The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

[jesus_freak]

This is a thread that I was asked to start by others in another forum that wanted to continually bring up the Bible and contradictions in an evolution discussion...so lets have at it:rolleyes:

[Cosmo]

What?

[skeptifem]

Ok, here is an easy way to prove that the bible is not literally correct.


http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Jesus freak, there it is for you. it is a collection of contradictory bible verses.

Some of them are rather impossible to explain away.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/abes_sons.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/300or800.html

[jesus_freak]

Some of them are rather impossible to explain away.


Pick one and we will start there.

[skeptifem]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/300or800.html

2 Samuel 23:6 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2sam/23.html#8) The ... chief among the captains ... he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time....

1 Chronicles 11:11 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1chr/11.html#11) the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Contradiction...


Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

and

Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.


Refutations to probable arguments.

It meant spiritual death and not physical death. The word used for "die" is 'muwth' meaning physical execution. Nowhere in the passage is the word 'spiritual' used.

For God a day is a thousand years. It actually says ' With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.' Assuming this to be true then it means a thousand years for 'god' is like a day and vise versa. Not for 'man'.

The Hebrew word used for 'day' just means a 'short time'. Actually the Hebrew word used is 'yowm' meaning about a 24 hour period of time.

[jesus_freak]

2Sa 23:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Sa&chapter=23&verse=6&version=kjv#6)But [the sons] of Belial [shall be] all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands:


1Ch 11:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Ch&chapter=11&verse=11&version=kjv#11)
And this [is] the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain [by him] at one time.

Seriously this is how you want to start?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Contradiction...

Does not answer directly...
Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Does not answer directly
Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
22:71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Jesus answers directly
Mark 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


So there is a contradiction between Matthew, Luke and Mark. All three have different accounts of the same event.

[jesus_freak]

Lets stick with one at a time, its not fair to just riffle off questions and expect answers to all of them right away.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

2Sa 23:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Sa&chapter=23&verse=6&version=kjv#6)But [the sons] of Belial [shall be] all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands:


1Ch 11:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Ch&chapter=11&verse=11&version=kjv#11)
And this [is] the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain [by him] at one time.

Seriously this is how you want to start?

It's 2Sa 23:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Sa&chapter=23&verse=8&version=kjv#8)--These [be] the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same [was] Adino the Eznite: [he lift up his spear] against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

[skeptifem]

ok

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/ahaziah_age.html


2 Kings 8:26 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2kg/8.html#26) Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. 2 Chronicles 22:2 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2chr/22.html#2) Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.

[ChristineR]

The fact that some of these contradictions are pretty lame and completely unimportant is not the point. The point is that there are contradictions, in this case because the text was compiled from two or more different authors.

Any contradiction is enough to prove that the Bible is not absolutely and literally true, so we might as well start with the simple and direct ones.

So how old was Ahaziah when he started to reign?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Lets stick with one at a time, its not fair to just riffle off questions and expect answers to all of them right away.

You'd like that, wouldn't you? You'd love to have time to devise some weaselly response to the scores of inconsistencies found in your so-called inerrant holy book. (That, of course, is just the start. We can cover the bigotry and evil endorsed by the Bible later.)

Sorry freak, you made your bed, now take the intellectual pounding you so justly deserve.

Keep firing, guys! We've got this fundie him on the run!

[jesus_freak]

So how old was Ahaziah when he started to reign?

22...now what do i win?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Why are there two different creation stories? (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html)

How long did it take to create the Earth? (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/days.htmlhttp://)

Why did God tell Adam at first that he could eat from any tree in the garden, but then tell him that he could eat from any tree in the Garden except the Tree Of Knowledge? (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/tree.html)

[Achán hiNidráne]

So how old was Ahaziah when he started to reign?

22...now what do i win?

That's funny, in Chronicles 2:22 it says Ahaziah was "forty and two years when he began to reign."

Sorry, you lose... again.

[jesus_freak]

It meant spiritual death and not physical death. The word used for "die" is 'muwth' meaning physical execution. Nowhere in the passage is the word 'spiritual' used.

muwth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively);

Nice try though!

[jesus_freak]

Ok I will play this game if you want...
Why are there two different creation stories? (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html)
There is only 1...sorry

[jesus_freak]

That's funny, in Chronicles 2:22 it says Ahaziah was "forty and two years when he began to reign."

Sorry, you lose... again.
My Bible say says 22

In my Bible footnotes...
"Some versions read forty two here,a copyist error easily made due to the small stroke that diffentiates two Heb. letters. The reading from 1kings 8:26 twenty two should be followed.

[jesus_freak]

Why did God tell Adam at first that he could eat from any tree in the garden, but then tell him that he could eat from any tree in the Garden except the Tree Of Knowledge? (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/tree.html)

Gen 1:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=29&version=kjv#29)¶And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

muwth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively);

Nice try though!

1) to die, kill, have one executed
a) (Qal)
1) to die
2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
3) to die, perish (of a nation)
4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
d) (Hophal)
1) to be killed, be put to death
a) to die prematurely

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=04191

[a_unique_person]

My Bible say says 22

In my Bible footnotes...
"Some versions read forty two here,a copyist error easily made due to the small stroke that diffentiates two Heb. letters. The reading from 1kings 8:26 twenty two should be followed.

It's not inerrant, then.

[Zep]

Of course! If you read Freak's "specially annotated" version of the bible, the one where all the excuses for the lame translations (not to mention the lame translations themselves) are provided in the margins.

And if that one has innerancies? Well gawsh! Switch to any other version and dodge the question.

Alternatively, you could just make up the footnotes to be whatever you like as you go along. No-one needs to know it's a load of crap you are spouting. :rolleyes:

[lupus_in_fabula]

The only 100% sure thing I can say about the bible is that it exists. We might as well analyze inconsistencies in Babylon 5. It would, of course, only entertain the fan boys of that show, but it would probably be as interesting nonetheless!

We could also try a little game of character swapping; changing one fictional character with another one. The story would remain the same – with as little application to realty as it has now – but we could argue about who gets to play who.

[Curnir]

This is a troll.

And it reeks of AmyWilsonites.

[lupus_in_fabula]

This is a troll.

And it reeks of AmyWilsonites.

I guess you’re right (I assume the “troll” is in reference to my post), so I apologize for my little sidestep. Howling at the moon is sometimes just too irresistible! Since the topic is about inconsistencies in the bible, it’s probably best to keep the discussion within that context.

[logical muse]

In Genesis Chapter 1, God makes:


the Earth on the first day
Heaven on the second day
Water, grass, herbs, trees, etc on the third day
The Sun and the Moon on the fourth day
Living things on days five and six
Man and Woman, both, on the sixth day, after making the creatures


Genesis Chapter 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=9)

In Genesis Chapter 2, God rests on the seventh day, and then, something strange happens. He makes the earth and heavens, and man, woman, creatures, plants etc all in one day!

In fact, he makes Adam, and then he makes the creatures. This directly contradicts the account in Genesis Chapter 1.

Genesis Chapter 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=9)

[cyborg]

jesus_freak if you choose the KJV as your example of perfection then that is your problem not ours.

Translation errors, copying errors etc... that make their way into the KJV is irrelevant. You chose it as your Bible. Should have made a better choice.

[volatile]

My Bible say says 22

In my Bible footnotes...
"Some versions read forty two here,a copyist error easily made due to the small stroke that diffentiates two Heb. letters. The reading from 1kings 8:26 twenty two should be followed.

Hold on! Hold on! You realise "inerrant" means "without error", don't you? If your Bible needs footnotes not written by the original author to explain inaccuracies, inconsistencies and errors, it isn't 100% true, mate.

How do you know the copyist didn't make the error in transcribing 1Kings and the version in Chronicles is the correct one?

You've been hoodwinked.

[Ichneumonwasp]

On what day did Jesus die in relationship to the Passover?

[DangerousBeliefs]

Rather than just quoting a verse or two...

Evidence the Earth was covered in a global flood? (And probably several hundred sub questions)

Evidence all language flowed from one source?

Evidence that the Jews had an egyptian prince? Were slaves in Egypt? The early Jews really obsessed over Egypt.

The thing I love is Christians who say "Well these are just stories to teach us lessons". To that I say, Jesus believed them. If he believed them, then was anything Jesus said or did true if his teachings were based on myths?

[SimonD]

Hold on! Hold on! You realise "inerrant" means "without error", don't you? If your Bible needs footnotes not written by the original author to explain inaccuracies, inconsistencies and errors, it isn't 100% true, mate.

How do you know the copyist didn't make the error in transcribing 1Kings and the version in Chronicles is the correct one?

You've been hoodwinked.

You bet me to it Matt

JF - even your own bible admits to inconsistencies. What more do you want?

Taken from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#cruel
Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

[H3LL]

This is a thread that I was asked to start by others in another forum that wanted to continually bring up the Bible and contradictions in an evolution discussion...so lets have at it:rolleyes:

As mentioned...Which one?

You can find the "one-and-only" "inerrant" bible somewhere in this list:

English Bible Versions (http://www.bible-researcher.com/links02.html)


or a quick guide to save the effort of clicking:


Historic (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/lits/library/guides/biblver.htm) - Major Catholic, Anglican/Protestant Versions ( -1800) · Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome) c.400: the Bible of the Western Church through the middle ages; still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. · Wycliffe (& Purvey) c.1385: first translation of whole (or most of) Bible from Vulgate into vernacular, medieval English -- [n.b. complete Wycliffe Bible not published until 1850]. · Martin Luther c.1522: translation of the Greek N.T. and Hebrew O.T. into vernacular German; still the standard Bible of German Protestants [Lutheran]. · Tyndale c.1525: translation of Greek N.T. [consulting Vulgate and Luther's German translation] and parts of Hebrew O.T. -- fixed the English translation style. · Coverdale c.1535: little change from Tyndale's, but with new translations for previously undone portions of O.T. from Vulgate and Luther's [not orig. Hebrew]; Coverdale's PSALMS still used by Anglicans and Episcopalians in Book of Common Prayer. · Matthew c.1537: Essentially Tyndale's but a publication authorized by the king (Henry VIII); the first authorized or licensed English Bible - [though license was extended to Coverdale's later editions]. · Great Bible (Cranmer) c.1540: revision of Matthew's Bible produced in a large size; undertaken at Cromwell's suggestion and claimed the "Bible appointed to the use of the churches". · Geneva c.1560: revision/collation of Tyndale's and the Great Bible; first English translation to use the division into verses; considered most scholarly of early English versions; commonly used for many years - especially among Puritans - and commonly brought to America. · Bishops' c.1568: a rebuttal by the bishops to the Geneva Bible (which they didn't like); borrowed heavily from Great Bible and, actually, also from Geneva Bible - including use of verses; uneven quality but formed basis for KJV. · Rheims/Douay c.1582/1610: the official [English] Roman Catholic Bible; translation from Vulgate [n.b. Bishop Challoner revised in mid 1700's, sometimes called "Challoner-Rheims Version"]. · King James (or Authorized ) Version (KJV or AV) 1611: the standard authorized Bible of most Protestant churches for 2+ centuries; used the original Hebrew and Greek to inform comparison/revision of earlier English versions - [leaned heavily on Bishop's Bible; much of the language actually goes back to Tyndale's]. Modern - Major English Language Versions (1800-1990) · Revised Version or English Revised Version (RV or ERV) N.T. 1881, O.T. 1884: first major revision of KJV; done by lengthy committee process including Anglican and most Protestant faiths but NOT Roman Catholics. · American Revised Version or American Standard Version (ARV or ASV) N.T. 1900, O.T. 1901: a re-edited version of the RV, basically the same. · Moulton (Modern Readers') Bible1907: a rearrangement of texts rather than a significantly new version, but an early attempt to "update" the Bible. · Moffat Bible N.T. 1913, O.T. 1924: a new translation from early Greek and Latin texts - considered flawed because of the choice of source texts and the occasional rearrangement of verses but still a major work and fairly popular in it's time. · Smith-Goodspeed or "Chicago " Bible c.1930's: [The Bible: An American Translation (AT)] first significant attempt to make truly modern language version. · Knox Bible N.T. 1945, O.T. 1948: a new translation of the Vulgate bible; the New Testament was officially approved by the Roman Catholic church, though not supplanting the Rheims N.T. (first translation done by a single individual). · Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1946-1957: an attempt to improve on the language of the RV/ASV; more widely accepted, but not supplanting KJV. · Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley) (MLB) 1959, rev. 1969: another attempt at a modernization of the language leaning especially toward an American audience and working from the Greek and Hebrew texts. · Jerusalem Bible (JB) 1966: Catholic translation based on ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts, but closely following the French "Bible de Jerusalem" [n.b. begun well after the NAB NT (1941) was done, but finished before the NAB OT (1970)]. · New American Standard Bible (NASB) N.T. 1963, O.T. 1970: conservative, fairly literal translation from mainly Greek texts; attempt to repeat the RV process with more contemporary language; not very well-received. · New English Bible (NEB) 1970: first completely new [Protestant] translation from original Bible languages into English since Tyndale. · New American Bible (NAB) O.T. 1969, complete 1970 [added "Confraternity Version" N.T. of Douay]: The first significant Catholic translation since Douay-Rheims; working from original Greek texts mainly, rather than Vulgate (Latin); O.T. also made use of Dead Sea Scrolls; original N.T. rushed and mostly from Vulgate and later (1987) greatly revised/retranslated. · Living Bible 1971: most popular "paraphrase translation". · New International Version (NIV) 1973: a conservative, evangelically oriented translation from Greek and Hebrew texts. · Good News Bible [Today's English Version] (TEV) 1966: "common language" translation from modern Greek/Hebrew texts; emphasis on effective and accurate communication to the common reader. · New King James Version (NKJV) N.T. 1979, O.T. 1982: a revision of KJV to improve readability of text . · New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 1985: a revision following on the changes made in the French revision of the Bible de Jerusalem (1973) reflecting some new scholarship in research of the original texts and translations. · New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1989: the result of continuing revisions from the committee(s) who made RSV . · Revised English Bible (REB) 1989: a revision of the New English Bible (1970), updating according to new scholarship in translation. Or how about a list of the "inerrant" changes in the seven most popular:

Bible Version Comparison (http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html)

Maybe you could decide which one could be "read literally" from a historical context?

