The Bible Isn't Contradictory

David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
The Bible Isn't Contradictory

The Bible Isn't Contradictory and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
 I predict you will resolve

 I predict you will resolve any contradiction with post-facto rationalization.

Nothing is contradictory if you start with your conclusion and work your way backwards.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
"contradictory" is

"contradictory" is subjective, and even if the bible were immune to the most stringent logical scrutiny, i would still reject it because it's sexist, racist, homophobic, and other things i find repulsive.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm not to sure

if there is any contradictions, however I assume there is. The writers weren't perfect and were normal people as any one alse, so, I would expect they made mistakes. Berain mind, an apostle poiontsd to the prospect that all fall short of perfection. I haven't so far went looking for conradidctions. What eggszample do you have that someone says there are contradictions. And, also understand that the one's that wrote the book did so under and different mindset then people normally.

In creation the fowl are coming out of the water. So then, how would that stand on the evolution concept. Wouldn't that seem to be a bit contradictory from what is commonly understood. Or were the fowl in this case "ducks".

Also, apparently God made light first and later the sun. ????? That's unsound in the world of physics.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
of course the bible has

of course the bible has contradictions, and it never claims not to have them. if god exists, he creates contradictions as well as anything else. i still don't understand why the faith or lack thereof of so many hinges on the logical coherence of the bible. there isn't a text in human history that doesn't contain contradictions, and that includes wittgenstein himself.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:"contradictory"

iwbiek wrote:

"contradictory" is subjective, and even if the bible were immune to the most stringent logical scrutiny, i would still reject it because it's sexist, racist, homophobic, and other things i find repulsive.

 

Well, it's an historical text, iwbiek. Though I don't agree that it's racist at all, it's contents do reflect a time period that to us seems misogynistic, it was a different time and actually it has tremendous respect for women. Eve, as well as Adam, was made in God's image, meaning reflecting his personality. She compliments Adam. People often say that it's insulting that she was made as man's helper, but the same term is applied to Jehovah as helper to Israel. There were women prophets, and women were very effective in the spreading of the gospel of early Christianity. Homophobic? I wouldn't say that, though the practice of homosexuality was punishable by death and grounds for dismissal in the Christian congregation.

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:
Homophobic? I wouldn't say that, though the practice of homosexuality was punishable by death and grounds for dismissal in the Christian congregation.

 




i'm sorry, what's the difference? and if your answer is some "love the sinner but hate the sin" platitude, save it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:if there is

Old Seer wrote:

if there is any contradictions, however I assume there is. The writers weren't perfect and were normal people as any one alse, so, I would expect they made mistakes. Berain mind, an apostle poiontsd to the prospect that all fall short of perfection.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the writing of the Bible was inspired, but the translation wasn't. So Jehovah's message to the writers and that writing was without error, but not the translation.

Old Seer wrote:
I haven't so far went looking for conradidctions. What eggszample do you have that someone says there are contradictions. And, also understand that the one's that wrote the book did so under and different mindset then people normally.

Well, I don't know how they would have been of a different mindset, but most of the contradictions in the Bible are copyist errors having to do with numbers. Numbers were particularly problematic for copyists. Every alleged contradiction that I've encountered by skeptics have amounted to confusion caused by religious nonsense or just ignorance. For an example, see The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Contradictions

Old Seer wrote:
In creation the fowl are coming out of the water. So then, how would that stand on the evolution concept. Wouldn't that seem to be a bit contradictory from what is commonly understood. Or were the fowl in this case "ducks".

In the Old English language the term fowl applied to any winged creature. So grasshoppers, butterflies, bees as well as any bird. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "coming out of the water," but the Bible doesn't teach evolution so it wouldn't be contradicting itself, in that case.

Old Seer wrote:
Also, apparently God made light first and later the sun. ????? That's unsound in the world of physics.   Smiling

In Genesis 1:1 god created the heavens and earth, which would naturally include the sun, stars and moon. The Hebrew language with its word for created being in the perfect state indicates that that action of creation was complete and then the "days" of creation began. Linguistically, it's like a bed. The heavens and earth were created (Hebrew bara, complete) and then prepared for habitation, or made (Hebrew asah, continuous) like a bed. (Genesis 1:16) Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth.Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.  In Genesis 1:3 the light penetrates the vapor cloud and is first visible on Earth, but it's in the imperfect state, which indicates a progressive increase. And the Hebrew word there for light is orh, which means the light itself rather than the source. So the light of the sun was only then visible on Earth, but the sourse of the light, the sun, wasn't yet visible. Later, in verse 14 the Hebrew word maorh is used, which means then the source of the light was then visible. Keep in mind, though, that the Hebrew word for day, "yohm" can stand for any period of time within a narrative from a few hours to time indefinate. These days weren't literal days. For example, King David, thousands of years later, and the Apostle Paul thousands of years after him refers to the 7th day of creation as continuing in their day. And it continues to this day.

