I wouldn't go that far, but religion, like policing and politics, has always attracted the corrupt and the very evil. 

 Yes. Maybe I was being a little harsh but I still stand by the statement. I'm a "Christian" in name as I was christend as a baby, I didn't obviously concent to this but there we are. Are the 10 commandments a good code to live your life by? Well yes, of course they are. Do I believe that Jesus was the son of God? Nope. Muhammad the prophet of Allah? Nope. All "Moderates" of most religions are absolutely fine. It's the fucking lunatic fringe of each one that causes all the evil, ergo "Religion is the root of all evil"......That and Central Bankers🤷🏻‍♂️. 

 God is perfectly capable of taking action himself if action needs taking. Sodom and Gommorah would agree.

Failing that, God is capable of communicating to individual mortals like me directly. Too many examples.

If some mortal man is telling me God wants me to kill children and infants, its probably Hitler or Ben Gvir, and he probably needs company in his tent (of the fragmenting kind...) 

 That last point is why I led with the moral/allegorical interpretation of the passage.  Frankly, I don't fully understand why God would command the Israelites to kill all of the Canaanites, but I do understand that when I read it today, I can understand it as an admonition to aggressively root out all the things in my life that will draw me away from God.

Yet, we can't simply discard the literal meaning of the text, and those passages are definitely among the most difficult to understand literally, at least from a moral framework shaped by the incarnation, death, and resurrection of God.

God also allowed divorce in ancient Israel, but Jesus forbids it to Christians.  Is this a contradiction?  It sure can feel that way sometimes.  Is God "allowed" to command what he pleases?  Yes.

Now, this goes back to the ancient question: "Does God commands something because it is just, or is it just because he commands it?"  I tend towards the Medieval view of divine simplicity—that God is identical with all of his attributes.  So God and justice are the same thing.  Which suggests to me that if these passages of Scripture don't *appear* just, it must be because I am failing to grasp some underlying unity.

All this isn't much in the way of answers, but it's how I try to think about such things. 

 This is something that Alexandria will be able to answer itself one day with the right vector representation, but how did St. Thomas of Aquinas square that particular circle? 

 A bit of searching brought this up; Article 5 is especially pertinent:

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm

Thomas asserts God's absolute sovereignty over life and death, saying:

"All men alike, both guilty and innocent, die the death of nature: which death of nature is inflicted by the power of God on account of original sin, according to 1 Samuel 2:6: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive." Consequently, by the command of God, death can be inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent, without any injustice whatever."

All the objections and replies are worth a read, though. 

 While searching I also read the suggestion that the commands we see to put all the Canaanites to the sword was a Hebrew idiomatic hyperbole; indeed we see examples of hyperbole throughout Scripture ("If your eye causes you to sin,..." etc.).

If this is the case, then, as you suggested earlier, perhaps we are not to take it absolutely literally, in which case the moral or spiritual meaning becomes primary in governing our understanding of such passages. 

 It's still hard to conceive a god who kill innocent children en masse. Where's justice in that? To make justice you need first that someone conscientiously commits a crime and the punishment must fit the crime. If your god can break this rule then he's committing a contradiction of the rules which himself created, if he's contradictory then he isn't a real god  

 If you cook a meal, do you not have both the power and right to share it with whom you please, or to not share it at all? 

 That's exactly what I'm trying to point out: if the god of the Bible can change the notion of justice (opening exceptions from the natural law which himself supposedly created) whenever he wants then he cannot be a god, because one of the characteristics of the God is being perfect and immutable, if he can "change his mind" about what is justice then he's mutable and mutability is not perfect  

 Did you read the except from the Summa?  It addresses that very question. 

 Another example how the Bible is contradictory:

"The Lord reigns forever; he has established his throne for judgment.
He rules the world in righteousness and judges the peoples with equity."
(Psalm 9:7-8)

If he "judges with equity" why did he command the killing of innocent children?  

 YHVH commanded israelites to bash children against the rocks, did he not? 
I would say just accept it if you intend to keep being a Christian. Otherwise, abandon it. 

 Well, that's not anything I haven't heard about the Talmud before. It's not high on my list of books to read.

Thank you for the warning.  