Versions of the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm)

Puzzled?...

Help is at hand.

Choose the one to take literally with this helpful guide.

Choosing a Bible Translation (http://www.firstpresb.org/translations.htm)

My personal favourite....

The Brick Testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com/)

Definitely the best as the most repugnant, immoral, violent, sadistic, misogynistic, pro-slave, petulant and vile parts are easier to stomach with little Lego men.

While you are at it, let us know which, if any of the missing books should be included to make it a little less inerrant and whether you consider The Book of Mormon (http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents) to be a missing bit or not.

Inerrant?...Ha!

Have fun.

[Curnir]

I guess you’re right (I assume the “troll” is in reference to my post), so I apologize for my little sidestep. Howling at the moon is sometimes just too irresistible! Since the topic is about inconsistencies in the bible, it’s probably best to keep the discussion within that context.

Nope mate it was not in any way, shape or form a reference to your post.

It was merely a howl of dismay from my side. :D

[Lothian]

I spotted an error last time I read it. It kept talking about some ‘god’ person as if they were real

[hgc]

My Bible say says 22

In my Bible footnotes...
"Some versions read forty two here,a copyist error easily made due to the small stroke that diffentiates two Heb. letters. The reading from 1kings 8:26 twenty two should be followed.
The whole damn thing could be copy errors!

[Skeptic]

muwth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively);

Nice try though!

As a native speaker of Hebrew, I can assure you that "muwth" is never used to mean "spiritual death" in the old testament. In the old testament, the word is meant literally, almost without exception; while there is rare figurative use, but never in the sense of "spiritual death".

[Katana]

Hey, H3LL, how about the Jefferson Bible?

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

[Skeptic]

In Genesis Chapter 1, God makes:


the Earth on the first day
Heaven on the second day
Water, grass, herbs, trees, etc on the third day
The Sun and the Moon on the fourth day
Living things on days five and six
Man and Woman, both, on the sixth day, after making the creatures


Genesis Chapter 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=9)

In Genesis Chapter 2, God rests on the seventh day, and then, something strange happens. He makes the earth and heavens, and man, woman, creatures, plants etc all in one day!

In fact, he makes Adam, and then he makes the creatures. This directly contradicts the account in Genesis Chapter 1.

Genesis Chapter 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=9)

It's also really cool, the way the earth--and plants as well--existed before the sun.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Genesis 4:13 And Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear!
Genesis 4:14 Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.”
Genesis 4:15 And the LORD said to him, “Therefore,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=4&version=50#fen-NKJV-95b)] whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.
Genesis 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.
Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.

This is from the evolution thread where I agreed not to bring up inconsistencies in Genesis. I really didn't think we would get a bible thread going. Who did Cain believe would kill him? There appear to be only 3 people in the whole world, Adam, Eve and Cain. A similar question involves the origin of Cain's wife. Where did she come from? JF, were there other people in the world besides the clan of Adam? What is the literal biblical explanation of their origin?

[aggle-rithm]

This is a thread that I was asked to start by others in another forum that wanted to continually bring up the Bible and contradictions in an evolution discussion...so lets have at it:rolleyes:

Lets stick with one at a time, its not fair to just riffle off questions and expect answers to all of them right away.


So, what does "have at it" mean?

[a_unique_person]

jesus_freak if you choose the KJV as your example of perfection then that is your problem not ours.

Translation errors, copying errors etc... that make their way into the KJV is irrelevant. You chose it as your Bible. Should have made a better choice.

Perhaps he could tell us which version is the inerrant one, for starters.

[aggle-rithm]

My Bible say says 22

In my Bible footnotes...
"Some versions read forty two here,a copyist error easily made due to the small stroke that diffentiates two Heb. letters. The reading from 1kings 8:26 twenty two should be followed.

Wow, it's a good thing that, given the Bible was re-translated and re-copied numerous times, this was the ONLY copyist error, ever!

[aggle-rithm]

The whole damn thing could be copy errors!

The gist is this: The Bible is inerrant, but there exists no COPY of the Bible that is inerrant.

Now, that's logic! ;)

[aggle-rithm]

I spotted an error last time I read it. It kept talking about some ‘god’ person as if they were real

Plus, Genesis completely left out the minor detail that Noah was 12 feet tall.

[Mr Clingford]

The title of the thread says the Bible is to be read literally. Does this mean that we are to follow the words of Jesus literally, words such as 'If your hand causes you to sin then cut it off'?

[aggle-rithm]

Here's one that jesus_freak would no doubt throw out, since it relies on a comparison to historical records other than the Bible. Never mind that these records were written much closer to the actual events than the Bible was...

There are two distinctly different Nativity stories, each taking a different approach to explaining how the Messiah could have come from Gallilee when all the prophecies said he was supposed to be born in Bethlehem. One implies that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem all along, but King Herod ran them off, and they eventually settled in Gallilee. The other says they lived in Gallilee, and came to Bethlehem because Quirinius, the governor of Syria, told them to report there for a census (apparently, the census ordered heads of families to go to the towns where their most famous ancestor was born. Roman efficiency at its finest!).

King Herod died some time before an eclipse in 4 BC. Quirinius became governor of Syria a few years later. No way they were both in charge at the same time.

Plus, there was never any census of the "whole world", as the Bible claims. The census was limited to Syria, and was ordered by Quirinius.

But, why should we listen to Romans, who were probably the most meticulous bureaucrats in history when it came to keeping records?

[fuelair]

This is a troll.

And it reeks of AmyWilsonites.Except its' not having sex with its' boyfriend.:D

[aggle-rithm]

The title of the thread says the Bible is to be read literally. Does this mean that we are to follow the words of Jesus literally, words such as 'If your hand causes you to sin then cut it off'?

It's the brain that causes you to sin. Perhaps fundies take this quote to its natural conclusion, and that's why they tend to be short on brains?

[cyborg]

Perhaps he could tell us which version is the inerrant one, for starters.

In another thread he expressed a preference for the KJV. There are certainly groups of KJV-ist literalists.

[fuelair]

I guess you’re right (I assume the “troll” is in reference to my post), so I apologize for my little sidestep. Howling at the moon is sometimes just too irresistible! Since the topic is about inconsistencies in the bible, it’s probably best to keep the discussion within that context.
Have not gone past your post yet - but I'm pretty certain Curnir is referring to jf not you
(- yours made perfectly good sense!!:) Welcome to the pool!!:)

[aggle-rithm]

This is from the evolution thread where I agreed not to bring up inconsistencies in Genesis. I really didn't think we would get a bible thread going. Who did Cain believe would kill him? There appear to be only 3 people in the whole world, Adam, Eve and Cain. A similar question involves the origin of Cain's wife. Where did she come from? JF, were there other people in the world besides the clan of Adam? What is the literal biblical explanation of their origin?

GOD: All right, NOBODY KILL CAIN!

ADAM AND EVE: Um.... it's just us two, Lord.

GOD: Oh. Damn, I'd better whip up some more people...

[Katana]

Except its' not having sex with its' boyfriend.:D

Clever use of apostrophes, fuelair.

:p

[Mr Clingford]

It's the brain that causes you to sin. Perhaps fundies take this quote to its natural conclusion, and that's why they tend to be short on brains?!

Actually amongst the early Church Fathers it is possible that Origen decided that sex was to blame for a lot and decided to cut off his offending dangly bits. Something to chew over.

[ImaginalDisc]

!

Actually amongst the early Church Fathers it is possible that Origen decided that sex was to blame for a lot and decided to cut off his offending dangly bits. Something to chew over.

Well, if thy one eyed-trouser snake offend thee. . .

[aggle-rithm]

Well, if thy one eyed-trouser snake offend thee. . .

...strangle it until it begs for mercy.

[Marquis de Carabas]

muwth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively);

Nice try though!
Sorry. You are not allowed figurative uses, unless you wish to retract the thread title.

[Jimbo07]

so lets have at it



muwth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively);

Nice try though!

Sorry. You are not allowed figurative uses, unless you wish to retract the thread title.

Unless I've missed something, I'm going to have to second MdC's objection.

[St.Michael]

My favourite excuse used by Christians when talking about contradictions and mistranslations in the bible is:

It’s not the actual words that are important it’s the meaning behind them that is! :D

[fuelair]

Plus, Genesis completely left out the minor detail that Noah was 12 feet tall.

So, he could mate with the giraffes and elephants too!:D

[fuelair]

The title of the thread says the Bible is to be read literally. Does this mean that we are to follow the words of Jesus literally, words such as 'If your hand causes you to sin then cut it off'?
Sure - so if you engage in a little "self-service" the people will need to start calling you Lefty!!!:D :jaw-dropp

[jesus_freak]

4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)

I will take this one then!

[jesus_freak]

The original is going to be the most accurate obviously, I do not believe that my KJV is as accurate but it is the MOST accurate.

[jesus_freak]

It's the brain that causes you to sin. Perhaps fundies take this quote to its natural conclusion, and that's why they tend to be short on brains?
Sorry but no it is Satan that causes you to sin!

[jesus_freak]

Plus, Genesis completely left out the minor detail that Noah was 12 feet tall.
Show me where I said Noah was 12 feet tall? So because it doesn't list the height of everyone in it, it can not be trusted?lol

[cyborg]

The original is going to be the most accurate obviously, I do not believe that my KJV is as accurate but it is the MOST accurate.

Based on what?

Sorry but no it is Satan that causes you to sin!

Then why does your god get so mad at the victims of Satan's power?

[jesus_freak]

Judas died how?
Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks.

[jesus_freak]

Then why does your god get so mad at the victims of Satan's power?
God gets mad at people like you that fall for Satans tricks because he sent his only Son to die for you so that you could have etenal life but you are not willing to see admit that...it's like you have closed your eyes and coplain because you can not see!

[jesus_freak]

Here is an interesting question...What is going to happen to you after you die? Are you just going to become worm food?...will you be reincarnated? ...does everyone go to Heaven? You all seem to know so much I am curious!

[cyborg]

God gets mad at people like you that fall for Satans tricks

So god is getting mad because I am just a mere mortal without the ability to contend with mystical forces beyond my control?

So I'm getting conned but your god has no sympathy whatsoever.

Thanks god. A-Hole.

because he sent his only Son to die for you so that you could have etenal life but you are not willing to see admit that...

Other gods promise me eternal life. Without the need for blood sacrifice.

it's like you have closed your eyes and coplain because you can not see!

It's like you have closed your eyes and complain because you cannot see!

[Cosmo]

Here is an interesting question...What is going to happen to you after you die? Are you just going to become worm food?

Yes.

...will you be reincarnated?

No.

...does everyone go to Heaven?

Doesn't exist.

[volatile]

Here is an interesting question...What is going to happen to you after you die? Are you just going to become worm food?...will you be reincarnated? ...does everyone go to Heaven? You all seem to know so much I am curious!

What a bizarre question.

What happens to me after I die? Nothing, I'm dead. That's it. No heaven, no hell, no nothing. I'm dead. World goes on as before, hopefully slightly enriched for my brief presence upon it.

Is this leading to some kind of substantial argument as to how the Bible is "100% true"?

[volatile]

The original is going to be the most accurate obviously, I do not believe that my KJV is as accurate but it is the MOST accurate.

There can be no degrees of accuracy whilst at the same time being 100% true. Those two things are mutually, and logically, exclusive!

If it's not "as accurate" as the original, which bits are wrong?

[aggle-rithm]

Here is an interesting question...What is going to happen to you after you die? Are you just going to become worm food?...will you be reincarnated? ...does everyone go to Heaven? You all seem to know so much I am curious!

My death isn't going to happen within my lifetime, so I don't give it much thought.

[cyborg]

Here is an interesting question...What is going to happen to you after you die?