You should have read the link I gave you, it explains all of that in detail. A Bible lesson, as it were.
  


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:of course the

iwbiek wrote:
of course the bible has contradictions, and it never claims not to have them. if god exists, he creates contradictions as well as anything else. i still don't understand why the faith or lack thereof of so many hinges on the logical coherence of the bible. there isn't a text in human history that doesn't contain contradictions, and that includes wittgenstein himself.

[Laughs] Wittgenstein! We are talking about the creator of the universe. Wittgenstein . . . oh, that's funny. God doesn't create contradictions. Imperfect man does.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:David Henson

iwbiek wrote:
David Henson wrote:
Homophobic? I wouldn't say that, though the practice of homosexuality was punishable by death and grounds for dismissal in the Christian congregation.

 


i'm sorry, what's the difference? and if your answer is some "love the sinner but hate the sin" platitude, save it.

Fear. phobic. The guys where I live react to homosexuality in such a way out of fear.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Old Seer

David Henson wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

if there is any contradictions, however I assume there is. The writers weren't perfect and were normal people as any one alse, so, I would expect they made mistakes. Berain mind, an apostle poiontsd to the prospect that all fall short of perfection.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the writing of the Bible was inspired, but the translation wasn't. So Jehovah's message to the writers and that writing was without error, but not the translation.

Old Seer wrote:
I haven't so far went looking for conradidctions. What eggszample do you have that someone says there are contradictions. And, also understand that the one's that wrote the book did so under and different mindset then people normally.

Well, I don't know how they would have been of a different mindset, but most of the contradictions in the Bible are copyist errors having to do with numbers. Numbers were particularly problematic for copyists. Every alleged contradiction that I've encountered by skeptics have amounted to confusion caused by religious nonsense or just ignorance. For an example, see The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Contradictions

Old Seer wrote:
In creation the fowl are coming out of the water. So then, how would that stand on the evolution concept. Wouldn't that seem to be a bit contradictory from what is commonly understood. Or were the fowl in this case "ducks".

In the Old English language the term fowl applied to any winged creature. So grasshoppers, butterflies, bees as well as any bird. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "coming out of the water," but the Bible doesn't teach evolution so it wouldn't be contradicting itself, in that case.

Old Seer wrote:
Also, apparently God made light first and later the sun. ????? That's unsound in the world of physics.   Smiling

In Genesis 1:1 god created the heavens and earth, which would naturally include the sun, stars and moon. The Hebrew language with its word for created being in the perfect state indicates that that action of creation was complete and then the "days" of creation began. Linguistically, it's like a bed. The heavens and earth were created (Hebrew bara, complete) and then prepared for habitation, or made (Hebrew asah, continuous) like a bed. (Genesis 1:16) Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth.Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.  In Genesis 1:3 the light penetrates the vapor cloud and is first visible on Earth, but it's in the imperfect state, which indicates a progressive increase. And the Hebrew word there for light is orh, which means the light itself rather than the source. So the light of the sun was only then visible on Earth, but the sourse of the light, the sun, wasn't yet visible. Later, in verse 14 the Hebrew word maorh is used, which means then the source of the light was then visible. Keep in mind, though, that the Hebrew word for day, "yohm" can stand for any period of time within a narrative from a few hours to time indefinate. These days weren't literal days. For example, King David, thousands of years later, and the Apostle Paul thousands of years after him refers to the 7th day of creation as continuing in their day. And it continues to this day.

You should have read the link I gave you, it explains all of that in detail. A Bible lesson, as it were.
  

All writing is inspired, no matter who writes what. I was inspired by your post to responde--through writing. The book say "All Writing". God is nothing more then the inner workings of "person".

How genisis works is scientifically unsound, you're saying that a superhuman didn't need science to creat anything. Your telling me what the book doesn't say. The dust yopu mention is nothing more then fog in someones mind. More over, from what you say the writers wpould have to have been physicists to understand what they were wrting or passing down to the next generation.

 OK, this is exactly why I don't care for these discussions. they go no where and solve nothing.

Try psychiatry on biblical creation and you'll get a different story. Then trasfer that to the rime of Noah and you won't find any H2O, you'll find they killed each other not drownd. But, I'll let you have your interpretation, water covering MT Everest doesn't work. What is the most likely, they killed each other or the water coverd Mt Everest. So, once again I'm being told there is this magic guy that doesn't need science who made material from nothing, buit we need science to figure out "qhat he did, and science tells us he didn't. Try Psychiatry--it works and it gets you to understand you., and everyone else.  Every person is a psycoligical fact, so in order to create a person the super guy had to use pschiatry, not dirt. Smiling

I did read your information--it's the same thing I've always read.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If

A biblical prophet says God is an entity that creates all that is evil and all that is good, wouldn't that be a contradiction of self, when religions teach that - in essence, God is good.

Didn't JC point out that God is good? So then, JC disagrees with the prophet. How so?. Explain please. Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:A biblical

Old Seer wrote:

A biblical prophet says God is an entity that creates all that is evil and all that is good, wouldn't that be a contradiction of self, when religions teach that - in essence, God is good.