 Indeed. 3 is fresky degen jewish stuff.
I will stick to nubile 12 yo women. 

 And the stories of Sumer were passed down from the civilization before.  One of the most interesting explorations I have done is the history of how humanity survived the "great flood", really the asteroid impact of 10,800 B.C. and the subsequent rising of the Persian Gulf to it's current level along with the rest of the oceans of the world.  The people in the Gulf area escaped and founded Sumer and Ur. 

 This is a theory that facinates me. I find it fairly plausible in some ways.  

 Look deep enough into history, and there are just too many breadcrumbs leading us to this conclusion. 

 I'm not 100% sold on it, yet, but, it is compelling.  

 I'ma have to look into this. Are we talking Chicxulub or something else? How would that make sea level rise? By adding mass to the earth? 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis 

 Oh yeah younger dryas interesting stuff 

 If you haven't read the Zend Avesta (Zoroastrian), you might be interested in how it intersects. It certainly opened my eyes into possibilities of the past. 

 Why do you think the authors of those stories "plagiarized" what was commonly understood history? 

Did Plato plagiarize his account of Atlantis? No. He wrote down what he was told. 

Once a person starts to poke at things, I think it's more remarkable that the Bible shares a very remarkable similarity to all mythologies that I'm aware of, from the whole world over. So, I can't agree that the Bible is "plagiarized." 

As for the divine consciousness you believe responsible for our existence, why is it that you would reject the God of the Bible as that being? 

Religion is evil. I agree. The Bible certainly has been misused. I don't think I'm religious. Most organized religion (well, probably all) is certainly off the mark or just outright evil. But... That's still got nothing to do with God's purpose for humans and very specifically for you.  

 The beef I have with the original authors is that they took what they knew to be true, then twisted it into something else. They didn't write down what they were told, they straight-up fabricated aspects in the re-telling.

In terms of the "God of the bible", versus what I believe; Jahova is a total shitbag. Yahweh, Elohim, et. al. aren't so bad, but the desires and needs of Jahova are extremely immature, and beneath my own needs and desires. I could never whorship someone that isn't worthy of my presence. I believe the God of the bible (in most depictions) is the demiurge. He certainly acts like it. 

 Could you please explain how you know that they wrote untruths? 

You do you equivocate YHWH and JHVH? 

The demiurge? That's kinda cringe. Lol! But, I can't come to that conclusion at all.  

 This is from a post-modern mindset and honestly pretty silly. 

The categories are really ridiculous and show both a lack of understanding of human history (what is generally accepted), modern "morality" (which absolutely is not moral), and rather vague "standards."

So... I'm not sure what point you're trying to use this to make.  

 yeah, because they think the cardinals at nicaea gathered the motht auforitative version and that's bullshit, patent bullshit

nowhere in any of the books of the bible is the BIBLE referred to itself, so anything in the bible cannot be said to sanctify the collection as it is, at all, period

and of course there's probably parts of the various scattered versions (i have a book with 3 versions of enoch) that are bullshit as well

but genesis as in the catholic bible, and enoch both concur on the point about fallen angels defying the Lord and laying with human women and producing nephilim offspring, it's not even in question even if you believe the story that the catholic bible compilation is authoritative, it still even says that in it!

i'm not really sure what part you are referring to as being questionable though... there's three major parts that i'm familiar with, one relates to the prophecy and stuff like what later parts of Revelation refer to, one seems to be a prophecy itself, if the antiquity is true, that corresponds to animal versions of several of the stories in Genesis (and we know that if it was from enoch then it's a prophecy, if that part is faithful to the history) and then there is a third section that for me reads a lot like much of the text of Plato's Timaeus (and similar to Corpus Hermeticum and the first section of Vishnu Purana) 

 several places in the catholic bible even refer to how large parts of the Word of God would be hidden from the world for a long time and revealed in the latter days

it's hard to take many of these scholars seriously when they are indoctrinated with the catholic canon, when obviously even the extant modern Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox churches have a different canon 

 The Book of Enoch (at least the early parts of it) seem to be real history and mostly accurate, but not inspired, so nothing in it can be taken as definitive. 

