let's not forget the descrepancies of how many animals noah took on the ark, not to mention the whole thing about the race of giants created by angels screwing around with mortal women (from the gospel of thomas, mysteriously taken out of the bible), but we could fill an entire forum full of biblical contradictions.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
let's not forget the descrepancies of how many animals noah took on the ark, not to mention the whole thing about the race of giants created by angels screwing around with mortal women (from the gospel of thomas, mysteriously taken out of the bible), but we could fill an entire forum full of biblical contradictions.
And what about dinosaurs I ask. Though I guess they could be explained away as camels with the mumps or something.
Yes, the ark must have truly been enormous - the number of animals, one assumes from insect up to the largest mammal. And the amount of food needed to feed all of them for 40 days must also have been enormous. I always wondered how on earth such a monstrosity of a boat was meant to stay afloat during a storm that lasted for 40 days and 40 nights when even modern ships of the size required would most probably have been unable to do so. What am I saying? There is no ship today that could take on board two of every species, as well as food for them.
Oh one more thing..I believe it's now up to you..to explain how "life" came into existence through the process of evolution..I believe your choices consist of the following:
a) Space Aliens
b) Spontaneous Generation
c) The chemicals that make up the universe have always existed..(thus kind of supporting my theory of God "always existing..and the universe at one time being a part of him..)
d) Parallel Worlds..(I just threw that one in there..)It's your turn now my friend to explain how out of "nothing".."something" was created...
Oh and don't forget to explain how this "something" managed to lay out the universe..in the perfectly designed fashion in which we see it today..without intelligence guiding it..
The floor is now yours.
Well, there is more there then just evolution. We are moving into the origin of the universe as well. But it is a good question - where did the matter come from. Your suggestion is from the body of God, meanwhile science puts forward a number of theories, including one possible contender - Quantum Theory. Now, I don't like my chances of explaining it, so I did some google looking, since it seems that's a valid source here, and found this site - don't worry, it doesn't get to much into technical jargon, and as a university website it is reputable - as in it has to stand up to guidelines as an educational website.
As to it being perfect, well, it formed, and we formed based on it. We are lucky things turned out as they did. There are millions, at least, of stars out there. Orbited by billions of planets. Lots of matter. Blind process are the orders of the day - throw enough mud and it sticks. While the chance of earth forming as it did, and possessing what is needed for life, and then life forming is minute, it's not impossible, as we are here. Plenty of experts in the field have marvelled and commented on the remarkably small chance that would have existed for the universe to form as it did - but very few have ever said it was impossible for it to have done so. A million to one. A billion to one. trillion to one - but not impossible.
But onto evolution -
A. No, evolution doesn't rely on that.
B. No, disproved.
C. Has nothing to do with evolution
D. I don't think that works.
And I would just be reposting my earlier stuff - matter reacting and reacting until the time in which it could be considered the most basic of microscopic life.
I don't think so. I believe you're misinterpreting again..and unintentionally leaving a bit of the scripture out..winkIf anything the versus you have given above, only support the notion that life is dependant upon something else to sustain it..
Everything is created in a "logical" order..and everything is in essence "brought forth" off of something else that has already been created.
Let's put the sequence of events in Genesis in chronological order...to get a better picture of this..
First we have...
Genesis 1:1 In the Beginning..God created the Heavens and the Earth
God creating the "Heavens and the Earth"...Earth of course means "earth"..I'm assuming that heavens probably alludes to not only the "spritual" heaven that we know of..but probably also relates to earth's atmosphere..and the universe which earth is a part of..
Then we have..
Genisis 1:3 Let there be light!
God allows the Heavens that he created..to be illuminated..stars are formed from the various parts of the universe already created. (which I'm sure mainly consists of various gases at this time)
Next we have...
Genesis 1:6 Let there be an expanse between the waters to seperate the water from water
I believe expanse refers to God bringing down various parts of the atmosphere that had just been created, and condensing it into the sky..and subliming it into to water..to form earths oceans..
Then we have..
Genesis 1:11 "Then God said Let the land produce vegetation.