Didn't JC point out that God is good? So then, JC disagrees with the prophet. How so?. Explain please. Smiling

 

The Hebrew word for evil is ra. It can be translated as evil, calamitous, ungenerous, envious , bad, gloomy, ugly or malignant, depending upon the context. The King James Version translates it as evil at Isaiah 45:7. Most newer translations prefer calamity. To give you an idea of how the term would be used in modern day speech, imagine a child who's parent told him not to play in the busy street because the results could be ugly (Hebrew ra) the child ignores the parent and plays in the street anyway. Nothing bad (Hebrew ra) happened to the kid but when his parent found out he punished the kid by grounding him, which was calamitous (Hebrew ra) to him.

God created evil by punishing Adam and later wickedness that would have destroyed the world of men in Noah's day with the great flood.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You are

David Henson wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

A biblical prophet says God is an entity that creates all that is evil and all that is good, wouldn't that be a contradiction of self, when religions teach that - in essence, God is good.

Didn't JC point out that God is good? So then, JC disagrees with the prophet. How so?. Explain please. Smiling

 

The Hebrew word for evil is ra. It can be translated as evil, calamitous, ungenerous, envious , bad, gloomy, ugly or malignant, depending upon the context. The King James Version translates it as evil at Isaiah 45:7. Most newer translations prefer calamity. To give you an idea of how the term would be used in modern day speech, imagine a child who's parent told him not to play in the busy street because the results could be ugly (Hebrew ra) the child ignores the parent and plays in the street anyway. Nothing bad (Hebrew ra) happened to the kid but when his parent found out he punished the kid by grounding him, which was calamitous (Hebrew ra) to him.

God created evil by punishing Adam and later wickedness that would have destroyed the world of men in Noah's day with the great flood.

Then you are saying that evil is harm. So the people at the time of Noah were eveil enough for God to harm them. Then that would also mean that God is the source of all harm that happens to people.

Is an earth quake in San Francisco being done by God because the people there are evil, and if so, would he avoid harm to anyone there that wasn't evil, Or, do all the floks in the city have to be evil before God harms them, and if so, how about the children.

So, lets move the earth quake away from people and have it happen where there are no people. Earth quakes can happena nd bring harm to no one. So, wht does God casue an earth quake where there are no people to harm.

Did God cause earth quakes before there were no people, or just after Adam fell.

Did God put Mt Vesuvious where it is becasue he knew before hand that evil people normally live by volcanos. or he knew that the people who would live there would become evil.

Was Mt Vesuvious there before Adam. If so, Are the people of today anywhere on the planet any different then the floks that settled by Mt Vesuvious.

But all in all, religions teach that God is good. So he does evil also. This doesn't jive with their understanding of God. That puts us back to, God does good and evil. Isn't JC in contradiction of this.

Addition. IF, as you say the interpreters got things wrong then it's all a matter of "what did they get wrong". Wouldn't it be that if the translators and interpreters created contradictions then they made the book contradictory. What we're left with is figuring out what contradiction they made/caused. If there are contrdictions by any means or who's falult the book can't be reliable as to truth. How then, can one know truth from error.

In retrospect, if the book is perfect in the "word of God" and , now it no longer is (is what you'd be forwarding I take it) that renders the book useless and is contradictory in all circumstances.

 Different religions interpret certain passages differently in their bibles then others. Different interpretaions negate consistancy. IE- one bible changes 144 in revelation to 216 feet. Which one is correct? From our study we found this number cannot be changed--if so the passage looses it meaning. The numbe 216 has no bearing in revelation. So already-just from the one item the book losses it's legitamacy, regardless of who's at fault. The 144 has to remain because it applies, not the other. This is a result of turning the book into what they the religions think, not what the originators think. If the book is no longer original then it's a bust and woud be of no value

What this means is, religions interpret the book to fit their mind's eye, not that of the originator of the information. Which in turn shows they haven't a clear understanding of the book's meaning.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This topic is laughable. The

This topic is laughable. The bible has hundreds of internal contradictions. This is a simple fact. One need not go further than genesis or the commandments to see as much.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
In Day 5

of creation is what's coming out of the waters. In day 6 are the things of land. Whatever flies comes out of the sea, apparently. If birds are included than they were, or may have, been developed in the ocean. Did someone in the origin of the book make a mistake, or do you suppose it's a mistranslation.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Then you are

Old Seer wrote:
Then you are saying that evil is harm. So the people at the time of Noah were eveil enough for God to harm them. Then that would also mean that God is the source of all harm that happens to people.