 there is many other data points for some parts of it though

like the white skin blonde/red hair stuff... you can pin this to a mutation that emerged after an event 42000 years ago... in the book i learned about this, they said it was related to a star 400 lightyears away blowing up and blasting out a shockwave of X- and Gamma rays and that seemed plausible but i also learned today that coincides with the Laschamp Event which is the most studied geomagnetic excursion known

anyway, it's one data point, i recommend checking out The Book of Jasher and The Book of Jubilees, a couple other apocrypha that tell slightly different versions but mostly corroborating to the story in Genesis

the fact that maybe more than a dozen literal direct sayings attributed to Jesus are directly from Enoch suggests that back in those times Enoch was widely known, that alone is kinda significant, even if the provenance is weak in places 

 Enoch certainly was known to pretty much everyone back then. 

What book did you read that in?  

 The Apocalypse of Yajnavalkya

https://www.amazon.es/-/pt/dp/B0C1J2MLCN/ref=sr_1_1?crid=YILCB2Z48E7E

there's a couple of parts of this book i want to dig into more, and i think their hypothesis about the events related to the Great Flood are wrong (they say meteor strike from Taurids, and they also say that the race of angels, Tuatha de Danaan, the Aes Dana, the Angelic Host, or whatever you name them) now live out in that direction towards the Pleiades, but i don't think it was taurids... and they also talk about a proton/high energy particle blast from a star 400LY away they name "geminga" but that timing of 42000 years ago coincides with the Laschamp Event (just look it up) which is a geomagnetic excursion and roughly lines up with the ~25000 year cycle as the previous cycle peak, which means we are in for another peak and the 12000 year event was Noah

but it also says that they were here on earth, they built the great pyramids of egypt, back about 15000 years ago, before that swarm hit us, so, idk, now i know about geomagnetic excursions and i already recalled reading about pole shifts a long way back, the "total flood" scenario starts with a micronova and the rippling of the galactic current sheet - and after all that stuff is thrown off by the sun, then yes, over the subsequent 1200 years there would be clouds of meteors that eventually are gonna hit hard in that time, the period of history geologists call the Younger Dryas

it's written in a funny style, sorta like psychic medium but at the same time also is bristling with references like an academic text, but it was what pointed me to Enoch and Jasher and Jubilees and the 6000/12000/25000 year cycle (yuga cycle) and Vishnu Purana

and i have read bits and pieces of these things, not completed yet, but especially Enoch and Vishnu Purana i saw what this person writing it expressed in the book

anyway, just dropping the reference and the best understanding i have from my reading currently, combined with the apocrypha i have read, and i am convinced it is correct and that the "angels" are humans who lived here and achieved the technology and knowledge to migrate across the galaxy and they left a promise with Enoch they would come back and collect the humans who weren't evil... and when you keep that in mind and read Revelation and Genesis and Enoch it all starts to make a certain kind of very novel, interesting sense, one that i'm very inclined to believe in, it totally knits together so many things that previously were detached threads 

 suffice it to say the Laschamp Event totally explains the incidence of a high radiation event that could have caused the mutation that gave us lactose tolerance after weaning and white skin and red/blonde hair, all of which are basically deletions of DNA that is common to most mammals, but, interestingly, mutations that are found also rarely in all mammals, the russian blue, the white cat (with blue eyes) and first time i ever saw it, a white horse, with blue eyes, and a dog with white hair and blue eyes lives up the street from me and these white animals proliferate across this island i live on now

and i was reading this at the time i first saw all these critters around me, and it talks about the Canary Islands as being Tartarus, and the pyramids there on Tenerife

so, it kinda hit me different 

 Hmmm... That's an interesting set of conjectures, though, I can't say I agree with much of it. I will look up the event and the other references. Thank you for the link!  

 My biggest problem with all of that is it doesn't line up with the age indicated in the Bible.  If you use the genealogies that say what age the father was when each son was born, the Earth is only about 6,000 years old and the flood was approximately 4,500 years ago.  None of the dates in that book agree with Biblical ages.