If something is produced..that generally means it is the by product of something else..wink
God "brings forth" the grass, plant life and vegetation from the earth. I'm assuming he needs water and light to do this, which as referenced above..has already been brought forth.
note: When we see the word "bring forth"..I believe one can allude to something coming from something else..not coming from "nothing."
Then we have..
Genesis 20: Let the water produce living creatures..
There's that word again.."produce"...so once again..the creatures of the sea..would be the by product of what the sea is made up of...
Next we have:
Genesis 24: Let the land produce living creatures..
Once again..something is being produced..from something else..
At this point..I believe it is quite apparent..that the Bible does not allude to spontaneous generation, but rather..shows everyting being the by- product of something else..
Finally:
Genesis 26: Then God said..Let us make man..
Man is created from the earth..
Good try..But read the entire first chapter of Genisis next time..not just two versus..wink
Gahhh. I did read the whole thing. I didn't just with luck pull out those two quotes, but I didn't feel like typing the whole of creation out. But oh well. And once again I guess it comes down to interpretation - a book by people who live by the saying "the Devil is in the details" seems to be terribly vague on this subject. And we are getting further and further away from supernatural reasoning - matter, gases etc. Why soon you will be in line with the scientific theory on how the universe formed, if not how it and life began.
The fact remains though that the world that apparently had plant life somehow produced from itself all the plants and trees. It doesn't say "And God created trees and grass" no - simply that the earth brought it forth. Yes, produced. In this case the earth produced it. At least when it came to the animals and man God is credited for the creation. In that case being a byproduct is at least plausible - not so with plant life. It didn't say "God created seeds and planted them and the earth brought them forward" - it says the earth did it.
And man - created from dust, but God gave him the breathe of life, so that's not spontaneous generation - but it doesn't say anything like that for the animals or birds or whales. No mention of dust or breathe of life. Just he created them. Out of something if you like, but nothing alive - unless he gave them the breathe of life as well, but then why not mention that?
Originally posted by Darth Jello
not to mention the whole thing about the race of giants created by angels screwing around with mortal women (from the gospel of thomas, mysteriously taken out of the bible)
The Gospel of Thomas doesn't talk about the giants, it was never "in the Bible", and since its theology is completely different from the other canonical scriptures, it's not very mysterious why.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In Genesis 1:1-31, the creation takes six days, but in Genesis 2:4, the creation takes one day.Which is correct?
In Genesis 1:11-27, God creates the plants before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:5-25, God creates man first, the plants next, and then woman.
Which is correct?
In Genesis 1:14-19, God creates the stars before He creates the earth, but in Job 38:4-7, God creates the stars after He creates the earth.
Which is correct?
In Genesis 1:20-22, God creates birds from the water, but in Genesis 2:19, God creates birds from the ground.
Which is correct?
In Genesis 1:25-27, God creates the animals before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, the animals next, and then woman.
Which is correct?
In Genesis 1:27, God creates man and woman at the same time, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, then woman.
Which is correct?
Awesome post, why has no one reponded to it as of yet I wonder?
This happens time and again in this forum, when questions are raised that could in the least make one question their beliefs, the question is ignored.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Awesome post, why has no one reponded to it as of yet I wonder?This happens time and again in this forum, when questions are raised that could in the least make one question their beliefs, the question is ignored.
They have well trained. They know when Satan is at work. 😆
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I have the rebuttals to all of those "discrepancies" in the Bible.You are misunderstanding the author in the second chapter.
Give me an hour or two, and I will try to explain better.
*goes off to do research*
That is the biggest problem with the bible, people misunderstanding. You cannot understand the bible unless you understand the people who wrote it.
Contradictions in the Bible?
Do Genesis chapters 1 and 2 cpnflict?
(please post if I missed any)
1. Genesis 1:11 has the trees made on day three before man; Genesis 2:9 has the trees made on day six after man.
2. Genesis 1:20 has birds made out of the water on day five; Genesis 2:19 has birds made out of the ground on day six.
3. Genesis 1:24,25 has the animals made on day 6 before man; Genesis 2:19 has the animals made on day six after man.
It becomes clearer to me if you read more closely.