Same thing that happens to everything else. Why should I believe any differently? Why am I so special that there are great mystical beings 'out there' who are vying for the essence of my existence? Do you like thinking that you are special in this way?

[aggle-rithm]

Show me where I said Noah was 12 feet tall?


I wrote "jesus_freak said Noah was 12 feet tall" in the margins of my KJV. Everything in there is true.


So because it doesn't list the height of everyone in it, it can not be trusted?lol


Wow, it's like you can see right into my soul!!

[jesus_freak]

Wow I get the idea that I am talking to a bunch of teenagers who love Star Trek...Come on and admit it

[jesus_freak]

I wrote "jesus_freak said Noah was 12 feet tall"
Really you are falling back on lies already?

[jesus_freak]

Same thing that happens to everything else
Don't give me that, come on tell me what do YOU think or know is going to happen?

[jesus_freak]

My death isn't going to happen within my lifetime, so I don't give it much thought.
Maybe you really should start to give it thought, and give me an answer.

[volatile]

Wow I get the idea that I am talking to a bunch of teenagers who love Star Trek...Come on and admit it

I'm 27 and don't like Star Trek. I could photcopy you my passport, but you'd still have to take my word on the Star Trek thing.

That "admitted", care to address my previous point? I'm learning pretty rapidly that you're not really interested in engaging in substantive debate, JF.

[Tanstaafl]

Maybe you should get back to your own OP instead of doing your Jack Chick imitation.

[SimonD]

Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks.

But the bible does not say this, does it? You are just speculating. Your thread says "The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally" and yet when I point a clean contradiction you resort to speculating.

Now which verse is correct in this 100% true bible of yours

Did Judas hang himself

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

or by falling

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

No speculating now.....

[volatile]

Maybe you really should start to give it thought, and give me an answer.

Can you actually read? That little epithet perfectly sums up his opinions, in a witty and concise manner. I sense you're being deliberately obtuse, now.

[jesus_freak]

He tried to hang himself but was unsuccesful?

[SimonD]

God gets mad at people like you that fall for Satans tricks because he sent his only Son to die for you so that you could have etenal life but you are not willing to see admit that...it's like you have closed your eyes and coplain because you can not see!

Gee, and I thought the bible says that god is a god of love

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)

[SimonD]

He tried to hang himself but was unsuccesful?

You are speculating again.

Where does it say in the bible that he was unsuccesful in his hanging attempt?

[3point14]

Okay, I have a bible question for you JF.

What were the last words of Jesus Christ?

[hgc]

He tried to hang himself but was unsuccesful?
You get an E for Effort!

:roll:

[hgc]

Okay, I have a bible question for you JF.

What were the last words of Jesus Christ?
"Oh no! I think I left the oven on!"

[Marquis de Carabas]

Which mountain is it from which all the nations of the world may be viewed? (Matt 4:8 if you're following along at home)

[Paul]

Show me where I said Noah was 12 feet tall? Because you can't even be bothered to read your own posts:if Noah was twelve feet tall his cubit would be bigger than ours.
*and don't try and wriggle out by saying you used if, there's a link in the quote so you can see it in context yourself.

[cyborg]

Wow I get the idea that I am talking to a bunch of teenagers who love Star Trek...Come on and admit it

I fail to the relevance.

Do you believe your background is relevant to the truth of the Bible?

[cyborg]

Don't give me that, come on tell me what do YOU think or know is going to happen?

Chemical equilibrium.

[hgc]

I fail to the relevance.

Do you believe your background is relevant to the truth of the Bible?
You have stumbled into the problem of solipsism, which is the underpinning of much magical thinking.

[SimonD]

Okay, I have a bible question for you JF.

What were the last words of Jesus Christ?

Peter, I can see your house from up here! (old joke, I know)

[3point14]

Peter, I can see your house from up here! (old joke, I know)

I love that one!!!


And the smarties one, but that requires actions.

[Clu]

Hi ya fellas... I'm no biblical scholar and so if I have gotten something wrong I hope you can forgive (and enlighten) me :wackyunsure:... Well my thought is this: if the grrrrreat flood is the result of man's sinful behavior why didn't the G.O.D send his son (Apolonius Christ (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8152208608191358213&q=penn+%26+teller+bible)) to the world then to asume their sin instead of instigating a massmurder from which the only survivors were one man, his family and a few animals... Can anybody say inbreeding... all together now ...1 ...2 ...3 ...INBREEDING!!!

[fuelair]

Really you are falling back on lies already?
No, we are playing word games with you because you are convinced of something that can only be true by allowing you word games way beyond those we are doing to you/with your material. If the Bible is inerrant, is the word of god incarnate, then you can't have the excuse of mis-translation/copy errors/ printers devils, etc. If god (existed and) meant the bible to be inerrant, it would be. There would be no need for a discussion like this, no question that needed footnotes to "cover it". Every version of the bible would be, regardless of language, the same. That is not the case so either the bible is not actually the "WORD OF god" or it is, but he slipped up after the first writing. You wish to believe otherwise and are free to do so but your "evidence" - at least that you have presented here - does not begin to support that belief. What you have may be called delusion or faith (or both) but it is not evidence or a search for truth.

By the by, I am 60. And, while Star Trek is ok and I watched it, I am not now, nor have I ever been a Trekkie.

[aggle-rithm]

Maybe you really should start to give it thought, and give me an answer.

I've given it all the thought I need to, thank you. It took me many, many years to get over the egocentrical notion that death was something I would "experience", when in fact it is (from my viewpoint) no different from the eternity that lapsed before I was born. I don't waste too much time worrying about that, either.

Also, if I am wrong and there is eternal life after death, then it would be an existence without entropy (you know, that pesky force of nature that guarantees that nothing lasts forever), and therefore without time. This existence would be so different from anything I've experienced that I couldn't even imagine what it would be like (if it's even logically possible). Therefore, there is really no point in thinking about it.

Don't presume to know whether or not I have given something thought. There was a time when my beliefs weren't that much different from yours. Unfortunately, I wasn't as skilled as you at reconciling inconsistencies in my belief system, so I simply stopped believing in things that are inconsistent with reality.

[Achán hiNidráne]

The original is going to be the most accurate obviously, I do not believe that my KJV is as accurate but it is the MOST accurate.

"Most accurate" doesn't not mean 100% accurate. You just crossed your own T.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Here is an interesting question...What is going to happen to you after you die? Are you just going to become worm food?...will you be reincarnated? ...does everyone go to Heaven? You all seem to know so much I am curious!

We are worm food. There is no reincarnation. There is no Heaven.

I have answered your questions and I'm not going to make fun of you. Please answer my question.

Genesis 4:13 And Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear!
Genesis 4:14 Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.”
Genesis 4:15 And the LORD said to him, “Therefore,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=4&version=50#fen-NKJV-95b)] whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.
Genesis 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.
Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.
Who did Cain believe would kill him? There appear to be only 3 people in the whole world, Adam, Eve and Cain. A similar question involves the origin of Cain's wife. Where did she come from? JF, were there other people in the world besides the clan of Adam? What is the literal biblical explanation of their origin?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Wow I get the idea that I am talking to a bunch of teenagers who love Star Trek...Come on and admit it

I prefer Babylon 5 and Firefly myself. I also enjoy Bernard Cornwell's novels, Robert Frost's poetry, Coca Cola, Penn & Teller, miniature wargames, hiking, hunting, and trap/skeet shooting.

Now, what the frack does any of this have to religion and the fact that your dead wrong?

[Paul]

I've answered one of your questions but I am going to make fun of you; please answer RenaissanceBiker's question.

[Steve]

Here is an interesting question...What is going to happen to you after you die? Are you just going to become worm food?...will you be reincarnated? ...does everyone go to Heaven? You all seem to know so much I am curious!

No worm food for me. I've signed up for (and paid for) ashes and air pollution. No heaven, no hell, just nothing for eternity although I doubt that I will care.

Like others have asked - what does this have to do with the OP?

[aggle-rithm]

No worm food for me. I've signed up for (and paid for) ashes and air pollution. No heaven, no hell, just nothing for eternity although I doubt that I will care.

Like others have asked - what does this have to do with the OP?

I think he's building up to an argument from negative consequences.

[hgc]

I think he's building up to an argument from negative consequences.
Very squishy stuff. Though it's logically incoherent, it's a lot easier to defend than the factually checkable bible inerrancy thing.

[jesus_freak]

Okay, I have a bible question for you JF.

What were the last words of Jesus Christ?

I don't know he is still alive, He doesn't talk to me sorry!

[Marquis de Carabas]

He doesn't talk to me sorry!
Evidence, perhaps, that Jesus is wiser than we.

[3point14]

I don't know he is still alive, He doesn't talk to me sorry!


Erm, okay, then I'll try and ask the question in a fashion that you can't wriggle out of.


When on the cross at Golgotha, what were the words Jesus spoke right before he died (or at least was assumed by the Romans to be dead)?

This is your lord, Jesus Christ, saviour of all men who so loved the world that he gave his life. I would imagine that his last words would be pretty well recorded in the Christian holy book.

What were they?

[SimonD]

Evidence, perhaps, that Jesus is wiser than we.

Now you made me spit my coffee all over the keyboard - bastard :D

[jesus_freak]

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).

[baron]

If the Bible is to be taken literally, what constituted a "day" in the six days of creation, bearing in mind the sun didn't appear until "day" 4?

[cyborg]

Your god is a lying god.

If he were real then you have just convinced me I should have nothing to do with him.

Congratulations. I am now fully a tool of Satan.

[3point14]

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).

Sorry, I missed the answer to the question I asked. Could you reiterate?

[Marquis de Carabas]

The ungodly base their confidence on two truths: 1) You're full of s:Dt; and 2) My God, you're so full of s:Dt.

[jesus_freak]

This is your lord, Jesus Christ, saviour of all men who so loved the world that he gave his life. I would imagine that his last words would be pretty well recorded in the Christian holy book.

What were they?
Luk 23:46 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=23&verse=46&version=kjv#46)And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost

Whats your point?or are you gonna change the question for the third time and make me answer it again untill you get what you want me to say?

[jesus_freak]

. I am now fully a tool

There I fixed it for you!

[3point14]

The ungodly base their confidence on two truths: 1) You're full of s:Dt; and 2) My God, you're so full of s:Dt.

The ungodly crying to their god.

Seems about as logical as some of the other views expressed in this thread. Mentioning no names.

[Dogdoctor]

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).

I see and he left you in charge of telling everyone which of these are sneaky jesus bs and which are "truth".

[gnome]

That's awfully convenient. So if something doesn't look right, it can be dismissed as a seeming contradiction or a trick to snare the proud. What that means is that even if there WERE a contradiction there would be no way to establish it.

The fact of the matter is, you didn't assert that the bible was 100% correct, you asserted it was 100% literal. And yet you have already spoken for figurative meanings of selective verses. To be consistent, you don't need to give up believing the bible is right... you just need to acknowledge that in some places it isn't literal. It's hard to do because it's difficult for a person to admit that they might be wrong about something... which can happen if a part of the Bible doesn't have an exact meaning to lord over another one's opinion... it's a frightening realization for the insecure, but a virtuously humble choice to make that the bible might mean something besides what YOU think it means.

[RenaissanceBiker]

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).

So your lack of pride, wisdom and prudence allows you to understand the Bible? Why would your god limit his message to only those people who lack these qualities?

[baron]

If I started a thread claiming to be able to answer questions on the legitimacy of my beliefs, I imagine I would have at least made one decent response by this point.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Luk 23:46 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=23&verse=46&version=kjv#46)And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost
Are you finished? Because it is.

[3point14]

Luk 23:46 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=23&verse=46&version=kjv#46)And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost

Whats your point?or are you gonna change the question for the third time and make me answer it again untill you get what you want me to say?


None one of these then?


Matthew 27:46

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" - which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

John 19:30

When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.



I mean, I'm no bible scholar, but this does seem a little contradictory?

[Marquis de Carabas]

The ungodly crying to their god.
You can interpret that figuratively. :p

[3point14]

You can interpret that figuratively. :p

:)

[flume]

JF, here are some things I talked about in a post in the evolution topic.

Okay, you've made the choice to believe the Bible literally.
(Obviously many people who have the same info as you do, including Biblical scholars, did NOT make that choice. There are many Christians who do not take Genesis literally or who do not take any part of the Bible literally, as well as many people who are religious but not Christian, and many people who are not religious at all. So the contents of the Bible do NOT compell most people to believe it literally - at some point you have made a choice that is not based on overwhelmingly compelling information. I just wanted to say that.)

Okay, so you've chosen to believe Genesis literally. But there isn't a whole lot of detail about how God actually created the plants and animals. No morphological, physiological, genetic comments in there. He just did it without sharing His process. So you don't have any idea HOW He did it. (And no human was there to observe and take notes.)