I don't get how you come to that conclusion. In a sense it is correct, since everything that is bad is a result of his withdrawing from mankind due to sin. The story of the relationship between God and mankind is something like a man who builds a house for his son with the stipulation that his son should take good care of it because he would not like to see his son destroy it. But the son doesn't listen to his father's advice and neglects the house his father built. The father withdrawls from the son because he doesn't want to have any part in the destruction he brings upon the house. His grandchildren suffer due to the neglect of the father, who one day, can allow it no more and removes the son from the house, giving it instead to one of his children who will take proper care of it.

Old Seer wrote:
Is an earth quake in San Francisco being done by God because the people there are evil, and if so, would he avoid harm to anyone there that wasn't evil, Or, do all the floks in the city have to be evil before God harms them, and if so, how about the children.

So, lets move the earth quake away from people and have it happen where there are no people. Earth quakes can happena nd bring harm to no one. So, wht does God casue an earth quake where there are no people to harm.

No. It doesn't work like that. Earthquakes are a result of God's withdrawal, from a lack of God's protection and guidance. We, including the children, suffer due to Adam's sin. His rejection of God's guidance and protection.

Old Seer wrote:
Did God cause earth quakes before there were no people, or just after Adam fell.

Did God put Mt Vesuvious where it is becasue he knew before hand that evil people normally live by volcanos. or he knew that the people who would live there would become evil.

Was Mt Vesuvious there before Adam. If so, Are the people of today anywhere on the planet any different then the floks that settled by Mt Vesuvious.

I don't really know if there were earthquakes and volcanoes before people, you would have to ask a geologist to speculate on that. Considering the damage a global deluge would have incurred I think it likely that there would be fewer instances of the sort.  

Old Seer wrote:
But all in all, religions teach that God is good. So he does evil also. This doesn't jive with their understanding of God. That puts us back to, God does good and evil. Isn't JC in contradiction of this.

Addition. IF, as you say the interpreters got things wrong then it's all a matter of "what did they get wrong". Wouldn't it be that if the translators and interpreters created contradictions then they made the book contradictory. What we're left with is figuring out what contradiction they made/caused. If there are contrdictions by any means or who's falult the book can't be reliable as to truth. How then, can one know truth from error.

In retrospect, if the book is perfect in the "word of God" and , now it no longer is (is what you'd be forwarding I take it) that renders the book useless and is contradictory in all circumstances.

In order for there to be a contradiction, for example in this case of evil, the Bible would have to say in one place that God created evil and in another place it would have to say that he didn't. It doesn't do that. I did a quick check and as it happens, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible does count this as a contradiction. You can't judge the Bible on being contradictory based upon the misinterpretation of religion, but it is certainly possible that a specific translation is contradictory where others might not be, which is a good reason to compare translations. The ASV, DARBY, DRA uses evil. The AMP, ISV, NIV uses disaster. The CEV uses sorrow. ESV, MEV, NASB uses calamity.

 

Old Seer wrote:
Different religions interpret certain passages differently in their bibles then others. Different interpretaions negate consistancy. IE- one bible changes 144 in revelation to 216 feet. Which one is correct? From our study we found this number cannot be changed--if so the passage looses it meaning. The numbe 216 has no bearing in revelation. So already-just from the one item the book losses it's legitamacy, regardless of who's at fault. The 144 has to remain because it applies, not the other. This is a result of turning the book into what they the religions think, not what the originators think. If the book is no longer original then it's a bust and woud be of no value

What this means is, religions interpret the book to fit their mind's eye, not that of the originator of the information. Which in turn shows they haven't a clear understanding of the book's meaning.

 

Well, like I said, the misinterpretation of the book by various religions, or individuals, doesn't constitute fault in the book itself. 1 John 4:1 says "Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world."

There are cases of translators inserting things in the Bible that they shouldn't have, that don't belong there. For example, when the people bring the prostitute to Jesus and he says something to the effect of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Never happened. It only appears in much later manuscripts. In that way we know it's spurious.
 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:This topic is

Vastet wrote:
This topic is laughable. The bible has hundreds of internal contradictions. This is a simple fact. One need not go further than genesis or the commandments to see as much.

Can you, uh . . . [ahem] can you name one?


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:of creation

Old Seer wrote:

of creation is what's coming out of the waters. In day 6 are the things of land. Whatever flies comes out of the sea, apparently. If birds are included than they were, or may have, been developed in the ocean. Did someone in the origin of the book make a mistake, or do you suppose it's a mistranslation.

Again, from my Genesis Chapter 1 link I gave earlier, The days or periods of creation are as follows.

Period 1 - Light; a division between night and day (Genesis 1:3-5

Period 2 - The Expanse; a division between waters above and beneath. (Genesis 1:6-8

Period 3 - Dry land and vegetation. (Genesis 1:9-13

Period 4 - Heavenly luminaries become visible from Earth. (Genesis 1:14-19

Period 5 - Aquatic and flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-23

Period 6 - Land animals and man. (Genesis 1:24-31) And, we are talking about contradiction with itself, not contradiction with science.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think you miss my point.

David Henson wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
Then you are saying that evil is harm. So the people at the time of Noah were eveil enough for God to harm them. Then that would also mean that God is the source of all harm that happens to people.