FYI, we can't know exact years because we don't know if someone was born on the first day of after a birthday or one day before they turned the next age.  Also the Jews used to use a 360 vs 365 day year.  I've also heard that they used to name ages solely based on the year of birth, so that causes weird rounding errors.  Still, we should be able to get within 100 years of the right year.  That doesn't allow tens of thousands of years, not if you believe the Bible is true. 

 yeah, for sure 6000 years is between Adam and Noah, and I suppose Adam was like 20 when he was taken to Eden, and he lived 900 and that was the norm for another  7 generations, until you get to Noah

so yeah, that implies that probably Adam was after the 12000 year point, by maybe 1200 years, and the Great Flood was 6000 years ago, as the rest of the timeline fits with that

the thing is that the period between Noah and Abraham is quite vague, and it rather seems to me like Babel and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by some kind of intermediate disaster nothing like as bad as Noah's disaster

one of the other things about this is that the magnetic field of the earth weakening during these rotations of the galactic current sheet (a magnetic field that radiates from the centre of the galaxy) turns about 90' each 600 years according to many measurements and by the geological evidence this is a cycle that entails periods where the earth does not block radiation normally for about 600 years or so (look up the Laschamp Event) and this leads to all kinds of changes in weather and volcanic and seismic events happening more intensely

i need to read Genesis again from the bible, to line it up with what i've read in Jubilees and i'm just up to the late days of Jacob currently in Jasher... just to see how the number of generations and the ages of the seed of Adam is between to Noah and then to Abraham, because Noah's time was the great flood and it looks like Abraham came out of the time after Babel and Sodom, and that there might actually be something of a gap in there that is implied

anyway, yeah, gotta read more Genesis, and finish Jasher, and read em all again... and dammit, i am supposed to be building software lol 

 There isn't a gap anywhere between Adam and Abraham.  There is a complete list of people saying when one person was born, the previous person was a certain age.  Even if there were one or more skipped generations, that doesn't change the fact that the Father was  the specified age when the son (or grandson) was born.  The genealogies lead to a period when dates are known and can be continued.  It isn't that it was 6,000 years between Adam and Noah.  It has been about 6,000 years since Adam.  The Bible is very specific.

It is very interesting to take the genealogies in a spreadsheet and see how they overlap and how the years match up.  It helps you see how much time has gone by. 

 does that timeline include the 900 years lifespan of Adam and the ... what was it, 750 or something years of Noah, and the also very long period of Enoch and his son Methuselah? those stretch out a very long period between Eden and The Flood

the disaster that befalls Sodom and Babel also, it is a really long time period, and iirc after the flood the lifespans shortened to around 150 on the outside

anyhow, yeah, i need to start putting aside time to start searching for the references, it's on my bucket list to write an analysis of all this 

 Yes it does include all of those, but you have to remember that they don't add, they overlap (a lot).  For example, when Abraham was born, Noah was still alive.  (Sorry my example is post flood.  I was curious one day how long since Noah died when Abraham was born and was shocked to calculate that Noah was still alive when Abraham was born.) 

 yeah, it would be great to have a timeline and family tree of all that stuff, because iirc, Matthew starts off with a geneaology that traces back to David, and you can build the tree back to Adam... to put them all in a timeline with birth and death and their family relations would be an amazing infographic

and yeah, Jasher and Jubilees both concer with what you say, iirc, regarding Abraham being born before Noah died... both books go into quite some detail about their ages and who they had children to and everything, it's all quite clear and consistent across the texts 

 I found this chart online.  Keep in mind there are small errors due to not knowing when in a particular year, each generation was born, and potential different ways of counting ages/years.  It is unlikely that it is off by more than a couple of tens of years.  The traditional calculated date of creation by Usher was 4004 BC.  That should be very close.

https://image.nostr.build/ba92e42c593db3525355b6209d407281685fa38f0dd2dead9296863641c53a31.jpg 

 It is interesting that the flood came during Noah's life and he was the first generation that was not alive during Adam's lifetime. 