Also there is Job, chapter 38, where God says, "Where wast thou when I laid down the foundations of the earth?" and so on. It seems to me that a Bible believer would need a lot of pride, a lot of hubris, to second-guess God about HOW he created the earth and the animals and plants. (non-literal-Bible-believers don't have this issue, of course.) You insist that science is wrong, is trash, is contemptous nonsense that even a child would laugh at, because it measures the earth and its creatures and comes up with a time estimate that disagrees with what YOU THINK a creation according to the BIble should look like. Aren't you second-guessing the Creator here? Aren't you assuming that YOU, puny mortal, know just how He created the lion and the lamb? Were you there when He (according to your belief) laid down the foundations of the earth? Why don't you just look in awe at the way it ACTUALLY IS?

If you believe in the omnipotence of God, surely you believe He could have created the earth and its creatures in one week but with any appearance He chose? All you have to do to keep your literal belief is to say that for whatever Divine reason, the earth appears to be billions of years old, according to the meaurements of science, and that the species of animals and plants and people appear to have evolved from earlier life-forms.

Why do your creationist friends fall back on lies and distortions and strawmen to make their arguments in order to claim that the earth looks the way THEY THINK God (being a sensible fellow) must have created it? Isn't that hubris? And why do creationist Christians, who should be in dread of breaking the ten commandants, find it so comfortable to use lies and distortions to try to convince the public that the science of evolution is without basis? Isn't that 'bearing false witness'
JF, are you comfortable with them using lies and distortions?

[H3LL]

The original is going to be the most accurate obviously,

You really didn't have a look at anything I posted for you, did you. The original what? In what form? With which bits added or subtracted?

To match your thread title "The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally" please let us know how your Ancient Greek and/or your Hebrew/Aramaic skills are.

Which of these old languages should be compulsory so that "the original" can be read?

I do not believe that my KJV is as accurate but it is the MOST accurate.

"MOST accurate"?

You have contradicted yourself in one sentence.

How can both the "original" AND the KJV be the "MOST accurate"?

As usual with your ilk you have failed to answer just about every sensible question asked of you.

You have failed in this thread (and others) to meet any question with appropriate evidence.

You have failed to answer any question with appropriate evidence from outside the bible.

You have failed to answer any question with appropriate evidence from inside the bible.

You can't even decide which or even what is the MOST accurate of your supposed inerrant fairy tales.

You are obviously completely unsure of what you believe in away from what a person-on-the-pulpit has told you.

Don't expect anyone to believe you when you have no evidence inside or outside of the bible to support any of your assertions.

Finally. Your assumption that we are all Trekkies is pathetic and insulting. I, like many here, were once as convinced in our beliefs as you pretend to be.

That changed.

I will finish with a quote (paraphrased?) from a great man:

"Read the goddamn Bible!
We need more atheists..."

.

[Darth Rotor]

God gets mad at people like you that fall for Satans tricks because he sent his only Son to die for you so that you could have etenal life but you are not willing to see admit that...it's like you have closed your eyes and coplain because you can not see!
You'd be better off putting your wang in a blender than bringing that style of argument on the road. This is a tough room. Your punchlines aren't up to scratch.

DR

[hgc]

God gets mad at people like you that fall for Satans tricks because he sent his only Son to die for you so that you could have etenal life but you are not willing to see admit that...it's like you have closed your eyes and coplain because you can not see!

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).
Satan's tricks bad, God's tricks good. Check.

Oh, and what is the point of God snaring the proud with his seeming contradictions? Is he trying to send us into the arms of Satan? This God of yours sure practices a tough love.

[Darth Rotor]

Satan's tricks bad, God's tricks good. Check.
That seems to be consistent, if you go by definitions. Satan is Evil and God is Good, so it should follow that Satan's tricks are bad, and God's tricks are good, based on their source.

Mary Magdalene's tricks, on the other hand, cost a few sheckels before she left the oldest profession . . .

DR

[ChristineR]

Hey, some of you guys are really derailing this thread into silliness. jesus_freak, let me go back to the age of Ahaziah. Clearly, this is a contradiction in the original text. For the Old Testament, there are basically only two texts, one in Hebrew, one in Greek. The Greek is actually older, but it was translated from a Hebrew text now lost to us and we have to rely on copies of the translation. The Hebrew text all comes from one particular piece of parchment (it was kept in the temple at Jerusalem) and it was checked with letter counts and the like, so we have a pretty good idea what was on that one piece of parchment. That particular parchment is long gone, though.

There are some other old pieces of parchment, some as old as the temple parchment, and they do have some differences.

Most Protestant Old Testaments are based on this Hebrew document, known as the Masoretic text. Some Jews (and Christians) believe the Masoretic text is an accurate transcript of words that were dictated by God. In any case, there is no doubt that there is a mistake in the text here.

You can't get around it, without resorting to "mysteries" and conjectures like "he reigned twice" which are completely contradicted by the rest of the text.

So I'd like you to clarify your feelings on this. I freely admit that this could be a simple typo (sans typewriter, of course) but it does pretty much throw the whole question of Bible inerrancy into question. There are many such errors in the Bible. Many of them could just be typos, but others are clearly not typos. Before we start talking about those sorts of errors, lets start with this sort of error--the obvious typo.

[sackett]

Yo, J_F!

Tell me, are you a monotheist?

I'll wait while you look up that $5 word.

[ChristineR]

For the rest of you guys:

Since Cain et al lived thousands of years, Cain's wife could have been a sister, niece, grand niece, great grand niece, etc. etc. At some time brothers and sisters would have had incestuous sex, but this is the Bible--worse things are routinely excused.

Mary Magdelene was never a prostitute. In some of the early Gnostic Christian sects she was actually revered almost as much as Jesus. It is speculated that the identification of Mary with various prostitutes mentioned in the gospels was an attempt to suppress the idea of male/female equality, which was central to some gnostic doctrine.

[Darth Rotor]

Mary Magdelene was never a prostitute. In some of the early Gnostic Christian sects she was actually revered almost as much as Jesus. It is speculated that the identification of Mary with various prostitutes mentioned in the gospels was an attempt to suppress the idea of male/female equality, which was central to some gnostic doctrine.
Thanks for sharing, Dan. Or is it Elaine?

Raining on my little joke scores you zero points. :p

DR

[H3LL]

Since Cain et al lived thousands of years, Cain's wife could have been a sister, niece, grand niece, great grand niece, etc. etc. At some time brothers and sisters would have had incestuous sex, but this is the Bible--worse things are routinely excused.

A Nod (http://bible.cc/genesis/4-16.htm)'s as good as a wink to a blind bat....Nudge-nudge... East of Eden...Know-what-I-mean....Wink-wink....Abel..Eh!...Eh!!!...Abel? I bet she was...I BET she was...Nudge-nudge.


.

[Cetecea]

The ungodly base their confidence on two truths: 1) You're full of s:Dt; and 2) My God, you're so full of s:Dt.

Crap... you did it again!

[SimonD]

Satan's tricks bad, God's tricks good. Check.

Oh, and what is the point of God snaring the proud with his seeming contradictions? Is he trying to send us into the arms of Satan? This God of yours sure practices a tough love.

Book of Job anyone?:)

[Kiwiwriter]

So your lack of pride, wisdom and prudence allows you to understand the Bible? Why would your god limit his message to only those people who lack these qualities?

If Timothy is literally correct, God does not want people to gain or use wisdom, prudence, or intelligence. Your God wants us to remain dumb, obedient sheep and cattle, who cannot think for themselves, and merely obey orders without question and function dumbly by rote.

Sounds like the management techniques of dictators, like Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Salazar, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Jimmy Bakker, are we seeing a pattern here?

[RenaissanceBiker]

For the rest of you guys:
Since Cain et al lived thousands of years, Cain's wife could have been a sister, niece, grand niece, great grand niece, etc. etc. At some time brothers and sisters would have had incestuous sex, but this is the Bible--worse things are routinely excused.

If you google "cain's wife" you get a bunch of links including Answers in Genesis. www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp (http://forums.randi.org/www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp)Ken Ham claims that Adam and Eve had many children and these other siblings are who Cain feared. He even mentions that Josephus claimed Adam and Eve had 33 sons and 23 daughters (!). Ham says the Bible only mentions "many sons and daughters" so the exact number is not confirmed. Ham states that Cain's wife was either one of his siblings or another close relative. Ham rationalizes this by saying that God did not create the incest taboo until much later and even attempts to use DNA and genetics in his explanation.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by jesus_freak
My Bible say says 22

In my Bible footnotes...
"Some versions read forty two here,a copyist error easily made due to the small stroke that diffentiates two Heb. letters. The reading from 1kings 8:26 twenty two should be followed.
It's not inerrant, then.

Neither are American history books.

So?

[Cosmo]

Neither are American history books.

So?

So American history books do not claim to be divinely inspired, nor are there any persons who use them as a basis for religion.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Neither are American history books.

So?
So American history books do not claim to be divinely inspired, nor are there any persons who use them as a basis for religion.

So?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).

Why does that sound familiar?
.
.
.
Oh yeah!
Korey Rowe speaking on errors in the Loose Change film

ROWE: What I encourage people to do is go out and research it themselves. We don't ever come out and say that everything we say is 100 percent. We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves -- the B52 (remarked to have flown into the Empire State Building), the use of Wikipedia, things like that. We left them in there so people will want to discredit us and go out and research the events yourself and come up with your own conclusions. That's our whole goal, to make Americans think. To wake up from the 16 amps of your television to watch something and get a passion in something again. http://alternet.org/story/40476/

[ChristineR]

Thanks for sharing, Dan. Or is it Elaine?

Raining on my little joke scores you zero points. :p

DR

As I don't get the Dan and Elaine part, I am afraid I cannot award you any points either. ;)

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I would like to address the 100% true aspect as opposed to the self contradictions.
To me the lack of mentioning evolution is the least of the scientific blunders that are found in Genesis. The chronology as has already been summarized in a previous post as follows:
In Genesis Chapter 1, God makes:

the Earth on the first day
Heaven on the second day
Water, grass, herbs, trees, etc on the third day
The Sun and the Moon on the fourth day
Living things on days five and six
Man and Woman, both, on the sixth day, after making the creatures



The sun is created after the earth, light, and plants. This leads to many obvious problems:
1. Without the light source(sun) how is there light? Where is it coming from?
2. Without the light and head from the sun how are plants able to perform photosynthesis and how is any life supposed to withstand the lack of heat from the sun?
3. Planets forming prior to their star is contrary to modern understanding of the formation of solar systems. Additionally, without a sun how is there a solar system?

Why does genesis leave out so many groups of organisms? No bacteria or protists or fungi. No mention of viruses either. Bacteria infact far outnumber all other organisms combined. Wouldn't God know this? Why did he keep that a secret?

Genesis refers to the sun and the moon as lights. While the sun is most definitely a light source, the moon isn't. The moon is merely a reflector of light. Guess God forgot to take a physics class.

This is less of a scientific point but nonetheless, Genesis also insinuates that the purpose of stars is for calendarial purposes. Yes of course. All of the BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of stars exist for the sole purpose of our time keeping. You know those stars are suns just like our own and for all we know orbiting one of those stars is a planet with LIFE!!!

Seriously, if you are mad a evolution because it contradicts genesis you are just picking and choosing. In order to accept this as litterally true we would have to throw out basically everything we know about how the universe works.

[hgc]

Why does genesis leave out so many groups of organisms? No bacteria or protists or fungi. No mention of viruses either. Bacteria infact far outnumber all other organisms combined. Wouldn't God know this? Why did he keep that a secret?
Then where would be the fun in inventing the microscope?

[Andúril]

http://russellsteapot.com/comics/

http://russellsteapot.com/images/rsgallery/original/000100000.jpg

[RenaissanceBiker]

As I don't get the Dan and Elaine part, I am afraid I cannot award you any points either. ;)

Watch out, he's cold-reading you!

[aggle-rithm]

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).

God sounds a lot like Dylan Avery. Perhaps they're related?

[LawnOven]

Hunster,

this is the thread title and subject:

"The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally "

it is the entire premiss from which this thread exists.

so when you say:

"Neither are American history books."

in response to the statement:

"It's not inerrant, then."

Your entire point is moot

because...

this is the thread title and subject:

"The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally "

it is the entire premiss from which this thread exists.

so when you say....

[RenaissanceBiker]

Y'all have a good weekend. I'm headin' for the house.

[CynicalSkeptic]

Satan created the bible just to deceive you. That's why there are so many errors and contradictions.

[fuelair]

That seems to be consistent, if you go by definitions. Satan is Evil and God is Good, so it should follow that Satan's tricks are bad, and God's tricks are good, based on their source.

Mary Magdalene's tricks, on the other hand, cost a few sheckels before she left the oldest profession . . .

DR
But , was she worth it - and did she have Kids for Jesus (Who Would Jesus Do?):D :D

[DrDisco]

Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks.

Sure. And Jesus "could have" been referring to a different David who took the showbread from the High Priest than the one mentioned in Samuel.

I'm a new guy here, folks, and discussions regarding the Bible are my specialty. jesus_freak, if you want to have a discussion regarding this subject I would be very happy to join you.

