These people only had grunts and groans to communicate. They could not convey rules.

Must have been difficult to tell the kids rules to obey or else

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,481

@previous (D)

> These people only had grunts and groans to communicate. They could not convey rules.

What on earth makes you think this?? How then do you explain the conversations which took place between God and Adam and Eve, and which are clearly written about in the Bible?

Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,486

@previous (A)
Easy. Science says Homo Sapiens 200,000 to 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa by 60,000 years ago.
First evidence so far of writing 5000BC or so.

Huge gap. Language beyond grunts and groans? Quick look and all I could find 2000 years ago.

So the legends or stores in the bible have that huge gap of 100 to 200 thousand years.

Again the concept of a God communicating with the very first Men-Women is just a fairy tale written down 5300 years ago or so or more like 2500 years but hey who is counting.

> conversations which took place between God and Adam and Eve
Clearly based on current affairs God did not do well with instructions

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,490

@previous (D)

> Easy. Science says...

Oh so then it must be true! LOL. Remember when the finest scientists in the world claimed the earth was at the center of the universe?

Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,492

@previous (A)
First? First 2nd 3rd made many mistakes. Over time less mistakes.
Work calls
Bye

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,493

@previous (D)

> First? First 2nd 3rd made many mistakes. Over time less mistakes.

Nope, just as many scientific mistakes now as ever before, in fact many more so, because there are more of the retards these days.

> Work calls

Make mine a Big Mac and fries

> Bye

Later, retard

Catharine !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,494

@796,419 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
is this from the Quran chapter 2?

Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 32 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,499

Oh, it's this guy again. Now he's obsessed with incest

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 15 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,503

@796,429 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)

> Oh look, it's another of those threads in which OP uses another UID to pretend to argue with himself.

I think it is.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,505

@796,499 (I)

> Oh, it's Heffers again. He's been crying on Minichan all day.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,519

@previous (A)
> Being this obsessed with "Heffers"

Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 29 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,526

@796,422 (A)
Were these other tribes also cursed with original sin?

Also; are you familiar with the story of Lilith?

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,539

@previous (K)

> Were these other tribes also cursed with original sin?

Of course

> Also; are you familiar with the story of Lilith?

Yes

Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,544

@previous (A)
Please tell us about the very first unoriginal sin.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 9 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,545

@previous (L)

> Please tell us

Us? How many people are you??

Anonymous L replied with this 2 months ago, 11 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,549

@previous (A)
?

Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,564

@previous (L)

OP's gone full delusional now. There's no point in even trying.

(Edited 19 seconds later.)

Anonymous K replied with this 2 months ago, 45 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,575

@796,539 (A)
Why would they've been cursed with original sin? They weren't descended from either Adam or Eve. If their children mated with Adam's offspring, original sin would have come into effect, but the first of these "other tribes" would have been created perfect.

RE: Lilith
The story of Lilith isn't Biblical canon, but some Rabbinical sources suggest that she was the unnamed wife that Cain took in Genesis 4:17. This would circumvent the incest paradox without inventing alternative "tribes" that have no basis in either scripture or Rabbinical text.

(Edited 27 seconds later.)

Anonymous K double-posted this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,577

@796,545 (A)
By "us", he means everyone else on this thread apart from yourself. Surely his meaning was clear in this context.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 8 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,612

@796,575 (K)

> would have been created perfect.

Why are these issues all or nothing with you? It's either "cursed with original sin" or "created perfect". I think your general problem is you seem to look at complex things with an extremely simplified and 'black or white' lens, almost (no offense) a childish lens. Where on earth have you taken this idea that all that was created by God must be either "perfect" or else "cursed with original sin"?

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #796,613

@796,577 (K)

> By "us", he means everyone else on this thread apart from yourself. Surely his meaning was clear in this context.

"Tell us..." and various other forms of 'weposting' is a rhetorical and polemical device meant to give the appearance of having mass support for what is, in fact, just one person's opinion. Hence its use by politicians and the like. Surely the meaning was clear in this context.

Anonymous K replied with this 2 months ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #796,780

@previous (A)
There are at least 12 users replying to your post. I have no objections to his use of the word "us", nor has anyone else on this thread (apart from yourself).

@796,612 (A)
Why would they've been cursed with original sin? They weren't descended from either Adam or Eve.

Also: you're OK with the idea that God would deliberately create imperfect beings?

@796,612 (A)
Do you believe in the story of Lilith?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #796,782

@previous (K)

> There are at least 12 users replying to your post.

Yep, you really got busy with your samefagging there lol

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #796,783

@796,780 (K)

> Why would they've been cursed with original sin?

Who said they were? I specifically said that they weren't necessarily.

Look, if you're not even going to read what I'm writing to you then I'm not sure how much longer I should be entertaining your questions.