 This one is even better because it shows when each person was born, when they had the next kid, and when they died.  https://viz.bible/visualizing-the-genesis-timeline-from-adam-to-abraham/
https://image.nostr.build/b94c1f8257f6769516a409294c2bd48e44b1e12869c0af8b5ed07da4603b6a0c.jpg 

 thinking about estimated ages of geological events and their heavy reliance on Carbon 14 suggests to me that if this historical record is accurate, and based on the prescribed 360 day year, then 2348 BC is the timing of the event that geologists are calling ~6000 years...

i think that their dating method doesn't work, and the reason is that every so often the sun blows up hard, in either massive flares, or even more full on, a micro nova, and when this happens, huge amounts of C14 are thrown at the earth and so there is no consistency to the amounts that are upon the surface, using it as a time estimate is stupid

so, it's probably accurate, give or take a bit, and not only is it probably accurate, a follow-up event like the Flood is coming, as evidenced by the rapid decline of the earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years, and especially the acceleration in the last 20 years

i saw a documentary a while back that explained how the flood event is a much better explanation for the existence of fossils, mainly because of the way that it washes away so much loose soil, and then as the waters return back to the sea, they form distinct layers, often of different types of sedimentary soil composition, and the fossils are literally a small area where these animals were drowned and quickly smothered in layers of mud and clay, that later hardens up into sedimentary rock. really, it's just hard packed fine soil that has had megatons of other soil on top of it

the thing is though, that although yes there was heavy cloud cover and rain and lightning and whatnot during the event, it was not from the sky where most of the water came from, it was because the entire earth's crust suddenly jerked to a new orientation, and the stickiness of the water and the contours of the ground and all this mud it kicks up and washes away, over the following months first there is the wash, then the "slosh back" which then covers everything up and creates a whole new set of contours over top of the bedrock and volcanic rock layers underneeth, and eventually over time and floods in between some of these caches of dead animal bodies are found, and this wrong-headed model of carbon 14 decay makes them think it's millions of years old when actually it only happened 4000 years ago... and this distortion impacts everything associated with geological and archaeological stuff

when in realityit's almost impossible to know the age of most things. 

 All radiometric dating is based on several assumptions that are very questionable.  For radiometric dating to work, all of the following must be true.
1.  The exact proportion of parent and daughter isotopes have to be known (how can we know when we don't even know the date?)
2.  We have to know the exact decay rate and that decay rate has to be constant even under changing conditions (this is the easiest to believe, but there is still physical evidence that it isn't true).
3.  The sample must not allow any of the parent or daughter isotope to come into or exit the sample (since most are water soluable, this is hard to believe).

C-14 dating uses the assumption that we currently have a particular proportionality of C-14 and C-12.  This proportion is present in the CO2 in the air that plants use and therefore the plants have this same proportion in their flesh.  Animals eat these plants and therefore have the same proportion.  When either dies, they stop ingesting C-14 and therefore it starts decaying into C-12 over time.
There are two problems with this dating.  Plants and animals in the ocean are further from the initial ingestion of C-14 and therefore they (and anyone/anything that eats them) with have a lower proportion of C-14 giving an older age when their age is calculated.  Also, Earth's magnetic field halves approximately every 1400 years.  The magnetic field was higher in the past.  This reduced the solar radiation which converts N-14 to C-14, therefore the C14/C12 ratio was lower in the past, once again giving older dates.  There is no measurable C-14 after less than 100,000 years and isn't very accurate over about 10,000 years.

Since rocks aren't ingesting carbon, these symptoms clearly don't work, so other radiometric methods are used, most of which have extremely long half-lives meaning there is not much change over millions of years.  They also tend to assume the sample started with only the parent isotope (which is very unlikely).  Most (if not all) cases that radiometric dating was used to test rocks of unknown ages, it gave multiple orders of magnitude higher ages.  If it doesn't work on rocks of known ages, why should anyone believe the ages of rocks of unknown ages? 