I don't get how you come to that conclusion. In a sense it is correct, since everything that is bad is a result of his withdrawing from mankind due to sin. The story of the relationship between God and mankind is something like a man who builds a house for his son with the stipulation that his son should take good care of it because he would not like to see his son destroy it. But the son doesn't listen to his father's advice and neglects the house his father built. The father withdrawls from the son because he doesn't want to have any part in the destruction he brings upon the house. His grandchildren suffer due to the neglect of the father, who one day, can allow it no more and removes the son from the house, giving it instead to one of his children who will take proper care of it.

Old Seer wrote:
Is an earth quake in San Francisco being done by God because the people there are evil, and if so, would he avoid harm to anyone there that wasn't evil, Or, do all the floks in the city have to be evil before God harms them, and if so, how about the children.

So, lets move the earth quake away from people and have it happen where there are no people. Earth quakes can happena nd bring harm to no one. So, wht does God casue an earth quake where there are no people to harm.

No. It doesn't work like that. Earthquakes are a result of God's withdrawal, from a lack of God's protection and guidance. We, including the children, suffer due to Adam's sin. His rejection of God's guidance and protection.

Old Seer wrote:
Did God cause earth quakes before there were no people, or just after Adam fell.

Did God put Mt Vesuvious where it is becasue he knew before hand that evil people normally live by volcanos. or he knew that the people who would live there would become evil.

Was Mt Vesuvious there before Adam. If so, Are the people of today anywhere on the planet any different then the floks that settled by Mt Vesuvious.

I don't really know if there were earthquakes and volcanoes before people, you would have to ask a geologist to speculate on that. Considering the damage a global deluge would have incurred I think it likely that there would be fewer instances of the sort.  

Old Seer wrote:
But all in all, religions teach that God is good. So he does evil also. This doesn't jive with their understanding of God. That puts us back to, God does good and evil. Isn't JC in contradiction of this.

Addition. IF, as you say the interpreters got things wrong then it's all a matter of "what did they get wrong". Wouldn't it be that if the translators and interpreters created contradictions then they made the book contradictory. What we're left with is figuring out what contradiction they made/caused. If there are contrdictions by any means or who's falult the book can't be reliable as to truth. How then, can one know truth from error.

In retrospect, if the book is perfect in the "word of God" and , now it no longer is (is what you'd be forwarding I take it) that renders the book useless and is contradictory in all circumstances.

In order for there to be a contradiction, for example in this case of evil, the Bible would have to say in one place that God created evil and in another place it would have to say that he didn't. It doesn't do that. I did a quick check and as it happens, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible does count this as a contradiction. You can't judge the Bible on being contradictory based upon the misinterpretation of religion, but it is certainly possible that a specific translation is contradictory where others might not be, which is a good reason to compare translations. The ASV, DARBY, DRA uses evil. The AMP, ISV, NIV uses disaster. The CEV uses sorrow. ESV, MEV, NASB uses calamity.

 

Old Seer wrote:
Different religions interpret certain passages differently in their bibles then others. Different interpretaions negate consistancy. IE- one bible changes 144 in revelation to 216 feet. Which one is correct? From our study we found this number cannot be changed--if so the passage looses it meaning. The numbe 216 has no bearing in revelation. So already-just from the one item the book losses it's legitamacy, regardless of who's at fault. The 144 has to remain because it applies, not the other. This is a result of turning the book into what they the religions think, not what the originators think. If the book is no longer original then it's a bust and woud be of no value

What this means is, religions interpret the book to fit their mind's eye, not that of the originator of the information. Which in turn shows they haven't a clear understanding of the book's meaning.

 

Well, like I said, the misinterpretation of the book by various religions, or individuals, doesn't constitute fault in the book itself. 1 John 4:1 says "Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world."

There are cases of translators inserting things in the Bible that they shouldn't have, that don't belong there. For example, when the people bring the prostitute to Jesus and he says something to the effect of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Never happened. It only appears in much later manuscripts. In that way we know it's spurious.
 

If as you say, the book is OK but it may be misinterptreted. Then I ask, would you then be  believing in a misinterpretation, or misinterpretations. . How would you know what is a misinterpretation and how would you what's not.

OK look at the examples below---which one is true and which one is false. In one we clearly have fowl coming out of the water. I'm attempting to show  a problem we ran into. This is not to test your intelligence or bible knowledge.


Genesis 1New International Version (NIV)
The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

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

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

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

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

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

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Footnotes:

    Genesis 1:26 Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Syriac); Masoretic Text the earth

New International Version (NIV)


Genesis 1King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

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

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

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.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
King James Version (KJV)

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Vastet

David Henson wrote:

Vastet wrote:
This topic is laughable. The bible has hundreds of internal contradictions. This is a simple fact. One need not go further than genesis or the commandments to see as much.

Can you, uh . . . [ahem] can you name one?