The topic here, however, is much too broad. I like this one regarding Judas' death, however, and how you try to reconcile it. Would you like to start another thread where THIS topic --and this topic alone ("Judas' Death") is covered? I can't reply every time there is a new post; I have a busy life outside this forum, but I promise to give the topic the attention it deserves if you are patient enough to bear with me.

But, recognizing the problem this current topic can bring when terms are not defined, perhaps you can help us know what you would consider a contradition if we found one in the Bible. The best way to do that is if you could show us an example of a contradiction from another book (non-biblical). In addition, what do you think a contradiction would like like if there were one in the Bible? If you could write such an example (in English, not using forumlas like "X and not-X") that would be very useful in helping us identify potential contradictions in the Scriptures. In other words, can you give us an example of what kind of statements you would accept if they were to be found in the Bible?

[Tony]

Sorry but no it is Satan that causes you to sin!

So then that stuff about free will is BS?

[Darth Rotor]

As I don't get the Dan and Elaine part, I am afraid I cannot award you any points either. ;)

Dan Brown.

Elaine Pagels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Pagels) (author of some excellent works on Gnosticism)

DR

[chris epic]

now what do i win?nothing but self-gratitude.
Far be it from me to judge anybody's personal walk with God, but with YOU, I'm not going to make any excuses for myself.

I see not an ounce of "love" from you in any way. Your attitude is the very antithesis of Christ's teachings, you know, the lesson on the "fulfillment of the law," the law summarized into two comandments: loving God and loving others. I just don't see it. In you I see a critical person that would rather be right than be compassionate. The bottom line is that the book which the bible is printed in and reproduced in a factory, and sold for as much as $100 is only a conduit for "the Word." Why? Because St Paul talks about how Christians will be challenged and how their revelations of "truth" seem like "foolishness" to the minds of men. That's because, like the printed book that preachers read from, the minds of men are of the flesh, a conduit for the Spirit. Only by the Spirit can people receive devine revelation. So, no, I don't trust a word in the bible.

I would go so far as to say that anyone who says a reproduced "bible" is the infallable word of God is an idolator.

God isn't going to reneg his gift of free will so he can enslave a bunch of guys to write the truth down and reprint it over and over again.

People are infallable- people wrote those words- people printed them and bound them, left them in hotel rooms or sold them for rediculous amounts of money.

The word of God cant be purchased. And you are going to get anywhere telling anybody anything different, especially in a forum for SKEPTICS!

Are you winning any souls with your cause? No, I would surmount that you're driving them away, so what the hell is your problem?

St Paul NEVER said his letters were the infallable word of God, remember that, too.

Believing that the Bible is "the living word" is just like believing that the Eucharist really is the process of wine and bread turning into the flesh and blood of Christ, and that is something that protestants just dont buy (which I'm assuming you are).

Good luck with your engagement of legalizim, its futilty at its best.

[hgc]

So then that stuff about free will is BS?
No really. Anyone who has free will is Satan. It's like a dual thing, a la God/Jesus. You're the deity and the human wrapped into one. In the case of Jesus, it was in combo with God. In the case of every other human that's ever lived, it's been the Satan combo. Satan does this by impregnating human women, every one who's ever been pregnant. Except for that Mary gal back in ole' Nazareth, but that she's also Satan. That's the real mindblower.

[chris epic]

Sorry but no it is Satan that causes you to sin!
Wow, and you haven't read the bible either... no, you're quoting...nevermind, you're just clueless.

Satan tempts, he causes nothing
God guides, he forces no one

Humans have free will: they can be tempted either way, but they choose in the end. They choose to walk in the fulness of God's plan or walk away.

Hey- this is elementary bible stuff, what the hell are you talking about?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I don't know he is still alive, He doesn't talk to me sorry!

Well that stripped a few cogs in my English parser machine!

[Darth Rotor]

For Heaven's sake, Brother Chris, try proofreading. It makes you more credible when you present yourself with a modicum of precision. While this should be a PM, this is the fifth page of chum in the water, so here goes.

*shakes head*
Far be it from me to judge anybody's personal walk with God, but with YOU, I'm not going to make any excuses for myself.
A Marine Gunny once told me that it is best to commend in public, but reprove in private. You spelled all of that correctly. Well done.
I see not an ounce of "love" from you in any way. Your attitude is the very antithesis of Christ's teachings, you know, the lesson on the "fulfillment of the law," the law summarized into two comandments: loving God and loving others.
Still going strong on message, not on style, and the Gunny would be grinding his teeth.
I just don't see it. In you I see a critical person that would rather be right than be compassionate. The bottom line is that the book which the bible is printed in and reproduced in a factory, and sold for as much as $100 is only a conduit for "the Word." Why?
*looks up into the air*
Sorry Gunny, I'm gonna break form. I will drop and give you fifty when I am done.
A critical person who, not a critical person that.
Because St Paul talks about how Christians will be challenged and how their revelations of "truth" seem like "foolishness" to the minds of men.
The Because makes this gramatically incorrect, but your message is still doing well.
That's because, like the printed book that preachers read from, the minds of men are of the flesh, a conduit for the Spirit. Only by the Spirit can people receive devine revelation. So, no, I don't trust a word in the bible.
Try "divine" and the Bible. Brother Chris, if you don't trust a word in the Bible, why do you read it, and then quote the Greatest Commandment as related by Jesus in the Gospels: "To love thy God, and to love thy neighbor as thyself?" If you don't trust the words, what's going on here? I think some of the words are pretty darned good.

Again, Brother Chris, coherence is aided by proofreading. It allows you to catch your own mistakes. (Trust me, I learned this by botching many posts, on many forums.) Use the Preview button, it is your friend.
I would go so far as to say that anyone who says a reproduced "bible" is the infallable word of God is an idolator.
in·fal·li·ble [I]adj 1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.

I had not considered that take on it, but find your idolatry remark interesting. Thanks for that. :)
God isn't going to renig his gift of free will so he can enslave a bunch of guys to write the truth down and reprint it over and over again.
renege \rih-NIG; -NEG\, vi: to go back on a promise or commitment.
People are infallable- people wrote those words- people printed them and bound them, left them in hotel rooms or sold them for rediculous amounts of money.
You meant to say people are fallible. Your post is good evidence of that. :) So are many of mine. :)
The word of God cant be purchased. And you are going to get anywhere telling anybody anything different, especially in a forum for SKEPTICS!
The apostrophe is your friend.
Are you winning any souls with your cause? No, I would surmount that you're driving them away, so what the hell is your problem?
You wanted to say "surmise." Perhaps you are speaking in tongues? As to problems, Brother Chris, this lambasting probably needed to be via PM, as you have now given your ideological foe a source innocent merriment: two Christians disagreeing on a Skeptic's Forum over Scripture, and both arguing with the wit of eighth graders. Way to witness, guys, the both of you.

This is well played, in terms of entertainment value provided, but not for your mission.
St Paul NEVER said his letters were the infallable word of God, remember that, too.
I don't think he ever doubted the Truth of what he wrote. A True Believer, that was the Apostle Paul.
Believing that the Bible is "the living word" is just like believing that the Eucharist really is the process of wine and bread turning into the flesh and blood of Christ, and that is something that protestants just dont buy (which I'm assuming you are).
A Catholic may stuff that one up your arse, but your guess is probably correct. Protestant is capitalized, Brother Chris.
Good luck with your engagement of legalizim, its futilty at its best.
Legalism. It is futility = it's futility.

I suggest you get a field dressing, and bandage your foot. You just shot it, Brother Chris.

I sometimes get insights into why Jesus wept.

I owe the Gunny fifty. I am too old for this, it's gonna hurt.

*drops, and begins the push ups*

DR

[NobbyNobbs]

My personal favourite....

The Brick Testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com/)

Definitely the best as the most repugnant, immoral, violent, sadistic, misogynistic, pro-slave, petulant and vile parts are easier to stomach with little Lego men.



That link was absolutely awesome.


So your lack of pride, wisdom and prudence allows you to understand the Bible? Why would your god limit his message to only those people who lack these qualities?

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).


Just a thought here. Isn't knowledge of the true meaning of the bible a source of pride? And since it is a source of pride, then haven't you been snared?

So understanding the bible=falling for God's tricks.

Satan created the bible just to deceive you. That's why there are so many errors and contradictions.

I have a related story on this. Way, way back when i was in 10th grade, we had a world history class. Part of learning world history was learning about world religions. Each Friday during one semester, the teacher would bring in a different religious leader. We had a rabbi, a Baptist minister, a Buddhist priest, etc.

One day, he brought in a Fundamentalist. We learned that they believe the literal word of the bible. So after class I, the pain-in-the-a$$-science-geek, went up to ask a question. Here's the approximate conversation:

Me: So you believe the world was created 6000 years ago?
Preacher-Man: Yes, that's right.
Me: Then what about all the fossils that are millions of years old?
Preacher-Man: The Bible is Truth, and the fossils were put here by God to confuse man.

Now, I could have asked why God would want to confuse his creation. Instead, I thought for a moment and said....

Me: Isn't it more likely that the fossils are truth and the bible was put here by God to confuse man?

Preacher-Man turned red in the face and said "That's not how it is! That's not how it is!", getting louder and redder as he went. That's all he could say. Spittle flew from his mouth. I flew from the room.

[Wowbagger]

Anyone attempting to refute the interpretation of bible verses, with other bible verses, is not really getting to the point. It's like refuting one person's opinions of favorite ice cream flavors with other opinions of favorite ice cream flavors. Anyone can make anything mean whatever they want.

We can deduce that the biblical stories are not really 100% true, on the basis of other things: The documented evolution of its textual content; geographic, archeological, and biological evidence; the fact that all those amazing miracles of god no longer seem to happen: If Mr. God really had all those powers, why doesn't he use them anymore?; and the simple fact that people are interpreting the text in different ways: The more ways a story is told, the harder it becomes to know which one is the "true" one. There is no basis for deciding other than "It was the interpretation I was brought up to believe".
I'm sure there are other reasons people could give.

[skeptifem]

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).


lol that god is such a kidder!

ok, Here is a whopper of a contradiction.

The ten commandments tell us not to kill,
yet god tells us to kill people for all kinds of minor things, like breaking the sabbath.

[hgc]

Anyone attempting to refute the interpretation of bible verses, with other bible verses, is not really getting to the point. It's like refuting one person's opinions of favorite ice cream flavors with other opinions of favorite ice cream flavors. Anyone can make anything mean whatever they want.

We can deduce that the biblical stories are not really 100% true, on the basis of other things: The documented evolution of its textual content; geographic, archeological, and biological evidence; the fact that all those amazing miracles of god no longer seem to happen: If Mr. God really had all those powers, why doesn't he use them anymore?; and the simple fact that people are interpreting the text in different ways: The more ways a story is told, the harder it becomes to know which one is the "true" one. There is no basis for deciding other than "It was the interpretation I was brought up to believe".
I'm sure there are other reasons people could give.
All that makes sense, but you're missing a crucial factor. Many adherents to a bible literalism are little impressed by the evidentiary nature of these external factors. This information has always been readily available, and to ignore is it a tendency of character and not due a lack of information. Primacy is given to the Word. So if internally contradicted Word-bites can be found, then you at least have data on both sides of equal validity to the believer. As we've seen, though, this is no new challenge, and answers are either ready-at-hand or a practiced apologist can invent them on cue.

(The above generalization does not necessarily apply to any specific individual posting here, nor do I pretend to know to what portion of bible literalists it applies.)

[chris epic]

I sometimes get insights into why Jesus wept.

I owe the Gunny fifty. I am too old for this, it's gonna hurt.

*drops, and begins the push ups*

DR:D That was awesome

Brother Darth, what makes you think I'm Christian? I'm just showing the Freak Correct Christianity ;)

[jesus_freak]

I like this one regarding Judas' death, however, and how you try to reconcile it. Would you like to start another thread where THIS topic --and this topic alone ("Judas' Death") is covered? I can't reply every time there is a new post; I have a busy life outside this forum, but I promise to give the topic the attention it deserves if you are patient enough to bear with me
The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and left doubling himself over with grief.
from http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html

[skeptifem]

Tony, did you two rehearse this, your Larry to his Moe?

DR

I lol'd

[prewitt81]

If we're still on the 100% correct part, can anyone reconcile 1 Cor. 15 with Gal. 1?

In Corinthians, Paul says he is passing on what he has been preached from the scripture. In Galatians, he says that he did not receive his gospel from man.

Paul couldn't have really said both of these things.

Also, if you try to justify this, don't stick with the English translation. The words in Corinthians are paralambanein and paradidonai. They indicate a receiving and then a passing on of tradition.

(Thanks to Dr. Robert Price and this (http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html) article.)

[Kopji]

The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and left doubling himself over with grief.
from http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html

And the rest of the quote:


A check of the lexicons shows that such a meaning is indeed possible, but I found only one actual example listed -- the vast majority of the meanings given were for a physical hanging; there was only one example of a figurative meaning as described. So I would say that this is a possible solution, but not likely.