 FYI, diamonds have been found to have C-14 in them, so they can't be billions of years old.  Even if they were formed as 100% C-14, there would be none left. 

 everything you just said makes total sense to me based on my understanding of chemistry and radiochemistry and physics

i think, though, that based on much, rich, geological and rocks used in construction especially in the area of Egypt suggest that there may be errors somewhere in the record of timelines for the patriarchs

in contrast to radiocarbon dating, rock-based age estimations are far less susceptible to assumptions especilaly where the question is about "how long can - for example - sandstone stand in the face of typical erosion from the environment"

this is a much easier question to answer because there is so much corroborating evidence, especially contemporaneous and nearby structures, and rock formations of similar composition that will experience weathering stresses and so forth

they are still a little circumstantial, but far less circumstantial than radiocarbon, and i just saw a good little presentation relating to this and the ancient, mostly granitic structures at the core of many of the egyptian statues and structures that strongly suggest that at least some of them were built around 12000 years ago, or earlier

the presenter also points out that regarding the environmental factors that could have played into it, that around 5000 years ago the weather changed a lot in the region, the river became less wet, and its course, and number of streams changed, so, this can reduce the period, but probably not by so much as a question about radiocarbon dating of a flood-dumped load of preserved things might, in the context of the poor evidence about the actual C14 rates of accumulation on the surface, versus the weathering that might be washing it away

it may not actually disagree, fundamentally, except on the one point of the "creation of man" question, and this is also why i strongly recommend you look at Jubilees and Jasher for some other extant and relatively prevalent accounts of the time of Adam, because Jasher is very explicit and detailed, the book is quite long, almost maybe as many words in it as the entire old testament, and it has some small differences, as i have mentioned, it does not accuse Rebecca of encouraging explicit deception from Jacob, she does not make him the furry wraps or anything, it sorta implies that Isaac was that past it that he didn't notice

the bedrock, the stuff formed from volcanoes, and fire, in general, are reliable sources of dating, in comparison to sedimentary and carbon dating

it may well be that the entire record of Genesis is pretty much accurate, except for that first part that claims that this was the beginning of our kind, but it also implies that people lived before this, and there was a LOT more history going back that has great relevance to understanding our current historical circumstance (like more details of the War in Heaven) 

 God's word is always accurate, even the first 11 chapters.  God doesn't lie. 

 It is pretty interesting in genetics.  Scientists (including secular scientists) have looked at mutations in the mitochondrial DNA that is passed down from mother to child through the egg.  Their calculations say the first female mitochondrial DNA was about 7,000 years ago (awfully close to the Bible's 6,000 but based on assumptions that might not be accurate).  They also looked at mutations in the Y chromosomes passed down from father to son.  These calculations came out to 4,500-5,000 years which is about the length of time since the flood.

Since the men on the ark were Noah and his 3 sons, you would expect all Y chromosomes to go back to Noah ~4,500 years ago.  Since the women on the ark were 4 unrelated women (Noah's wife and each of his son's wives), you would expect their mitochondrial DNA variation to trace back to Eve ~6,000 years ago.  Science matches the Bible. 

 also, that's very interesting, it means that diamons are formed under us all the time wherever there is chunks of carbon 

 Now what else is interesting is that I've heard from friends in the industry that oil fields refill. That doesn't exactly jive with "science."  

 doesn't jive with the idiotic idea that carbon came from where?

outer space? what the fuck

no, obviously it was encapsulated into the crust and substance of the planet and it separates out like everything, silica, magnesium, iron, etc etc etc

so many things about current geological/climatological "Science :trademark:" is so obviously half baked and more retarded than fairy stories 

 carbon comes from my mouth       lol   hey m 

 Yes, carbon comes from Helium burning stars, specifically supergiants that have burnt away most of their hydrogen. 

 Carbon was created by God when He created the Earth before the stars. 

 oil pools like water/ just a fact that i've seen but does it mean    (0_O))))) reverb 

 or the whole earth and diamonds are very young 

 well, two things - there is a geologist from western australia who did a presentation i saw a few years back where he showed that by taking all the estimated ages of the parts of the earth, and deleting them to show the reversed process of expansion, it all very neatly returns to an original state where there was no oceans, according to their rock age estimates the youngest of the surface is is 200MM years... well, you know, idk how they estimate that if it's C14 related

anyhow, the point is, if the earth is expanding, then we also know already that it's not just dust falling on us from space, that isn't enough to explain this rate of mass accumulation

what would explain it, however, is a superconductive supercritical iron magnetic core in which the gravity is so intense that time slows down to such a speed that matter inside is able to stabilise, all squashed into the supercritical liquid but not liquid core, and new matter is constantly bubbling out from there

that would include C14 and all the things

also, the expanding earth could explain a lot more things and with the bogus guesses about time, maybe even the earth is actually that young... 