Yes. Can you? Or do you not know as much as you claim?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I want you to know

That I'm not tricking or trying to trap you. There are some things to be aware of that the religions don't see or know. Some has already been seen here, such as  mistranlations and interpretation. In this particular day and age--how is one to know what is and what isn't scrootched. In another 20 years or so the book won't even be what the originators intended.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 The title of the thread is

 The title of the thread is a joke. There is no such thing as any perfect holy writing of any religion, much less the bible. The bible is swiss cheese, both in conflicts between the  writers of the 40 books pluss with books left out that took over 1,000 years to complete. But not only that makes all sorts of scientifically absurd claims like men magically poping out of dirt, women magically popping out of a man's rib, talking snakes talking donkeys talking snakes, treats the sun and moon as separate sorces of light. But morally vile too.

 

From the first story, the two characters Adam and Eve are innocent pawns treated like poker chips in a rigged bet between God and Lucifer. They have no say going in, get punished for something they did not set up or have knowlede of. Eve according to Jews, which your religion is a spin off of, was NOT the first female in any case. You cant even get Christians to agree if there were others whom Adam and Eve's kids mated with, and you have others who say they were the first humans which would require incest to populate the planet.

 

Then you have God murdering the Egyptian first born over a beef he had with a King, basically punishing kids too ignorant to undersand adult beefs. Then you also have the genocidal flood, not that it happened because it did not, it is a myth and bullshit story. But if you call your god moral who cant figure out a more humane way to get his message out, your god sucks as a claim. And then even at the end if you are going to claim one or two families left under Noah after that act of genocide, again, in scientific reality if there are only a a handfull of humans, say 6 or 7 even under 10, you are still limiting the gene pool which would require family fucking and incest.

 

There is no outright ban on slavery or rape. The worst punishment's for harming slaves or punishing rapists are fines, like if you damaged property. 

 

The bible like the Koran and Jewish OT all reflect the tribal times in which humans lived and thus their head characters, which all stem from the same line of Abraham in any case, reflect the tribal loyalty demanded of the powers of that time. Before there was even the Jewish Yawheh the character was a lesser god in the Canaanite polytheism under the head god "El".

 

I am sure you have got it all worked out in your head but so what. It is an old book of mythology and to us you might as well be trying to defend Harry Potter or Yoda or Spider Man.

 

We cant legally stop you from making these claims no, but sorry, there simply is no polite way to tell you that your book sucks both on science and morality and really simply reflects the ignorance of the humans who wrote it. It was understandable back then when people didn't know any better, but it simply looks ignorant to be peddling it now that we have a much better grasp on knowledge and science now.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Vastet

David Henson wrote:

Vastet wrote:
This topic is laughable. The bible has hundreds of internal contradictions. This is a simple fact. One need not go further than genesis or the commandments to see as much.

Can you, uh . . . [ahem] can you name one?

Type "bible contradictions" in google and have at it trying to explain them all away.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Yes. Can you?

Vastet wrote:
Yes. Can you? Or do you not know as much as you claim?

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Type "bible contradictions" in google and have at it trying to explain them all away.

I almost get the feeling that you don't wish to discuss alleged Bible contradictions.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:That I'm not

Old Seer wrote:

That I'm not tricking or trying to trap you. There are some things to be aware of that the religions don't see or know. Some has already been seen here, such as  mistranlations and interpretation. In this particular day and age--how is one to know what is and what isn't scrootched. In another 20 years or so the book won't even be what the originators intended.

Yeah. I don't understand where you are coming from. I don't see where birds come from water. If your point is that the order of creation doesn't comport with the Bible's order, that doesn't mean anything to me. So, I don't know what to say.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: The title of

Brian37 wrote:

 The title of the thread is a joke. There is no such thing as any perfect holy writing of any religion, much less the bible. The bible is swiss cheese, both in conflicts between the  writers of the 40 books pluss with books left out that took over 1,000 years to complete. But not only that makes all sorts of scientifically absurd claims like men magically poping out of dirt, women magically popping out of a man's rib, talking snakes talking donkeys talking snakes, treats the sun and moon as separate sorces of light. But morally vile too.

 

From the first story, the two characters Adam and Eve are innocent pawns treated like poker chips in a rigged bet between God and Lucifer. They have no say going in, get punished for something they did not set up or have knowlede of. Eve according to Jews, which your religion is a spin off of, was NOT the first female in any case. You cant even get Christians to agree if there were others whom Adam and Eve's kids mated with, and you have others who say they were the first humans which would require incest to populate the planet.

 

Then you have God murdering the Egyptian first born over a beef he had with a King, basically punishing kids too ignorant to undersand adult beefs. Then you also have the genocidal flood, not that it happened because it did not, it is a myth and bullshit story. But if you call your god moral who cant figure out a more humane way to get his message out, your god sucks as a claim. And then even at the end if you are going to claim one or two families left under Noah after that act of genocide, again, in scientific reality if there are only a a handfull of humans, say 6 or 7 even under 10, you are still limiting the gene pool which would require family fucking and incest.