Falling and having your bowels gush out seems more likely to be associated with the hanging idea.

[Kopji]

Humm, I should try and contribute something. How about something a little more abstract?

The following is commonly quoted as ironclad evidence of a true prophet:

...When a PROPHET SPEAKETH IN THE NAME OF THE LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath NOT spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptyously: thou shalt no be afraid of him," (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).


If Christians deny this passage is a litmus test of prophetic utterances they are liars, I've had most of a lifetime hearing false prophet this or that.

But in Jonah, God makes a liar out of Jonah and relents:

Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.


Now Jonah was actually a little upset over this, a genuinely interesting turn in the story. From Jonah's pov God said he would do something and he did not do it. Jonah fails the Deuteronomy litmus test and should be judged a false prophet.

The tektonics source on this topic btw, is pretty lame. I will save you the trouble of looking up the link:
http://tektonics.org/gk/godchangemind.html

When they start equivocating and don't have a good answer they get really wordy and take a long time to explain.

[SimonD]

The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and left doubling himself over with grief.
from http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html

But none of this is in the Bible is it? You are going outside the Bible, which according to you is 100% correct of the time, to justify a clear contradiction. This is the 3rd time you have done so, without answering the direct question - which verse is correct - did he hang himself or did he fall?

[Donn]

Who votes we should use the "socks" :socks: from the CT forum?

I don't see the diff between peeps like 'Freak and a CT -- one question at a time is the only way to move forward.

Don't you find it boring letting the same of weasling and wriggling happen thread after thread? I say pin 'em down and keep 'em there. Either they'll wise up, or educate us (ja never know) or they'll just go away in a huff. All fine with me.

Oh, and Freak has pretty much 'fessed up:
I do not believe that my KJV is as accurate <weasel>but it is the MOST accurate.</weasel>
"MOST accurate" does not mean "100% true"

[Myriad]

Much as I enjoy spectating a game of "gotcha" with contradictory Bible quotations, my own opposition to Bilblical literalism comes from a completely different source. It's the vast amounts of the real meaning of the Bible that you lose when you limit yourself to literal readings, or even give the literal meaning priority over the metaphorical ones.

Consider one example: the story of Exodus. For centuries that story has been the inspiration for Abolitionist ideas and movements. It inspires us to recognize that people should be free. Sentences like "Go down, Moses," "Let my people go," and "I have seen the Promised Land" reverberate not just in Jewish tradition but also, for instance, in America's all-too-recent history.

But literally, the story is only about one tribe who deserved freedom only because they were God's chosen people with a special Covenant that no one else had. Literally, the laws given to the Hebrews after the Exodus tell us that slavery of everyone else was perfectly okay, if administered according to certain rules. Literally, at least three of Paul's epistles subsequent to Christ's new Covenant confirms that slavery is an acceptable condition by exhorting slaves to serve their masters (even cruel masters) well.

Reading it literally, clearly, takes quite a bit away from the meaning.

Revelation 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Of course, literally that passage only applies to taking words away, not meanings, so it's only relevant to copyists and printers. (If I were to remove words from Bible quotations posted on the Internet I haven't, of course, removed anything from any literal book.) And "this book of prophecy" literally refers only to the Book of Revelation, not the rest of the Bible (or at least, not the parts that don't contain prophecy), so I suppose it's therefore okay to remove whatever words you don't like from Genesis or Acts. And literally, I didn't grow on a tree and I don't own any real estate in Jerusalem so having those taken away isn't much of a threat anyhow.

In fact, if taken literally, there's hardly anything useful or meaningful at all in any passage of the whole Bible. That's why most sermons, Sunday School lessons, lessons in Bible study books, and principle of Christian theology begins with the quoting of a Bible passage, followed by "That means..." or a similar phrase, followed by an (often lengthy) explanation of something that can be learned from the passage by not taking it literally.

Jesus, God's word made flesh, taught in parables. Could the message that the significance of Scripture lies not in the literal words but in their metaphorical meanings be any clearer?

Read it literally, and the Parable of the Lost Sheep tells you only that God doesn't want you to lose any of your sheep! (Go look it up. Matthew 12:14-18.) Is that what you think Jesus is trying to tell you in that passage, jesus_freak? You must, if you believe that the entire Bible is to be read literally. But I can't imagine that you could really be that foolish.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[DRBUZZ0]

This is a thread that I was asked to start by others in another forum that wanted to continually bring up the Bible and contradictions in an evolution discussion...so lets have at it:rolleyes:

Look it's very simple: As long as you are 100% committed to the bible you cannot accept anything else and you will be able to come up with a string of excuses why the bible is not disprove.

Therefore I ask you this. (And I know this is not supposed to be a good thing because you've worked on your 'faith' for a long time and that means never allowing the idea that the bible may be untrue),....

Just step aside and pretend you are not a person of faith but have a completely open mind. Imagine that you, with no previous notions of religion are looking at the bible objectively. Then ask how plausible it seems.


I somehow doubt that is gona happen...

[Darth Rotor]

Therefore I ask you this. (And I know this is not supposed to be a good thing because you've worked on your 'faith' for a long time and that means never allowing the idea that the bible may be untrue),....

Just step aside and pretend you are not a person of faith but have a completely open mind. Imagine that you, with no previous notions of religion are looking at the bible objectively. Then ask how plausible it seems.

He should do this on your say so? What makes you the expert?

Love your new avatar, by the way. :)

DR

[Beerina]

If you google "cain's wife" you get a bunch of links including Answers in Genesis. www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp (http://forums.randi.org/www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp)Ken Ham claims that Adam and Eve had many children

Which is quite reasonable...

and these other siblings are who Cain feared. He even mentions that Josephus claimed Adam and Eve had 33 sons and 23 daughters (!).

Seems a bit on the light side given how long he lived.

Ham says the Bible only mentions "many sons and daughters" so the exact number is not confirmed. Ham states that Cain's wife was either one of his siblings or another close relative. Ham rationalizes this by saying that God did not create the incest taboo until much later and even attempts to use DNA and genetics in his explanation.

These people were much closer to the perfect, direct creation by God. Of course they wouldn't have any genetic flaws, so brother-sister mating, or even mother-son, wouldn't lead to any defects.
















(wait for it)

















(keep waiting)





















Confused Heathen: So defects cropped up by evolution?

Missionary: No, the devil inserted them.

Confused Heathen: Where is that in the Bible?

[kmortis]

Beerina,
It doesn't really matter all that much where Cain got his wife, or any of that. According to the Bible, all humans are descended from Noah.

So...where'd Shem, Japeth and Ham get wives? Was Mrs. Noah called in for triple duty? Did they have unnamed sisters? Or, could it be that not all of mankind was killed off?

It would appear that for a book that's supposed to be the Complete and Inerrant Literal Word of Godtm it sure does leave a lot out.

[DRBUZZ0]

He should do this on your say so? What makes you the expert?


It's just my own personal suggestion. He doesn't have to, but I'm throwing it out there for consideration. Seems logical to me, but that's just me...

[gnome]

So?

So, if the bible has errors, it can't be 100% literally inerrant. No matter how small or insignificant the error.

Really, these arguments would be a lot shorter if the literal bible-advocates weren't arguing in the absolute. It doesn't help them spread the word to people that can read and have a brain.

[Ossai]

jesus_freak
The main point of this is from a response to kurious_kathy here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2245338&postcount=2769). I’m still waiting on a response. It does nicely illustrate a couple of biblical contradictions and inconsistencies.

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. The prophecies are to declare to the world who the messiah is. They are not an after the fact occurrence. The messianic prophecies were not fulfilled, not by Jesus or anyone else for that matter.

If either lineage (they’re both different) reported in the bible for Jesus is correct then God directly excluded Jesus from the Davidic lineage.

Portions of the Davidic genealogical list from: (bolding mine)

Matthew:
Jeconiah
Salathiel
Zerrubbabel
Adiud

Luke:
Addi
Melchi
Shealtiel (same as Salathiel)
Zerrubbabel
Rhesa

Let me mention the obvious biblical error first.
(bible quotes from New International Version)
According to Romans 1:1-4
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Jesus being of Davidic decent is necessary to fulfill one of the requirements for the messiah. However, the genealogies given in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 both try to link Jesus to David through Joseph. Revelant parts below
Matthew 1: 15-16
Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23-24
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

The Catholics do some hand waving and claim the genealogy of Matthew is for Mary, however a direct reading (translation) proves that claim incorrect.

It would appear the genealogical lists were written by people that as Dr X said, “not thinking that their works would end up in the same canon”?

Back to the main point. Yahweh didn’t like the Jehoakim clan of which Zerrubbabel was a member, reference Chronicles 3:16-19 and Ezra 3:2.
Yahweh ordered the removal of that particular line from the lineage of David. (bolding mine)

Jeremiah 22: 28-30
Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot,
an object no one wants?
Why will he and his children be hurled out,
cast into a land they do not know?

O land, land, land,
hear the word of the LORD!

This is what the LORD says:
"Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah."

The Davidic line was just broken by Yahweh.
But wait, there’s more.

Jeremiah 36: 27-32
After the king burned the scroll containing the words that Baruch had written at Jeremiah's dictation, the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: "Take another scroll and write on it all the words that were on the first scroll, which Jehoiakim king of Judah burned up. Also tell Jehoiakim king of Judah, 'This is what the LORD says: You burned that scroll and said, "Why did you write on it that the king of Babylon would certainly come and destroy this land and cut off both men and animals from it?" Therefore, this is what the LORD says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; his body will be thrown out and exposed to the heat by day and the frost by night. I will punish him and his children and his attendants for their wickedness; I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them, because they have not listened.' "
So Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to the scribe Baruch son of Neriah, and as Jeremiah dictated, Baruch wrote on it all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them.


Jehoiakim angered Yahweh to the point that he and his lineage were cast out of the Davidic lineage. Therefore in both Matthew and Luke the genealogies listed for Jesus are broken and Jesus cannot claim Davidic decent, as per Yahew’s direct reported orders.

If you want another, how many disciples were present at Jesus’s appearance at Jerusalem? Hint: compare John and Luke.

Ossai

[Foster Zygote]

Here is an interesting question...What is going to happen to you after you die? Are you just going to become worm food?...will you be reincarnated? ...does everyone go to Heaven? You all seem to know so much I am curious!

I'm a bit late to this thread but I'd like to address this question.

What happens to us after we die? I assume you want to know what happens to our consciousness after we die. Nobody knows. No one has ever genuinely died and brought back evidence or even testimonial of what lies "beyond death". Based on evidence I strongly suspect that our consciousness is an emergent property of the arrangement of matter in our brains and that when that arrangement is destroyed our consciousness simply becomes extinct. However I don't claim to know this with absolute certainty. Your last sentence above strikes me as ironic as I'm quite sure that you are the one who claims to know with certainty what lies "beyond death".

[RenaissanceBiker]

I had a visit from some Jehovah's Witnesses on Saturday. I kept them in my front yard for about an hour (sparing some of my neighbors) with a polite discussion of their beliefs and mine. The gentleman was firm in his beliefs and every response was based on the Bible. I asked him about Cain's wife and he immediately answered that it was his sister. The younger trainee with him looked surprised by this answer. We had a nice talk about religion(s) and the nature of faith and he asked me to read a small paperback book he had in his briefcase. I agreed, on the condition that he read Demon Haunted World by Sagan. I told him he could probably find it in the public library. He said he would read it and come back in a few weeks to continue our discussion.

[volatile]

He won't read it.

JWs are explicitly barred from reading dissenting theologies (or atheist tracts).

[RenaissanceBiker]

He said that he knew of Sagan from the Cosmos program and respected him. I am interested in seeing if he brings young Dominic back with him or if he returns alone. I'm afraid Dominic required deprogramming after our initial encounter.

Years ago I got some JWs to read A Brief History of Time using this same tactic.

[sphenisc]

There can be no degrees of accuracy whilst at the same time being 100% true. Those two things are mutually, and logically, exclusive!

If it's not "as accurate" as the original, which bits are wrong?


http://www.aaamath.com/est27a-rounding.html

[volatile]

http://www.aaamath.com/est27a-rounding.html

Come on, now. No need to be intellectually dishonest, Sphenisc.

You think JF means "nearly true" when he says "100% true?

[Francesca R]

Sorry but no it is Satan that causes you to sin!I knew it wasn't my fault. Excellent!

[sphenisc]

Which mountain is it from which all the nations of the world may be viewed? (Matt 4:8 if you're following along at home)


Mons Blanc - if you hang around for a while.

[mist]

I had a visit from some Jehovah's Witnesses on Saturday. I kept them in my front yard for about an hour (sparing some of my neighbors) with a polite discussion of their beliefs and mine. The gentleman was firm in his beliefs and every response was based on the Bible. I asked him about Cain's wife and he immediately answered that it was his sister. The younger trainee with him looked surprised by this answer. We had a nice talk about religion(s) and the nature of faith and he asked me to read a small paperback book he had in his briefcase. I agreed, on the condition that he read Demon Haunted World by Sagan. I told him he could probably find it in the public library. He said he would read it and come back in a few weeks to continue our discussion.

