July 23, 2008 11:57pm
|First of all, the Scripture in Gen. 2 to which you refer is simply an elaboration of day 6 of Creation. Chapter 1 is similar to the introduction or preface of a book. It gives the Creation story in brief. The verses in Ch. 2 give more detail of the sixth day when God made man and, also, some of the animals. Incidentally, if you want to dispute the literal day, you should attempt to discern the original meaning in the original Hebrew text. The Hebrew word used for "day" means (& meant) a literal day. Also, it says in Gen. 1:5 "So the evening and the morning were the first day."
Secondly, to your argument about Gen. 1:26, perhaps you should take your own advice about a better grasp of the English language. "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;" If this verse referred to more than one deity, then 'image' & 'likeness' would be plural, not singular. Be sure to read the book of John in your third journey through the Bible. John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh [the Son part of the Trinity -- Jesus], and dwelt among us . . ." The Trinity can be likened to an apple. An apple consists of the peel, the flesh, and the seeds. There are three parts to an apple, but they are all still just one apple.
Finally, I cannot post this without commenting on your statements regarding grammar, hypocrisy, and education. I find it extremely interesting that someone who is so vehemently opposed to ones he labels "religious nuts", "hypocrites", & "intolerant" can, in fact, be labeled by all those descriptions himself. You are, my friend, a religious zealot (or "nut", to use your word). You are religious in your atheistic beliefs, and quite zealous in your defense of them. You are a hypocrite in that you criticize others of being close-minded and intolerant when your postings on this blog clearly display your own intolerance and close-mindedness. Lastly, perhaps our friend John does not speak fluent English, and thus the reason for his syntax and grammar. That does not mean he's uneducated or unintelligent. A free-thinking, tolerant person such as yourself should welcome the opinions of all who enter here, regardless of their fluency in your native tongue. Incidentally, I could point out several errors in your own grammar, if I so chose. However, just because I made A's on every paper I ever wrote in college (& I wrote DOZENS) does not mean I'll criticize your writings. Kudos to John for not responding to your attack on his intelligence.