Mind you, your wife is supposed to have descended from a rib-bone according to your religion.
Please try to pay attention, as I have already explained this to you before: The Hebrew word used for 'rib' in the KJV was a mistranslation, they translated it as tsela(rib) when actually it was tsala (curve) Coincidently our modern understanding of genetic demonstrates a human can be created by way of the “helix curve”.
According to Strong's Hebrew Lexicon the word rib, Hebrew צלע 'tsela' (Strong’s 6763) , side or rib from the primitive root word of צלע 'tsala' (Strong’s 6760) which means curve, limp in the sense of bowing, to arc, as in pray. God said Adam’s curve. In other words from Adam’s Double Helix (Curve) DNA.
Was the Ark not an Ark? The whale not a whale? The loaves and fish not loaves and fish?
How about... ...simply reading the Bible without eisegetical biases?
P.S. Your Bible literacy is appalling. The Bible says, "Great Fish", not "Whale". The whale is a surface interpretation of the actual Hebrew text, (much like what is happening with your insistence on the word 'rib'.)
I'd ask you to look into it yourself, but I know you won't. You are content in your ignorance, and would rather criticize than observe objectively.
KTJ it’s a bit rich of you to characterise Occam as a “spin doctor”. You’re so repetitive when you come to troll this board that you really haven’t varied your own spin doctoring for the past ten years or however long this board has existed. Actually no, on second thoughts it’s unfair to spin doctors to characterise your Religion Board trolling as “spin doctoring”. Dishonest and disingenuous as spin doctoring might be, at least a bit of creativity and inventiveness is involved in “spinning” a line to make black seem white and to make squares look like circles. But with you it’s always the same boring predictable stodge.
I guess the primitive savages who wrote it (their fairy tales) could never have imagined a more enlightened age way, way into the future, eh?
How Bizzare it is to borrow moral laws FROM the Bible, to criticize the Bible. Well then as a naturalist you've painted yourself into a bit of a corner then...
1. If God does not exist what is your explanation to the origin of the moral code between right and wrong? 2. If the moral code has no origin, it means the moral code you follow today is completely man-made. 3. If it is completely man-made, it means what you believe to be right or wrong is not necessarily right or wrong because it is not considered absolute truth as in the case of Christians believing the Bible as absolute truth or Muslims believing the Quran to be absolute truth. 4. And so, technically I could murder your pet or steal chickens and you wouldn't be able to seek justice because it could be right according to the subjective man-made moral code that I follow. 5. So if you are following a man-made moral code, how do you then assert that slavery is wrong? You are just stating a subjective opinion; and I'd be free to simply accept or reject it.
Shutting out other forms of knowledge doesn't make one more intelligent; it makes them less so.