i don't really know at this point but i'm inclined to think that stuff like the rate of erosion of very large sandstone blocks would have to be the most accurate age estimation i have seen and i just saw it explained that there is megalithic sandstone structure, i forget where, Karnak, maybe, that has clearly lost 2' of its surface from erosion, which puts it at around minimum 12000 years old

the erosion could to have been much stronger than this, even a flood would not have made that much damage in the short time it runs for, though it would be one of the most erosive times it would have experienced, maybe it lost an inch from that, but you se what i mean?

and according to the egyptians writings, the people who built that stuff were "gods" in their words, and they also clearly had computers and robots, they left behind vases that were clearly machined by robots with higher precision than we can even measure at this point 

 You are quite right that the rock layers are made by the violent flood and the "breaking up of the waters of the deep."  
- Most fossils are either marine fossils or land and marine fossils mixed together.  This makes much more sense if the layers were caused by a global flood.
- Most animals don't become fossils when they die.  For fossils to form, it requires the animal to be buried quickly (so not even bacteria can break them down) and to be exposed to mineralized water (like sea water or volcanic water).
-  There are lots of places that sedimentary rocks were significantly bent (even 90 degrees or more) without cracking.  If they were soft mud at the time, this makes sense.  If they were lithified, they would crack.  Frequently people will say they bent because of heat, but heat metamorphizes the rocks and that hasn't happened.  These rocks layers were clearly bent while wet.
- When "scientists" say the rocks were formed over millions and billions of years, they will point to "gaps" in the rock layers.  They will point to a knife thin border between rock layers and claim there are millions of years missing, but this is nonsensical.  If millions of years have gone by, you would expect to see erosion, with gullies and even valleys, but you see perfectly flat, even borders between layers.  You don't even see animal or insect burrows.  The most likely explanation is that the layers were laid down only hours or days later, not the purported millions of years. 

 this is a good example of why the apocrypha are worth looking at

the detail in Jasher about this exact situation illuminates a lot... and Enoch also mentions his Red Hair and White Skin

and no coincidence, probably that Esau exhibits these physical characteristics, i'm sure i don't have to remind you of the Jacob and Esau and their mother and the furry Esau scenario... interestingly, in Jasher, the conniving part of the mother's actions are missing! 

honestly, on the face of it the plain Genesis version makes Jacob look bad, instead of suggestible, and his mother seems like a straight up Eve

i honestly can't make sense of teh story even with 3 different versions, it still seems shady to me but in all three versions the further actions of Esau make it very clear this guy was a piece of shit 

 Kill women and children doesn't even fit with "just war theory". Good luck trying defend this shit  

 I'm not defending it. I'm providing context as I understand it. I don't pretend up have all the answers. I never will. Neither do you.

I find it encouraging that you're so disgusted with the idea of killing women and children. I agree with you about that, which is why this is both hard to comes to grips with.  

 Your blanket statements really are gross.  

 I guess reality is gross to you, ok. Perhaps moving to Nigeria or Haiti would make you stop being a pussy and accept reality for what it is. Or maybe you would perish before that. 

 I could point you to various white majority places that are quite awful, too. 

Sure, Haiti and Nigeria are bad. That's get very little to do with race and a whole lot to do with culture and faith.  

 Not a single White country will ever be as pathetic as Haiti. 

 Wow. You're very blind. It's honestly impressive that you're so blind! Cool. Thank you. I am learning a lot from you. 💪🫂❤️ 

 @Low Information Voter emanating nigger worship. Very pathetic. 

 Worship? No.  

 My bad. Nigger love. You love niggers. 

 It could be said that I do love some that you call that. And why is that supposedly a bad thing?  

 Because they are demonic and non-human. And if they could, they would invariably decimate you. 

 No, they are not. 

And no, just some of them would.  

 Why don't you try moving into Haiti? I am sure the residents will treat you so well.
 

 No thanks. Too hot.  

 No. I am not. That's the title given to that group of, I guess you could call them spiritual, beings that sired the nephilim.