Genesis 1 is the introduction/overview, and chapter 2 is the step by step of how it happened.
Explanation of supposed contradiction 1:
A. Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.
B. Genesis 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.
C. Genesis 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day six in the Garden of Eden.
D. The trees described in Genesis 2:9 are only in the Garden of Eden; the rest of the world is already full of trees from day three. The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have the power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day six and was only those trees that are "pleasant to the sight and good for food." (meant for Adam's personal use.)
Explanation of supposed contradiction 2:
The birds created out of the ground on the sixth day are only one of each "kind" so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day five.
Explanation of supposed contradiction 3:
Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them(Genesis 2:19) and select a wife. Since Adam could not find a suitable mate (God knew he wouldn't), he made Eve.(Genesis 2:21-22)
There are no contradictions between the 2 chapters that I can see. Chapter only describes in more detail what is in chapter 1.
Moses wrote Genesis(along with the next 4 books) so it is unlikely that an educated prince of Egypt, and leader of his people would make such obvious foolish contradictions right after another.
Notice also that he says there was light(i.e. God) before the sun.
No ancient tribesman/caveman would say that the light came before the sun. (some maintain that the bible was written by a bunch of fools, trying to explain things, rather than the kings and generals, fisherman, and priests who were recording the history as it happened.)
Tomorrow:
Proof of the flood/Noah's ark!
I don't believe you have any interest in the truth, and I can't believe anybody really wants to here the inane "evidence" of the flood myth that you steal of of creationist web sites. Do you here all of the people saying, "Please, sithsaber408, present us with more quotes with scientists taken completely out of context?" No? There's a reason for that.
Originally posted by Gregory
I don't believe you have any interest in the truth, and I can't believe anybody really wants to here the inane "evidence" of the flood myth that you steal of of creationist web sites. Do you here all of the people saying, "Please, sithsaber408, present us with more quotes with scientists taken completely out of context?" No? There's a reason for that.
Of course I want the truth Greg, I am a Christian, and I believe what I posted. (not that you would care, but I was a supervisor at a Christian bookstore for 3 years, so I have my own library of stuff, I don't pull it off of websites.)
Oh, and:
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Awesome post, why has no one reponded to it as of yet I wonder?This happens time and again in this forum, when questions are raised that could in the least make one question their beliefs, the question is ignored.
Apparently someone wanted a Christians answer to the question being posed. I gave mine, and it works for me. I see no "contradictions" in the book of Genesis.
If you don't believe, that's cool. I'm not here to be a prick to you.
I was answering a question that was (I thought) posed to any Christian who might want to take a stab at it.
The stuff about the flood is intended as a mild joke. (contrary to popular belief, Christians do have a sense of humor.)
Don't be so hostile dude. 🙂
Originally posted by sithsaber408
[B]Contradictions in the Bible?Do Genesis chapters 1 and 2 cpnflict?
(please post if I missed any)
1. Genesis 1:11 has the trees made on day three before man; Genesis 2:9 has the trees made on day six after man.
2. Genesis 1:20 has birds made out of the water on day five; Genesis 2:19 has birds made out of the ground on day six.
3. Genesis 1:24,25 has the animals made on day 6 before man; Genesis 2:19 has the animals made on day six after man.
It becomes clearer to me if you read more closely.
Genesis 1 is the introduction/overview, and chapter 2 is the step by step of how it happened.
Explanation of supposed contradiction 1:
A. Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.
B. Genesis 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.
C. Genesis 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day six in the Garden of Eden.
D. The trees described in Genesis 2:9 are only in the Garden of Eden; the rest of the world is already full of trees from day three. The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have the power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day six and was only those trees that are "pleasant to the sight and good for food." (meant for Adam's personal use.)
Explanation of supposed contradiction 2:
The birds created out of the ground on the sixth day are only one of each "kind" so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day five.
Explanation of supposed contradiction 3:
Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them(Genesis 2:19) and select a wife. Since Adam could not find a suitable mate (God knew he wouldn't), he made Eve.(Genesis 2:21-22)
There are no contradictions between the 2 chapters that I can see. Chapter only describes in more detail what is in chapter 1.
