Talk:Genesis 1:1

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Anonymous humo(u)r

This is moved here from the page:

There is a school of thought that there may have been an error of transposition in the translation of this particular section. It should have read - "In the beginning DOG created the heavens and the earth."
Some may dismiss this as being a small, insignificant error, but many scholars are of the opinion that if this correction is adopted, then it has profound implications for everything that follows.
For example, later on in the text, it would mean Adam and Eve were made in the image of dog. This raises questions as to why they would have been, after having eaten the apple, embarrassed to find themselves naked. After all, a naked dog still leaves much to the imagination, unless you shave it, or something.

Perhaps we need a humor section. The tone should be academic. Posts should be made in good faith.

Sounds like a plan. Franc28 23:50, 17 Aug 2005 (CDT)
  • I think what I'll do is let people do humor on their user pages, like so: User:Franc28/Marriage_in_the_bible (there is a funny post on the 'net about marriage in the Bible). Then, if it really is funny, link to it as a "==See also==" page from the verse or chapter. I am the final authority here on what's funny! --Peter Kirby 23:59, 17 Aug 2005 (CDT)


Incredible "Con" statements

"If someone says, "The Big Bang was the origin of the universe," I simply ask, "What caused the Big Bang." The obvious answer is that God caused the Big Bang."

How can anything "cause the Big Bang" ? According to Big Bang theory, there can be nothing "before the Big Bang", and so we cannot ask what caused the Big Bang any more than we can ask what caused God. This statement is very ignorant. But since it is not phrased as a scientific fact, I did not delete it. As I posted in Pro, there are so many scientific problems alone with the notion of Creation that it's ridiculous to defend it. Franc28 23:21, 26 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Franc, I restored the paragraph you deleted. Please refer to the rules on the Main_Page--users are not permitted to edit in both con and pro areas.
While I agree that the statement made in Con is scientifically untenable, you must demonstrate the untenability on the Pro side, rather than simply deleting the statement.
Thank you.

--JustinEiler 23:29, 26 Aug 2005 (CDT)