Sheila LaBoof replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #796,806

so I look up the origin of the word sin and it is from a Latin word that means guilt

so somehow people carry guilt in their DNA, or for Christians, they did until Jesus appeased his fatherself with very powerful blood

Anonymous K replied with this 2 months ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #796,828

@796,783 (A)
> I specifically said that they weren't necessarily.

No, you said they were cursed with original sin right here.

So, do you believe in the story of Lilith?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #796,846

@previous (K)
You should probably look up the word "necessarily"

As for Lilith, no.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 28 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #796,848

@796,806 (Sheila LaBoof)

> so I look up the origin of the word sin and it is from a Latin word that means guilt
>
> so somehow people carry guilt in their DNA, or for Christians, they did until Jesus appeased his fatherself with very powerful blood

Rough and simplified, but basically yes, you've got the general idea.

Sheila LaBoof replied with this 2 months ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #796,913

the Lord has always appreciated fresh blood given to him - - he was more pleased with the pile of dead animals from Abel than what Cain put together for the ghost alpha male in the sky. it calms the Lord's tits to be given bloody food. but to overcome the supreme insult perpetrated in the garden of Eden, it would take no ordinary blood. it would take no less than the "lamb of God"

Syntax replied with this 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #796,925

@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
This is all such nonsense. The Bible? It's like 5400 yrs old or so. Man origin of = Homo erectus, first appeared in Africa 1–2 million years ago.

We have no real clue who or what Homo erectus based moral standards on but we can be sure Homo erectus Male got at least a couple of things Erect and where that ended up probably followed few rules and the kids probably looked at animals near by and well and

Sheila LaBoof replied with this 2 months ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #796,944

The Lord is especially thirsty for first-born blood, analogous to the first fruits of harvest, offered to the top dog

Anonymous K replied with this 2 months ago, 14 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,068

@796,846 (A)

Exact quotations:

> Were these other tribes also cursed with original sin?

> Of course

No "necessarily" included in your original statement.

Why don't you believe the story of Lilith?

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 36 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,069

@previous (K)
Before answering your question it's important you tell me which version of the story of Lilith you are referring to - that of the Hebrew text, the Greek version, the Latin Bible, the Englsh versions, etc. We need to be sure we're each talking about the same thing, because you've demonstrated in this thread that you often don't keep up with the direction conversations are going. I'm not saying you're slow, but you don't seem to be very well-read. So let me know which version of the story you're familiar with.

Sheila LaBoof replied with this 2 months ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,127

the one that the Lord wrote, duh

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 2 months ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,129

@OP
Nice high effort trolling, OP.

Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,130

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
I saw a picture once of your father waking you up by slipping his cock up your ass. "Good morning son" the caption said. Is that why the issue of incest triggers you so much?

Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,131

@previous (N)
I think it is.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 2 months ago, 18 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,132

@797,130 (N)
Nice high effort samefagging, OP.

Anonymous N replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,133

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
I'll take that as a yes. Sorry to have brought back upsetting memories for you!

Anonymous K replied with this 2 months ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,222

@797,069 (A)
I'm familiar with all of the translations you've mentioned, and would also add extra-biblical sources such as the Talmud, the Zohar or the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the earliest known identification of the character in Mesopotamian texts and inscriptions.

However, all of that is irrelevant, and I suspect you're simply prevaricating in order to avoid answering the question. Do you believe the story of Lilith or not? For that matter, do you even know what I'm talking about - ie the Rabbinical tradition that Lilith was Adam's first wife, prior to the creation of Eve?

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 10 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,253

@previous (K)

> I'm familiar with all of the translations you've mentioned, and would also add extra-biblical sources such as the Talmud, the Zohar or the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the earliest known identification of the character in Mesopotamian texts and inscriptions.

I didn't ask for you to plagiarise Wikipedia, I asked which version of the story you are referring to when you ask if I believe in it. Now pay attention, stop evading the question, and tell me which specific version of the story you are asking if I "believe" in.

Let's hurry this along a little, it might help get a sense of what on earth you're trying to say. Do you believe in the Rabbinical tradition that Lilith was Adam's first wife, prior to the creation of Eve?

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 2 months ago, 24 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,260

@previous (A)
> He's still trying

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,263

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
> No incest for generations!

Anonymous K replied with this 2 months ago, 14 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,508

@797,253 (A)
No, of course not. Nor do I believe that Elohim created "other tribes" after the creation of Adam and Eve. I'm just curious to know why you believe one ludicrous fairy tale over another.

Anonymous G replied with this 2 months ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,510

@previous (K)
> Pretending there was another tribe to explain all the incest

Anonymous K replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,512

@previous (G)
Yeah. Fundamentalists will grasp at literally any straw when their beliefs are under threat.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 8 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,540

@797,508 (K)

> No, of course not.