Moses wrote Genesis(along with the next 4 books) so it is unlikely that an educated prince of Egypt, and leader of his people would make such obvious foolish contradictions right after another.
Notice also that he says there was light(i.e. God) before the sun.
No ancient tribesman/caveman would say that the light came before the sun. (some maintain that the bible was written by a bunch of fools, trying to explain things, rather than the kings and generals, fisherman, and priests who were recording the history as it happened.)
Tomorrow:
Proof of the flood/Noah's ark! [/B]
The bible cannot prove the bible. You could cross reference the bible to the bible until the cows come home and it can only prove that these things in the bible agree with those things in the bible. Because one part of the bible agrees with another part does not prove the bible true. I can take Gone With The Wind and show you that one part agrees with all the other parts, but that does not make Gone With The Wind a history book.
Of course I want the truth Greg, I am a Christian, and I believe what I posted. (not that you would care, but I was a supervisor at a Christian bookstore for 3 years, so I have my own library of stuff, I don't pull it off of websites.)
I don't mean to be hostile, however it may have sounded, or is about to sound, but this is how I see the situation:
You are convinced you already know the truth. Specifically, you are a young earth creationist and a fundamentalist. You can't be "interested in the truth" in the way that a scientist is interested in the truth, because a scientist is interested in finding the truth, whereas you are merely interested in trying to convince everybody that you already know it--why go looking for it when you can just open your Bible?
When it was pointed out that Hovind was a lier, you declare that it "doesn't change your beliefs." Of course it doesn't; how could it? I can't imagine anything that would change your beliefs, because you're completely, religiously convinced that you're right. A man you were using for evidence has been proven untrustworthy? That's okay; after all, you're still right. Darwin didn't say something you thought he did? That's okay; after all, you're still right. A claim you made about the impossibility of blood-clotting evolving is proven wrong? That's okay; you're still right. That's why I say, "you're not interested in the truth"; perhaps what I should have said was, "You're not interested in learning the truth because you think you already know it."
(I agree that the second "creation story" seems to be a retelling of the first; I approve of skepticism, but sometimes I think atheists can be a little too quick to jump on every perceived flaw they find in the Bible.)
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible cannot prove the bible. You could cross reference the bible to the bible until the cows come home and it can only prove that these things in the bible agree with those things in the bible. Because one part of the bible agrees with another part does not prove the bible true. I can take Gone With The Wind and show you that one part agrees with all the other parts, but that does not make Gone With The Wind a history book.
Agreed Shaky,
I was just answering the question posed.
To me , the Bible is true because of the prophecies in it that are fulfilled.
(like david saying that the lamb would be killed on a tree, with nails piercing the feet and hands, like 300 years before crucifixtion had been invented. I know you don't believe in it, but the Bible has many fulfilled prophecies in it that, for me, make what it already speaks into my life in terms of meaning, and ethics all the more concrete.)
However, I only posted to contradict the "contradictions in the Bible."
Originally posted by Gregory
I don't mean to be hostile, however it may have sounded, or is about to sound, but this is how I see the situation:You are convinced you already know the truth. Specifically, you are a young earth creationist and a fundamentalist. You can't be "interested in the truth" in the way that a scientist is interested in the truth, because a scientist is interested in finding the truth, whereas you are merely interested in trying to convince everybody that you already know it--why go looking for it when you can just open your Bible?
When it was pointed out that Hovind was a lier, you declare that it "doesn't change your beliefs." Of course it doesn't; how could it? I can't imagine anything that would change your beliefs, because you're completely, religiously convinced that you're right. A man you were using for evidence has been proven untrustworthy? That's okay; after all, you're still right. Darwin didn't say something you thought he did? That's okay; after all, you're still right. A claim you made about the impossibility of blood-clotting evolving is proven wrong? That's okay; you're still right. That's why I say, "you're not interested in the truth"; perhaps what I should have said was, "You're not interested in learning the truth because you think you already know it."