 

There is no outright ban on slavery or rape. The worst punishment's for harming slaves or punishing rapists are fines, like if you damaged property. 

 

The bible like the Koran and Jewish OT all reflect the tribal times in which humans lived and thus their head characters, which all stem from the same line of Abraham in any case, reflect the tribal loyalty demanded of the powers of that time. Before there was even the Jewish Yawheh the character was a lesser god in the Canaanite polytheism under the head god "El".

 

I am sure you have got it all worked out in your head but so what. It is an old book of mythology and to us you might as well be trying to defend Harry Potter or Yoda or Spider Man.

 

We cant legally stop you from making these claims no, but sorry, there simply is no polite way to tell you that your book sucks both on science and morality and really simply reflects the ignorance of the humans who wrote it. It was understandable back then when people didn't know any better, but it simply looks ignorant to be peddling it now that we have a much better grasp on knowledge and science now.

 

A laughable atheist rant that only demonstrates ignorance of the Bible.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Vastet

David Henson wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Yes. Can you? Or do you not know as much as you claim?

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Type "bible contradictions" in google and have at it trying to explain them all away.

I almost get the feeling that you don't wish to discuss alleged Bible contradictions.

How odd, that's exactly what I was just thinking about you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote: Vastet

David Henson wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Yes. Can you? Or do you not know as much as you claim?

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Type "bible contradictions" in google and have at it trying to explain them all away.

I almost get the feeling that you don't wish to discuss alleged Bible contradictions.

Where do you start? If you think the bible is some infaliable text then so be it? It boggles the mind to imagine that any one would accept a 6,000 year old story of a drunk who's knowledge of the world existed no further than the region he lived, with maybe stories of a few far away cities. A time when the moon was an unknown object or a wheel of a chariot? When they didn't even know what a solar system was? When they thought semen was god itself? When they thought sicknesses were demons?

Why is it that you follow a religion or belief or a god or a savior of a myth from 6,000 years? 2,500 years ago? Why this religious belief? Why not Hindu? Why not Chinese folklore? Why not Aboriginal mystism? I'll tell you why.

It is because you were born at a time, in a location, by parents, who moved or stayed, fed you, clothed you and so forth, etc etc. All chains of events which eventually brought you to this website today reading this message typed by me, who by the way is going through similar chains of events.

I don't blame you or think you are wrong but rational thought is that you are part of a chain of reactions which you have no control over. There is no god with a master plan. There is no life or death. There is no heaven or hell. There is no choice. No free will. No right or wrong. No evil. No good.

There is only the physical and the non-physical. There is only opinion of experiences. Emotion of events.

Any time you suffer it is because of your ego and nothing else. Your ego demands things. When the demands are met, you are satisfied. When they are not met you are disatisfied.

There is nothing else. No matter how much you want it to exist you are chasing a dream which will never come true. Not for you. Not for those before you. Not for those after you.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Where

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Where do you start? If you think the bible is some infaliable text then so be it? It boggles the mind to imagine that any one would accept a 6,000 year old story of a drunk who's knowledge of the world existed no further than the region he lived, with maybe stories of a few far away cities. A time when the moon was an unknown object or a wheel of a chariot? When they didn't even know what a solar system was? When they thought semen was god itself? When they thought sicknesses were demons?

Why is it that you follow a religion or belief or a god or a savior of a myth from 6,000 years? 2,500 years ago? Why this religious belief? Why not Hindu? Why not Chinese folklore? Why not Aboriginal mystism? I'll tell you why.

It is because you were born at a time, in a location, by parents, who moved or stayed, fed you, clothed you and so forth, etc etc. All chains of events which eventually brought you to this website today reading this message typed by me, who by the way is going through similar chains of events.

I don't blame you or think you are wrong but rational thought is that you are part of a chain of reactions which you have no control over. There is no god with a master plan. There is no life or death. There is no heaven or hell. There is no choice. No free will. No right or wrong. No evil. No good.

There is only the physical and the non-physical. There is only opinion of experiences. Emotion of events.

Any time you suffer it is because of your ego and nothing else. Your ego demands things. When the demands are met, you are satisfied. When they are not met you are disatisfied.

There is nothing else. No matter how much you want it to exist you are chasing a dream which will never come true. Not for you. Not for those before you. Not for those after you.

 

Oh, yeah. Another pointless atheist rant.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
So you still can't name one

So you still can't name one of the many documented contradictions in the bible. Which proves most everyone here (brian37 being the exception) knows the bible better than you do.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:

David Henson wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Where do you start? If you think the bible is some infaliable text then so be it? It boggles the mind to imagine that any one would accept a 6,000 year old story of a drunk who's knowledge of the world existed no further than the region he lived, with maybe stories of a few far away cities. A time when the moon was an unknown object or a wheel of a chariot? When they didn't even know what a solar system was? When they thought semen was god itself? When they thought sicknesses were demons?