Why do you not believe in the Rabbinical tradition that Lilith was Adam's first wife?

Anonymous E replied with this 2 months ago, 41 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,545

@796,454 (A)
how many people did he make before having children biologically took over? i feel like two small groups isn't enough

Anonymous K replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,550

@797,540 (A)
Because I'm an atheist.

Your turn now: do you believe that that Lilith was Adam's first wife, prior to the creation of Eve?

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,572

Is there incest in the Bible? Yes, Lots!

(Edited 50 seconds later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 3 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,599

@797,550 (K)

> Because I'm an atheist.

Why are you an atheist and not an agnostic? Can you prove there is no God?

Anonymous O replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,601

@previous (A)
Of course there are Gods. Roman + Greeks + 10,000 other Gods. All of equal value to the make believe Jewish-Muslim, Christian God.

Anonymous M replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,602

@797,572 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,625

@797,601 (O)

> All of equal value to the make believe Jewish-Muslim, Christian God.

Can you prove this?

Anonymous K replied with this 2 months ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,647

@797,599 (A)
Still evading the question.

> do you believe that that Lilith was Adam's first wife, prior to the creation of Eve?

Thanks.

(Edited 44 seconds later.)

Anonymous O replied with this 2 months ago, 8 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,649

@797,625 (A)
Can I prove Zeus was a better God then Apollo? Each have their proper place in getting things done.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 16 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,650

@797,647 (K)
I answered it here:

@796,846 (A)

> As for Lilith, no.

See what I mean? You're not even able to follow the thread of the conversation which you yourself started, and you exopect me to take your intelligence seriously?

Now then, stop evading the question: why are you atheist and not agnostic? Can you prove there is no God? If you're unable to answer it, no problem, I already think you're a very dumb person who can't articulate your ideas.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 25 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,651

@797,649 (O)

> Can I prove Zeus was a better God then Apollo?

Yes

Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,652

@797,650 (A)
Why should he prove there is no God, when you cannot prove God exists.
Proving a negative makes no sense.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 4 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,653

@previous (Q)
Despite being a retard, he is still a big boy. Let him answer for himself, random angry man.

Anonymous L replied with this 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,655

OP
You should be ashamed you believe in a God. A womans vagina is only 2cm away from her anus. If there is really a God...God would have to be the village idiot.

Anonymous K replied with this 2 months ago, 9 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,742

@797,650 (A)
Well, you tend to change your arguments as often as it suits you, such as when you started out claiming that the "other tribes" were cursed with original sin, then backpedaled by saying they weren't "necessarily" cursed. I wanted to make sure that you hadn't changed your position on the story of Lilith.

> Can you prove there is no God?

Answer: no, I can't. However, I'm not required to prove that, as I've made no such claim.

> why are you atheist and not agnostic?

The term atheist has more than one definition; apparently, you're too ignorant to know this.

OK, I've answered two of your questions, now you can answer two of mine.

1. Can you prove that God created other tribes after the fall?

2. Why don't you believe that Lilith was Adam's first wife?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,748

@previous (K)

> The term atheist has more than one definition; apparently, you're too ignorant to know this.

Ah the old "that word has many definitions" defence eh? Lol you retard, atheist means one thing - a person who doesn't believe in a God or gods. It's just as I thought - you have absolutely no idea what the words you're using even mean.

We're not moving on to any of your questions until you answer mine, that's not how these things work. I've answered all of your questions (several times in some cases, because you're an inattentive moron). You are now evading mine like an intellectual coward because you know you've been trapped. I'll ask you again: if you can't prove there is no God, then why are you not agnostic? Is the problem that you don't know what that word means? Would you like someone to define it for you?

Syntax replied with this 2 months ago, 3 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,759

@previous (A)
> definitions" a person who doesn't believe in a God or gods.

Most Excellent So you do understand that there are many many Gods of all sorts.

Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 3 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,810

@797,748 (A)

Theism/atheism and gnostic/agnostic are in fact different things!

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 54 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,824

@previous (B)

> Theism/atheism and gnostic/agnostic are in fact different things!

That is correct, Anon B. We're all proud of you, you understand the question put to Anon K. Well done.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 months ago, 14 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #797,932

God is fake though tbh

Anonymous N replied with this 2 months ago, 1 day later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #798,120

Whatever happened to that confused Lilith-obsessed spastic who didn't know what 'atheist' meant?

Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 day later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #798,512

@797,742 (K)
Whatever happened to this retarded mongoloid, did he ever figure out the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?
:
[upload]

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting, also keep in mind you can minify URLs using MiniURL and generate image macros using MiniMacro.