I agree, however, there is a difference between scientific truth and mystic truth, but we call both of them truth, so this leads to a lot of confusion. Mystic truth does not need proof; the proof is the quality of a person’s life were as, scientific truth has nothing to do with quality of life, but the quality of cultural's knowledge. So, if a Christian or Buddhist knows the mystic truth, there is no need to find proof outside of one’s self. If it works for you, it is mystic truth. I believe that the bible is mystic truth and proving it scientifically true or false does nothing for the quality of life, it only appeals to the ego.
Scientific truth improves the quality and ability of a culture. With scientific truth we can do things, like go to the moon, but without mystic truth there is no reason to go.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
[B]Contradictions in the Bible?Do Genesis chapters 1 and 2 cpnflict?
(please post if I missed any)
1. Genesis 1:11 has the trees made on day three before man; Genesis 2:9 has the trees made on day six after man.
2. Genesis 1:20 has birds made out of the water on day five; Genesis 2:19 has birds made out of the ground on day six.
3. Genesis 1:24,25 has the animals made on day 6 before man; Genesis 2:19 has the animals made on day six after man.
It becomes clearer to me if you read more closely.
Genesis 1 is the introduction/overview, and chapter 2 is the step by step of how it happened.
Explanation of supposed contradiction 1:
A. Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.
B. Genesis 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.
C. Genesis 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day six in the Garden of Eden.
D. The trees described in Genesis 2:9 are only in the Garden of Eden; the rest of the world is already full of trees from day three. The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have the power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day six and was only those trees that are "pleasant to the sight and good for food." (meant for Adam's personal use.)
Explanation of supposed contradiction 2:
The birds created out of the ground on the sixth day are only one of each "kind" so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day five.
Explanation of supposed contradiction 3:
Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them(Genesis 2:19) and select a wife. Since Adam could not find a suitable mate (God knew he wouldn't), he made Eve.(Genesis 2:21-22)
There are no contradictions between the 2 chapters that I can see. Chapter only describes in more detail what is in chapter 1.
Moses wrote Genesis(along with the next 4 books) so it is unlikely that an educated prince of Egypt, and leader of his people would make such obvious foolish contradictions right after another.
Notice also that he says there was light(i.e. God) before the sun.
No ancient tribesman/caveman would say that the light came before the sun. (some maintain that the bible was written by a bunch of fools, trying to explain things, rather than the kings and generals, fisherman, and priests who were recording the history as it happened.)
Tomorrow:
Proof of the flood/Noah's ark! [/B]
So, you do realize that you are attempting to explain contradictions and falsehoods in an infalliable work proclaimed to be the word of god, right? Why would god need to publish a suppliment to his divine word, so that it could be more easily understood by humanity? I mean, it's supposed to be the law for all humanity, right? The very fact that there are contradictions that need be explained should answer that for you. I look forward to your explaination of the great flood, and Noah living for so long, because 12 years of Catholic school education sure as hell didn't.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Agreed Shaky,I was just answering the question posed.
To me , the Bible is true because of the prophecies in it that are fulfilled.
(like david saying that the lamb would be killed on a tree, with nails piercing the feet and hands, like 300 years before crucifixtion had been invented. I know you don't believe in it, but the Bible has many fulfilled prophecies in it that, for me, make what it already speaks into my life in terms of meaning, and ethics all the more concrete.)
However, I only posted to contradict the "contradictions in the Bible."
Good god, you agree that the bible can not be proven by the bible, and then you turn around and say you believe in the bible because of the fulfilled prophecies that have taken place....IN THE BIBLE?
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you do realize that you are attempting to explain contradictions and falsehoods in an infalliable work proclaimed to be the word of god, right? Why would god need to publish a suppliment to his divine word, so that it could be more easily understood by humanity? I mean, it's supposed to be the law for all humanity, right? The very fact that there are contradictions that need be explained should answer that for you. I look forward to your explaination of the great flood, and Noah living for so long, because 12 years of Catholic school education sure as hell didn't.
12 years of Catholic school education! 😱
My father was a Baptist minister, so, we had church 3 times a week and bible studies every night. Capt_Fantastic it's no wonder we both ended up so... non-Christian. 😆