DO NOT COMPLY

6,560 Views | 68 Replies | Last: 15 hrs ago by concordtom
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:42p, 8/7/21
Do not comply

Reply Quote
5
AunBear89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hanky1 • 1:10p, 8/7/21
Irony
Reply Quote
2
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to helltopay1 • 10:07p, 8/7/21
helltopay1 said:
The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.


Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.
Reply Quote
1
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:08a, 8/8/21


Yikes.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Reply Quote
3
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearForce2 • 3:03a, 8/8/21
BearForce2 said:


Yikes.

There are probably 50,000 people who lost family members in the 9/11 tragedy.

Just because a tiny minority of them don't want him to come, doesn't mean he shouldn't go. It would be wrong for him not to go considering it was a unifying event in our country's history.

And if Biden didn't go, Fox News would have a field day.

10 years ago, months after he got Osama bin Laden, Obama got some boos at the 9/11 10th anniversary in New York City. Should he have not gone? No.

Reply Quote
2
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:23a, 8/8/21
Really happy that Obama is not complying.

Reply Quote
4
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 10:25a, 8/8/21
Unit2Sucks said:
helltopay1 said:
The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.


Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.
Does the Constitution allow the govt to seize private property without compensation which is basically what the eviction moratorium is?
Reply Quote
3
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hanky1 • 10:27a, 8/8/21
hanky1 said:
Really happy that Obama is not complying.

Reply Quote
5
Edited by Staff
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:56a, 8/8/21
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Reply Quote
3
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:45p, 8/8/21


Remember before the election when Democratic politicians publicly said they weren't going to take the vaccine?
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Reply Quote
3
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hanky1 • 1:51p, 8/8/21
hanky1 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
helltopay1 said:
The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.


Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.
Does the Constitution allow the govt to seize private property without compensation which is basically what the eviction moratorium is?


Our conservative Supreme Court says congress can do it.

That has no bearing on htp1's contention that the constitution clearly states that the government cannot mandate any vaccine. Do you agree with him? If so, why has SCOTUS been wrong for over 100 years and where does the constitution address this?
Reply Quote
1
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:39p, 8/8/21
Rand Paul has joined the resistance

Reply Quote
3
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 10:41p, 8/8/21
Unit2Sucks said:
hanky1 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
helltopay1 said:
The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.


Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.
Does the Constitution allow the govt to seize private property without compensation which is basically what the eviction moratorium is?


Our conservative Supreme Court says congress can do it.

That has no bearing on htp1's contention that the constitution clearly states that the government cannot mandate any vaccine. Do you agree with him? If so, why has SCOTUS been wrong for over 100 years and where does the constitution address this?
But Congress didn't do it. Your authoritarian President did it. That's the most dictator shieet any President has done in a while. Far more authoritarian than anything Trump did.
Reply Quote
5
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:06p, 8/8/21
Reply Quote
6
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:08p, 8/8/21
Solid data on why you shouldn't comply

Reply Quote
6
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hanky1 • 11:32p, 8/8/21
hanky1 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
hanky1 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
helltopay1 said:
The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.


Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.
Does the Constitution allow the govt to seize private property without compensation which is basically what the eviction moratorium is?


Our conservative Supreme Court says congress can do it.

That has no bearing on htp1's contention that the constitution clearly states that the government cannot mandate any vaccine. Do you agree with him? If so, why has SCOTUS been wrong for over 100 years and where does the constitution address this?
But Congress didn't do it. Your authoritarian President did it. That's the most dictator shieet any President has done in a while. Far more authoritarian than anything Trump did.


Thanks for confirming you don't even understand the question you asked.

hanky1 said:
Solid data on why you shouldn't comply



Thanks for confirming you don't understand science. Show me what the data would look like without a mask mandate and then perhaps we can have a conversation.

I will give you credit though, you never seem to concern yourself with being proven wrong. Over and over again. COVID is your new Aaron Rodgers.
Reply Quote
3
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 11:38p, 8/8/21
Unit2Sucks said:
hanky1 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
hanky1 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
helltopay1 said:
The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.


Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.
Does the Constitution allow the govt to seize private property without compensation which is basically what the eviction moratorium is?


Our conservative Supreme Court says congress can do it.