Do you really think you will be able to read that book, without stopping after a few sentences?

By the way, does he think God is omnipotent? :) In that case I wonder what he'll say to the omnipotence paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox).

[ceo_esq]

Sorry but no it is Satan that causes you to sin!
Satan tempts, he causes nothing
I knew it wasn't my fault. Excellent!

This is kind of a nit, but it seems to me that unless one takes a particularly restrictive view of causation, diabolical temptation (hypothetically, of course) could be considered a causal antecedent for sin without relieving the human agent of culpability, whether or not temptation was a causa sine qua non.

[2LifeGuy]

This is from the evolution thread where I agreed not to bring up inconsistencies in Genesis. I really didn't think we would get a bible thread going. Who did Cain believe would kill him? There appear to be only 3 people in the whole world, Adam, Eve and Cain. A similar question involves the origin of Cain's wife. Where did she come from? JF, were there other people in the world besides the clan of Adam? What is the literal biblical explanation of their origin?

Cain believed a relative (through his parents) might kill him. The Bible does not indicate population at the time. Many families have six or seven children within ten or fifteen years. Ages listed literally in the Bible allow for thousands within the adult lifetimes of the three mentioned. (Josephus records Jewish belief that Adam and Eve had over 50 children.) BUT if population only doubled every 20 years, within 180 years, total births would hit 1024. The Bible states original human life spans of hundreds of years.

While it is unacceptable NOW for brother and sisters to marry, this was not God's law until 2,500 years after the creation. Biblically, all human life came from Adam and Eve. (That is easier to swallow than the population of the world descending from nonliving matter...or jellyfish...or apes.) At least on this point the Bible does not contradict itself.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I do intend to read it, and insert post-it notes that address the logical errors and where statements conflict with established scientific fact.

[cyborg]

(That is easier to swallow than the population of the world descending from nonliving matter...or jellyfish...or apes.)

As if there were any other kind.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Welcome to the discussion, 2LifeGuy. I disagree with you about creationism is "easier to swallow" than science, but I look forward to discussing it with you.

[Upchurch]

While it is unacceptable NOW for brother and sisters to marry, this was not God's law until 2,500 years after the creation. Biblically, all human life came from Adam and Eve. (That is easier to swallow than the population of the world descending from nonliving matter...or jellyfish...or apes.) At least on this point the Bible does not contradict itself.This sort of extrapolation requires the assumption that the Bible is incomplete concerning some pretty major elements of the creation story. Eve's birth of Cain's wife, for example.

I find it strange that you find it difficult to swallow that the world population descended from nonliving matter, since this is precisely what the Bible describes when God constructed Adam from the dirt. I think what you're trying to say is that you have a hard time swallowing the process happening without magic.

[2LifeGuy]

Thanks for the welcome...

I don't think spontaneous generation is part of science, but willing to see the evidence.

Here's one I'm sure will smush the "newbie" in me... I believe science and the Bible do not conflict with regard to how the universe, life and the earth operate. The exception: Since God is outside of his creation, he can and does exert his will from time to time, as seen in miracles described.

[Freethinker]

(That is easier to swallow than the population of the world descending from nonliving matter...or jellyfish...or apes.)

Only if you've failed to take advantage of the opportunity to educate yourself. If a magic sky-fairy is easier to swallow than almost any other concept, then you are wearing blinders.

[2LifeGuy]

I find it strange that you find it difficult to swallow that the world population descended from nonliving matter, since this is precisely what the Bible describes when God constructed Adam from the dirt. I think what you're trying to say is that you have a hard time swallowing the process happening without magic.

God, not restrained by his creation, acted upon it, and breathed life into the nonliving. God yes, magic no.

[grayman]

God, not restrained by his creation, acted upon it, and breathed life into the nonliving. God yes, magic no.

You mean: mythology yes, magic no.

[2LifeGuy]

Actually, regarding my education, I know what we are all taught in school, and learned it. I am one of those who did accept evolution and later on, though a journey I won't bore you with, found some major questions answered. In short I came to believe there is more evidence for the Bible's version of how the world was put together. I know that sounds crazy, especially since I believed the other way for so long... If I do have on blinders, I don't mind being chanllenged about it.

[Mr Clingford]

You mean: mythology yes, magic no.You say that as though mythology is a bad thing!

[cyborg]

God, not restrained by his creation, acted upon it, and breathed life into the nonliving. God yes, magic no.

And that is easier to swallow?

Sure sounds like magic to me - since the implication is that such a feat would be impossible otherwise.

Of course I still don't even understand what people mean by 'non-living matter'.
Matter is always non-living - only whole matter/energy systems can be considered 'alive', not the basic components of it.

[grayman]

Bad no, entertaining yes.
:)

[2LifeGuy]

You mean: mythology yes, magic no.

Well, actually, mythology (and I do enjoy Homer) has a lot to do with things obviously made of myth. However, the design required to make a system that utilizes the energy of the sun, put requires pollination to replicate has to do with an intelligence that goes beyond anything yet available to us.

[aggle-rithm]

Actually, regarding my education, I know what we are all taught in school, and learned it. I am one of those who did accept evolution and later on, though a journey I won't bore you with, found some major questions answered.

I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people who "accept" evolution don't really understand it. The most common error is in thinking that evolutionary change is random, when in fact it is random mutation directed by environmental pressures in a decidedly non-random manner.

Could it be that you found the Bible's version more likely because it was compared to an incomplete understanding of the science of evolution?

[cyborg]

However, the design required to make a system that utilizes the energy of the sun, put requires pollination to replicate has to do with an intelligence that goes beyond anything yet available to us.

It is an illusion of design. That is why evolutionary theory is important - it explains to us how such systems can occur without the need for an intelligent agent.

[aggle-rithm]

Well, actually, mythology (and I do enjoy Homer) has a lot to do with things obviously made of myth. However, the design required to make a system that utilizes the energy of the sun, put requires pollination to replicate has to do with an intelligence that goes beyond anything yet available to us.

Perhaps, but the mechanism is not beyond our understanding.

[NobbyNobbs]

Beerina,
It doesn't really matter all that much where Cain got his wife, or any of that. According to the Bible, all humans are descended from Noah.

So...where'd Shem, Japeth and Ham get wives? Was Mrs. Noah called in for triple duty? Did they have unnamed sisters? Or, could it be that not all of mankind was killed off?

It would appear that for a book that's supposed to be the Complete and Inerrant Literal Word of Godtm it sure does leave a lot out.

Genesis 7:13
"On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark."

God yes, magic no.

What's the difference? (Honest question, no sarcasm intended.)

[grayman]

Well, actually, mythology (and I do enjoy Homer) has a lot to do with things obviously made of myth. However, the design required to make a system that utilizes the energy of the sun, put requires pollination to replicate has to do with an intelligence that goes beyond anything yet available to us.

Is this what you are saying?:

1. I don't understand it

2. Science has yet to explain it

3. Therefore, God (or intelligent designer) must have created it.

[Ducky]

Well, actually, mythology (and I do enjoy Homer) has a lot to do with things obviously made of myth. However, the design required to make a system that utilizes the energy of the sun, put requires pollination to replicate has to do with an intelligence that goes beyond anything yet available to us.

Then explain my cancer.

[2LifeGuy]

I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people who "accept" evolution don't really understand it. The most common error is in thinking that evolutionary change is random, when in fact it is random mutation directed by environmental pressures in a decidedly non-random manner.

The text books I studies at length (years ago!) showed examples of mutation, and mentioned what you have above. But they always pictured the "negative" or harmful mutations...changed in creatures that removed genetic information or scrambled it. I once read the reason why they never showed pictures of positive or helpful mutations...mutations that actually added new features. When I read that reason, it steered me more toward the account of origins in the Bible.

[Katana]

The text books I studies at length (years ago!) showed examples of mutation, and mentioned what you have above. But they always pictured the "negative" or harmful mutations...changed in creatures that removed genetic information or scrambled it. I once read the reason why they never showed pictures of positive or helpful mutations...mutations that actually added new features. When I read that reason, it steered me more toward the account of origins in the Bible.

What did you read that did that?

[aggle-rithm]

The text books I studies at length (years ago!) showed examples of mutation, and mentioned what you have above. But they always pictured the "negative" or harmful mutations...changed in creatures that removed genetic information or scrambled it. I once read the reason why they never showed pictures of positive or helpful mutations...mutations that actually added new features. When I read that reason, it steered me more toward the account of origins in the Bible.

Naturally, there are going to be more neutral and negative mutations than positive ones, as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. However, the neutral and negative mutations do not drive evolution. Only the more rare positive ones do.

If you give a population millions of years to mutate, there are going to be some significant positive mutations in that time period. There will be many more negative ones, but these will not show up in the gene pool.

[Ducky]

What did you read that did that?

More poignantly: Explain why an intelligent designer would design a system that does not allow for positive mutation?

(But yes, wherever he/she read that is an interesting question too. I'd bet a creationist text.)

[2LifeGuy]

It is an illusion of design. That is why evolutionary theory is important - it explains to us how such systems can occur without the need for an intelligent agent.

My point is that evolution does not explain how chemical reactions can form themselves spontaneously into the types of "miniature factories" that we observe in microscopic systems. We can explain, scientifically, how chemical reactions work, but not how these systems (with all interrelating components in place) were created--surely not step-by-step.

Take away one component, and the whole thing breaks down. A designer, can make an airplane fly. We could never gain an understanding of how the plane was created by studying its individual parts.

[Ducky]

My point is that evolution does not explain how chemical reactions can form themselves spontaneously into the types of "miniature factories" that we observe in microscopic systems. We can explain, scientifically, how chemical reactions work, but not how these systems (with all interrelating components in place) were created--surely not step-by-step.

Take away one component, and the whole thing breaks down. A designer, can make an airplane fly. We could never gain an understanding of how the plane was created by studying its individual parts.

Yes, you very easily can understand how a plane is created by studying individual parts.

But the overall message I see here from you is "I don't understand it. God did it."

[RenaissanceBiker]

It's funny that we had thread discussing evolution that turned to debunking Genesis. We then started a thread debunking Genesis that has turned to discussing evolution.

[2LifeGuy]

Genesis 7:13
"On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark."



What's the difference? (Honest question, no sarcasm intended.)

On the Noah question, I would answer similar to Cain and his wife question.

On what the difference between magic and God is... I think most people define magic like the genie granting wishes, whereas God grants life, and life that He created. I know it's a leap to see the two as different, but they are really polar opposites. Also when I think of magic I think of something used either for selfish means or maybe for entertainment. God, on the other hand, used his power to lay his life down in pain on our behalf. (Sorry to be so preachy!)

[Katana]

It's funny that we had thread discussing evolution that turned to debunking Genesis. We then started a thread debunking Genesis that has turned to discussing evolution.

And I suspect that just as many minds will be changed during the course of this one. ;)

[2LifeGuy]

Is this what you are saying?:

1. I don't understand it

2. Science has yet to explain it

3. Therefore, God (or intelligent designer) must have created it.

More like... Wow, there's an airplane... don't know exactly how it works, but I DO know it didn't build itself.

Look at an arrowhead vs. a regular rock. It's obvious which is desinged, even though you don't know how to make an arrowhead. No amount of time or chance could make each perfect chip to create its cutting edge. BUT I would not say you were wrong if you observed that some science was used to chipping the arrowhead.

[Freethinker]

My point is that evolution does not explain how chemical reactions can form themselves spontaneously into the types of "miniature factories" that we observe in microscopic systems. We can explain, scientifically, how chemical reactions work, but not how these systems (with all interrelating components in place) were created--surely not step-by-step.


It doesn't explain that because it doesn't happen. Just because a complex process is required for life in a species as it exists now doesn't mean that that process sprang into existence all at once.

If some complex reaction or biological process happens internally in a particular species, it makes sense that those members of the species that have some peculiar mutation that allows them to take advantage of that process may see an increased likelihood of survival if environmental pressures push that way. As such pressures increase, the population may consist only of members who have said mutation.

The process itself may be random and serve no benefit to non-mutated members of the species. The mutation is random. The environmental pressure may be random. The fact that the best adapted (those with the mutation) survive is not random.

I agree with others. Your stance is :"I don't understand how this could happen, so it must be magic."

[2LifeGuy]

Then explain my cancer.

First, I HATE that you have cancer. My sister was diagnosed, and it is a major life-curve. In the beginning it says that God looked on all that he made, and that it was very good. Something happened to change that. Probably like you, I wish we lived in a perfect world, but we don't.

[Ducky]

More like... Wow, there's an airplane... don't know exactly how it works, but I DO know it didn't build itself.

Look at an arrowhead vs. a regular rock. It's obvious which is desinged, even though you don't know how to make an arrowhead. No amount of time or chance could make each perfect chip to create its cutting edge. BUT I would not say you were wrong if you observed that some science was used to chipping the arrowhead.