That has no bearing on htp1's contention that the constitution clearly states that the government cannot mandate any vaccine. Do you agree with him? If so, why has SCOTUS been wrong for over 100 years and where does the constitution address this?
But Congress didn't do it. Your authoritarian President did it. That's the most dictator shieet any President has done in a while. Far more authoritarian than anything Trump did.


Thanks for confirming you don't even understand the question you asked.

hanky1 said:
Solid data on why you shouldn't comply



Thanks for confirming you don't understand science. Show me what the data would look like without a mask mandate and then perhaps we can have a conversation.

I will give you credit though, you never seem to concern yourself with being proven wrong. Over and over again. COVID is your new Aaron Rodgers.
Show me the data that proves mask do anything.

Go ahead. I dare you.

Keep looking. You can do it.

Search through all the journals.

Keep looking.

I'll be waiting.
Reply Quote
5
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 11:40p, 8/8/21
Unit2Sucks said:
hanky1 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
hanky1 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
helltopay1 said:
The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.


Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.
Does the Constitution allow the govt to seize private property without compensation which is basically what the eviction moratorium is?


Our conservative Supreme Court says congress can do it.

That has no bearing on htp1's contention that the constitution clearly states that the government cannot mandate any vaccine. Do you agree with him? If so, why has SCOTUS been wrong for over 100 years and where does the constitution address this?
But Congress didn't do it. Your authoritarian President did it. That's the most dictator shieet any President has done in a while. Far more authoritarian than anything Trump did.


Thanks for confirming you don't even understand the question you asked.

hanky1 said:
Solid data on why you shouldn't comply



Thanks for confirming you don't understand science. Show me what the data would look like without a mask mandate and then perhaps we can have a conversation.

I will give you credit though, you never seem to concern yourself with being proven wrong. Over and over again. COVID is your new Aaron Rodgers.
You support an anti-democratic dictator.

Heil Biden.
Reply Quote
5
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:49p, 8/8/21
Lol such pathetic trolling. You used to be a decent troll but you are a shell of your former self. Maybe it's time to hang up the cleats or adopt a new persona. Maybe try a smart or interesting one for a change?
Reply Quote
6
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 8:24p, 8/9/21
Unit2Sucks said:
Lol such pathetic trolling. You used to be a decent troll but you are a shell of your former self. Maybe it's time to hang up the cleats or adopt a new persona. Maybe try a smart or interesting one for a change?


You probably once believed in freedom and democracy but the Orange Man Bad turned you into a loonie.
Reply Quote
3
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hanky1 • 8:55p, 8/9/21
hanky1 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
Lol such pathetic trolling. You used to be a decent troll but you are a shell of your former self. Maybe it's time to hang up the cleats or adopt a new persona. Maybe try a smart or interesting one for a change?


You probably once believed in freedom and democracy but the Orange Man Bad turned you into a loonie.


Who turned you into a loonie?
Reply Quote
2
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:49p, 8/9/21
Resist.

Don't be a sheep.
Reply Quote
4
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:17a, 8/10/21


Joe Rogan is hardly MAGA.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Reply Quote
2
going4roses
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:18a, 8/11/21


Lynch mob behavior
Reply Quote
2
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to helltopay1 • 6:10p, 8/12/21
helltopay1 said:
The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.

Damn liberal judges.

Reply Quote
2
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:25p, 8/14/21
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Reply Quote
4
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:04p, 10/14/21



Resist the authoritarians
Do not comply
Civil disobedience
We the people.

The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Reply Quote
2
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hanky1 • 11:22p, 8/29/25
hanky1 said:
Do not comply

Reply Quote
1
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hanky1 • 11:23p, 8/29/25
hanky1 said:
Join the Resistance

Reply Quote
1
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:52a, 8/31/25

Reply Quote
1
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PAC-10-BEAR • 4:52a, 8/31/25
Xenophobia pusher
Reply Quote
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:58a, 8/31/25

What is it that separates the troglodyte from the Evolved Man?




Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 10:26p, 8/31/25
concordtom said:

What is it that separates the troglodyte from the Evolved Man?