What about Bananas?

[Ducky]

First, I HATE that you have cancer. My sister was diagnosed, and it is a major life-curve. In the beginning it says that God looked on all that he made, and that it was very good. Something happened to change that. Probably like you, I wish we lived in a perfect world, but we don't.

Then your intelligent designer is either uncaring, sadistic or incompetent. Which is it?

[cyborg]

My point is that evolution does not explain how chemical reactions can form themselves spontaneously into the types of "miniature factories" that we observe in microscopic systems.

And you are satisfied with the answer, "god did it, let's all go home now"?

We can explain, scientifically, how chemical reactions work, but not how these systems (with all interrelating components in place) were created--surely not step-by-step.

That is why the work on abiogenesis continues.

Take away one component, and the whole thing breaks down.

Um, no it doesn't. Tolerance applies to other machines as well.

A designer, can make an airplane fly. We could never gain an understanding of how the plane was created by studying its individual parts.

Your analogies fail to acknowledge the unique nature of the biological mechanisms.

Creationist analogies always do. These things are not the same. That is why they do not behave the same.

[2LifeGuy]

Naturally, there are going to be more neutral and negative mutations than positive ones, as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. However, the neutral and negative mutations do not drive evolution. Only the more rare positive ones do.

If you give a population millions of years to mutate, there are going to be some significant positive mutations in that time period. There will be many more negative ones, but these will not show up in the gene pool.

So far, NO positive mutations which benefit a creature with NEW information has ever been observed. That is why they never show a picture of a positive mutation in text books...only negative ones.

Obviously there are observable changes in animals...in breeding programs for example...but selective breeding is making use of features that are already contained in the gene pool.

I bet there is a scientist who will challenge this, but I'm just saying after some research, I have never seen evidence for a true positive mutation.

[Ducky]

So far, NO positive mutations which benefit a creature with NEW information has ever been observed. That is why they never show a picture of a positive mutation in text books...only negative ones.

Obviously there are observable changes in animals...in breeding programs for example...but selective breeding is making use of features that are already contained in the gene pool.

I bet there is a scientist who will challenge this, but I'm just saying after some research, I have never seen evidence for a true positive mutation.

what research? Where did you research?

[cyborg]

So far, NO positive mutations which benefit a creature with NEW information has ever been observed.

Oh dear, is it going to go down the information route because that argument is just plain silly.

I bet there is a scientist who will challenge this, but I'm just saying after some research, I have never seen evidence for a true positive mutation.

Bacteria seem to be doing pretty well mutating in a positive way to antibiotic agents that have never existed previously.

[2LifeGuy]

More poignantly: Explain why an intelligent designer would design a system that does not allow for positive mutation?

(But yes, wherever he/she read that is an interesting question too. I'd bet a creationist text.)

I believe God really is perfect and all knowing. That being true, he got created animals and life right the first time...

He did anticipate the need for variation and change within kinds of animals, because each animal has genetic information that it passes on to offspring that helps them adapt to climate and environment or whatever. This, I think, most Bible believing people and evolution beleivers have in common. Both believe that at least WITHIN a species there is a built in adaptability.

The conflict between evolution and creation is that evolution teaches that one kind of animal will actually change into a completely different kind...that new genetic information will be created.

[cyborg]

The conflict between evolution and creation is that evolution teaches that one kind of animal will actually change into a completely different kind...that new genetic information will be created.

Oh dear. We're not going to get the, "macroevolution is true when a dog gives birth to a cat," nonsense are we?

[Ducky]

I believe God really is perfect and all knowing. That being true, he got created animals and life right the first time...

And cancer? Sadistic, incompetent, or uncaring. Which is it?

He did anticipate the need for variation and change within kinds of animals, because each animal has genetic information that it passes on to offspring that helps them adapt to climate and environment or whatever. This, I think, most Bible believing people and evolution beleivers have in common. Both believe that at least WITHIN a species there is a built in adaptability.

Rhetoric.

The conflict between evolution and creation is that evolution teaches that one kind of animal will actually change into a completely different kind...that new genetic information will be created.

Where is that taught? Can you please provide a source for that quotation of yours?

[2LifeGuy]

Yes, you very easily can understand how a plane is created by studying individual parts.

But the overall message I see here from you is "I don't understand it. God did it."

Well I disagree. If you analyze the parts of a plane, nothing about that analysis will tell you how the iron or aluminum were screwed together, or who did the fabrication work. You can say, I think these parts just came together, or you can say I think these parts had a designer or manufacturer. The individual parts themselves will not give you the answer...well I think they will...

I don't understand how my TV works, BUT by its nature it was obviously designed. This is a true understanding of the truth.

[cyborg]

You can say, I think these parts just came together, or you can say I think these parts had a designer or manufacturer. The individual parts themselves will not give you the answer...well I think they will...

How odd it is to me that this argument would persist when evolution gives the answers and was borne out of the search for answers - not idle speculation about gods and which one did everything.

You can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot make him drink it would seem.

[2LifeGuy]

And cancer? Sadistic, incompetent, or uncaring. Which is it?



Rhetoric.



Where is that taught? Can you please provide a source for that quotation of yours?

I made a generic statement that evolution is one kind of animal changing into another. Apes to people for example. I don't really think a source is needed.

[Marquis de Carabas]

You can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot make him drink it would seem.
I think the expression you're looking for is "You can drag a dead horse to water and beat the everloving s:Dt out of it".

[Ducky]

Well I disagree. If you analyze the parts of a plane, nothing about that analysis will tell you how the iron or aluminum were screwed together, or who did the fabrication work. You can say, I think these parts just came together, or you can say I think these parts had a designer or manufacturer. The individual parts themselves will not give you the answer...well I think they will...

I don't understand how my TV works, BUT by its nature it was obviously designed. This is a true understanding of the truth.

And if you spent any time learning how planes ant TV works, you might know how they work.

If you spent any time reading anything other than creationist literature on evolution you might understand you are very very wrong.

But yes, if you have the screw, and the pieces of iron and aluminum you can certainly discern how it goes together.

[Ducky]

I made a generic statement that evolution is one kind of animal changing into another. Apes to people for example. I don't really think a source is needed.

Answer the first question. Sadistic, uncaring or incompetent?

Also, you are greatly misrepresenting evolutionary science. I would like to know where you got these ideas from.


(ps. Apes didn't turn into people. They have a common ancestor.)

[Upchurch]

I don't think spontaneous generation is part of science, but willing to see the evidence.
This (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/) is usually a good place to start. The origin of life should be as much a part of the scientific field as any natural phenomena. If it happens in nature, it can be studied by science.
Since God is outside of his creation, he can and does exert his will from time to time, as seen in miracles described.
I don't think that's true, but I'm willing to see the evidence. ;)

[2LifeGuy]

Answer the first question. Sadistic, uncaring or incompetent?

If you believe that God is the reason you have cancer, then all would seem to apply.

I can't prove Him to you. If you ask him to reveal himself directly to you...with the intended purpose that you would follow him if he really were real, I believe he will clearly reveal himself and his true nature. Anyway, that's what I did. I just asked. ...oh, and nobody was telling me to... so see this last statement as just just a reply and nothing more...

[Ipecac]

I've been following this exchange and all I see is the argument from ignorance.

2LifeGuy, believe it or not, people actually understand in tremendous detail without room for doubt how evolution works. And they have answers to all the misrepresentations you've been making here. Read some Dawkins, specifically the Blind Watchmaker.

Pointing out the limits of human knowledge doesn't mean that scientists are wrong about what they've learned so far.

And keep this in mind at all times. Biological machines are VASTLY different from mechanical machines. Airplanes can't evolve. Humans do.

[Ducky]

If you believe that God is the reason you have cancer, then all would seem to apply.

I can't prove Him to you. If you ask him to reveal himself directly to you...with the intended purpose that you would follow him if he really were real, I believe he will clearly reveal himself and his true nature. Anyway, that's what I did. I just asked. ...oh, and nobody was telling me to... so see this last statement as just just a reply and nothing more...

I don't believe that God is the reason I got cancer, I am pointing out to you that you by asserting he is perfect have been forced to accept that God created cancer.

So...how do you reconcile that?

[NobbyNobbs]

On the Noah question, I would answer similar to Cain and his wife question.

On what the difference between magic and God is... I think most people define magic like the genie granting wishes, whereas God grants life, and life that He created. I know it's a leap to see the two as different, but they are really polar opposites. Also when I think of magic I think of something used either for selfish means or maybe for entertainment. God, on the other hand, used his power to lay his life down in pain on our behalf. (Sorry to be so preachy!)

Sorry, but I still don't see the difference. A genie grants wishes...God answers prayers. A genie's power is supernatural, unexplainable, not duplicable...so is God's. Again, what's the difference between God and magic?

So far, NO positive mutations which benefit a creature with NEW information has ever been observed. That is why they never show a picture of a positive mutation in text books...only negative ones.

Obviously there are observable changes in animals...in breeding programs for example...but selective breeding is making use of features that are already contained in the gene pool.

I bet there is a scientist who will challenge this, but I'm just saying after some research, I have never seen evidence for a true positive mutation.

I seem to recall a particular butterfly that adapted the pattern of another speices of butterfly, one that birds generally avoid due to bad taste. Anybody know which one I'm talking about?

Well I disagree. If you analyze the parts of a plane, nothing about that analysis will tell you how the iron or aluminum were screwed together, or who did the fabrication work. You can say, I think these parts just came together, or you can say I think these parts had a designer or manufacturer. The individual parts themselves will not give you the answer...well I think they will...

I don't understand how my TV works, BUT by its nature it was obviously designed. This is a true understanding of the truth.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. "Look, a screw. And here's a nut. Looks like one was meant to go into the other. And they are both big enough to fit into this hole here, which would hold this piece on...."

Granted, it would take a lot of time to figure it out. But evolution had plenty of time.

I made a generic statement that evolution is one kind of animal changing into another. Apes to people for example. I don't really think a source is needed.

This does not demonstrate a solid understanding of evolutionary theory.

[grayman]

Take away one component, and the whole thing breaks down. A designer, can make an airplane fly. We could never gain an understanding of how the plane was created by studying its individual parts.

As I pilot I feel the need to add my $0.02 worth to this comment.

Take away a component, let's say the engine of a multi-engine aircraft, and the whole component does not break down, It continues to a point where a landing and repairs may be safely made.

If the component is the engine of a single-engine aircraft, you now are piloting a glider to the safest landing possible.

In other words, the loss of the component has altered the function of the whole, but has not broken the whole thing down.

If that were the case, then life would indeed imitate art, since whenever an aircraft runs out of fuel or whatever on film, the plane spirals out of control and crashes. This would be akin to your automobile running out of gas causing the wheels to lock up and having you skid into the ditch where the vehicle immediately explodes into a fireball.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Sorry, but I still don't see the difference. A genie grants wishes...God answers prayers. A genie's power is supernatural, unexplainable, not duplicable...so is God's. Again, what's the difference between God and magic?
The genie is typically represented as actually having to grant the wishes, whereas God just does whatever fool thing he had already planned to do.

[2LifeGuy]

This (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/) is usually a good place to start. The origin of life should be as much a part of the scientific field as any natural phenomena. If it happens in nature, it can be studied by science.

I don't think that's true, but I'm willing to see the evidence. ;)

There was a worldwide flood according to the Bible. (a miracle in the timing if nothing else) I choose this one because I think that many who believe the Bible, believe this was literal, and many who believe evolution do not believe this was literal.

One evidence I see for a world wide flood with is this... When I look at the grand canyon, I see the "ancient layers." Some are said to have millions of years between them. Yet they are perfectly straight for miles in some areas. If they are formed gradually, as the tour guides say, then how could the line between them be perfectly straight? No wind erosion, nothing to change the flat surface for millions of years? But from a biblical perspective, it is understandable to have these layers, formed from sediment...and somewhere I read that many of these layers spread over our entire continent... just like a global flood could create.

[kmortis]

I seem to recall a particular butterfly that adapted the pattern of another speices of butterfly, one that birds generally avoid due to bad taste. Anybody know which one I'm talking about?


IIRC, you're refering to the Monarch Butterfly and Viceroy butterfly.

[Upchurch]

On what the difference between magic and God is... I think most people define magic like the genie granting wishes, whereas God grants life, and life that He created. I know it's a leap to see the two as different, but they are really polar opposites. Also when I think of magic I think of something used either for selfish means or maybe for entertainment. God, on the other hand, used his power to lay his life down in pain on our behalf. (Sorry to be so preachy!)
I don't follow. You think what God does is different than magic because of the intent behind it? What does that have to do with anything?

If I use my power to turn on a light switch, the act itself and the mechanism I use to perform that act is not dependant upon my intent for turning on that light switch. Likewise, when God uses unnatural (i.e. "not of nature") force to enact change on the natural world, how is that different from, as you say, a genie using unnatural force to enact change on the natural world?