Using Darwin in this context is pretty misguided, because he was very much a eugenicist and, like most of his contemporaries, thought that the European race and the British in particular was the apex of human evolution. Thus this framework was a logical justification for the British colonizing what the darwinian framework construes as lesser evolved races in Africa and Asia. Not only did Darwinism justify British colonialism, it made it their duty to spread civilization to the third world - White man's burden...

One major clue about this unpalatable aspect of Darwinism is the full title of his major work, which is " On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life "

So British colonialism is just an emanation of the British being the "favoured race".

incidentally, even back in the 19th century, it was the leftists and socialists in Europe who pushed the hardest for colonization, while the right was more isolationist, not so much for humanitarian reasons but more for practical reasons, as they saw colonialism and the wars associated with it as a waste of national ressources. Empires generated huge wealth for the upper classes invested in the colonial entreprise at the expense of the working classes. That was very much the case for the Roman Empire, and is also the case today with the American Empire.
Reply Quote
3
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 6:46a, 9/1/25
Wow. I never heard that last part of the book title. And I've never heard this framework as you present it.

Added fact: did you know Darwin married his cousin? Yep, I discovered this doing genealogy on my family where in mid 1800's I found a set of ggg grandparents who were first cousins. And their daughter married my gg grandfather, who was her second cousin once removed.

Seeking to understand if this was the root of all my problems, pun intended, I discovered how common the practice was back then/there. A huge percentage of unions were in families - including Darwin and Queen Victoria.

We now understand that such heavy concentration does not lead to survival of the species. Rather, laying one group's survived mutation into another's mutation can lead to even better adaptation.

For instance, two long separated Human species, Homo Neandertalis and Homo Sapiens, met up and interbred millions of times and produced a European and Asian Homo who would develop into successful races of homos.

Today, most Europeans and Asians carry ~12% Neanderthal DNA. Some of those genes are tied to immunity, skin adaptation, and even metabolism.

Similarly, Denisovans (another archaic human group) left a legacy in people of Oceania and Southeast Asia, particularly genes that help high-altitude survival in Tibetans.

Meanwhile,
Inbreeding increases the risk of harmful recessive traits showing up, because both parents might carry the same genetic mutation.
Outbreeding mixing with unrelated or distant populations increases genetic diversity, which often means better resilience, adaptability, and survival.

Bonus factoids:

Did you know that there is no greater genetic variation than on the continent of Africa? (No wonder they dominate in sports!)

In certain times and places, globally, cousin marriage rates were (and in some areas still are) 3050%. These are societies where cousin marriage isn't just tolerated but culturally preferred.

Anyways, I'll have to examine this aspect of Darwin I never knew about.

And speaking of eugenics…. This has also come into play in my family's history. My stepdad's first wife married a woman who was the product of an inmate at New Jersey's Vineland Training School for the Feebleminded, founded in 1888 in Vineland, New Jersey.
It began as a residential institution for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
It became internationally known in the early 1900s under psychologist Henry H. Goddard, who introduced the Binet intelligence test to the U.S. and did pioneering (though now deeply controversial) research on "feeblemindedness."
Goddard's work at Vineland fed into the eugenics movement, with the idea that society should prevent those deemed "unfit" from reproducing. His most infamous case study was The Kallikak Family (1912), which purported to trace hereditary feeblemindedness.
The institution later evolved into the Vineland Training School, and eventually focused on research and education for children with developmental disabilities.

The name "for the feebleminded" fell out of use as language and approaches shifted away from eugenics and custodial care toward education, inclusion, and rights.

Ya know, if people poke around into their pasts, you find a little bit of everything!!! It's why I say, it's not us vs them, it's "we". How are WE going to take care of ourselves, each other, the planet, and our animal kingdom cousins.

A Bible verse that has done more harm than any other?

Genesis 1:26
Reply Quote
2
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:02a
It actually can be taken as beautiful creation storytelling.
But perhaps warped in translation and word choice over the millennia, it came to commonly be interpreted as we are separate from the animal kingdom, that we were superior, that we should have dominion over it.

This is the wrong mindset.
We need to work within the framework of the natural world, as there a limits and planetary finiteness, per the laws of physics.


Genesis chapter 1:
Quote:

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the groundeverything that has the breath of life in itI give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morningthe sixth day.
Reply Quote
2
Refresh
Page 2 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.