Why is it that you follow a religion or belief or a god or a savior of a myth from 6,000 years? 2,500 years ago? Why this religious belief? Why not Hindu? Why not Chinese folklore? Why not Aboriginal mystism? I'll tell you why.

It is because you were born at a time, in a location, by parents, who moved or stayed, fed you, clothed you and so forth, etc etc. All chains of events which eventually brought you to this website today reading this message typed by me, who by the way is going through similar chains of events.

I don't blame you or think you are wrong but rational thought is that you are part of a chain of reactions which you have no control over. There is no god with a master plan. There is no life or death. There is no heaven or hell. There is no choice. No free will. No right or wrong. No evil. No good.

There is only the physical and the non-physical. There is only opinion of experiences. Emotion of events.

Any time you suffer it is because of your ego and nothing else. Your ego demands things. When the demands are met, you are satisfied. When they are not met you are disatisfied.

There is nothing else. No matter how much you want it to exist you are chasing a dream which will never come true. Not for you. Not for those before you. Not for those after you.

 

Oh, yeah. Another pointless atheist rant.

Alright. I call bullshit. You are full of it.

You didn't answer any of my questions and when I presented responses to your questions you evaded counter responses and are dismissive.

Since you are evading, here are a list of a few of them from Google.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So you still

Vastet wrote:
So you still can't name one of the many documented contradictions in the bible. Which proves most everyone here (brian37 being the exception) knows the bible better than you do.

They are a complete bullshitter. They misrepresent their point of view and have no intention of actually discussing the myth of jesus or god or creation in a logical manner. The entire reason for these posts is to troll.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:iwbiek

David Henson wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
of course the bible has contradictions, and it never claims not to have them. if god exists, he creates contradictions as well as anything else. i still don't understand why the faith or lack thereof of so many hinges on the logical coherence of the bible. there isn't a text in human history that doesn't contain contradictions, and that includes wittgenstein himself.

[Laughs] Wittgenstein! We are talking about the creator of the universe. Wittgenstein . . . oh, that's funny. God doesn't create contradictions. Imperfect man does.




don't start some dick-measuring contest between a dead philosopher and a figment of the collective imagination just because you don't understand why i alluded to wittgenstein.


as for man creating the contradictions, he "creates" them because the bible holds statements that are logically contradictory. if you want to tell me that god's words are beyond the scrutiny of human logic, fine, but that makes the bible useless for humans, except perhaps for the purposes of mental masturbation at best or mysticism at worst.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I know.

David Henson wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

That I'm not tricking or trying to trap you. There are some things to be aware of that the religions don't see or know. Some has already been seen here, such as  mistranlations and interpretation. In this particular day and age--how is one to know what is and what isn't scrootched. In another 20 years or so the book won't even be what the originators intended.

Yeah. I don't understand where you are coming from. I don't see where birds come from water. If your point is that the order of creation doesn't comport with the Bible's order, that doesn't mean anything to me. So, I don't know what to say.

You're doing just fine, hang in there.

OK

Let the water(s) bring forth aboundantly the moving creature that has life AND FOWEL that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaver. KJV Now then, does that say fowel come out of the water.

Then compare that with the other example of tranlation in one of my previous posts. Are they the same. And if not, which one is correct.

About that mindset, that's why youre having problems understanding me. But lt that be for now.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Compare

Showing two different mindsets.

New International Version: Creation , verse 20:22 - God blessed them and said, be fruitful and increase in number and fill the waters of the seas, and let birds increase "on" (note "on&quotEye-wink the earth.

King James Version: verse 22  -  God blessed them saying, be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters of the seas, and let fowel multiply "in" (note "in&quotEye-wink the earth.

Which one is correct. IN is correct becasue it jives with other passages through the book. ON, goes nowhere. What is happening here is, the book is being changed from the mindset of the originators to the mindset of people who don't have the same mindset.

We discovered that Biblical creation is the prime interpreter of the book, not in it's entirety as the Jewiish religion does not conform to creation (although it may in some respects) because there ancestors lost the meaning of the originators. That loss took place at the fall, there fore, the floks that fell don't have the mind set of the originators. The KJV is more-so correct then the NIV, because it's tranlation is the same or close to the same as the originators intended.

Interpretaions must conform to creation where required or the book losses the intents of the originators. Considering that the world does not understand the intents of the originators you have the interpretation that is today. So, the world interprets the book it's way from it's mind's eye, not that of the originators.

I will point to an account of how this works. Firstly- we thought for a shoprt while that the creeping thing in creation was bugs and worms and such, But, we found it means cat---cats creep, or, predator. Now, go to the book of Ezekiel. what do you see. The 4 corners of the earth which are found in creation. What doaes the vision of Ezekiel show. The Fowel, eagle. Predator, Lion. Cattle, calf. Face, image of man. These are the four corners of the earth which you will find in the book of Rev, and the new testament in general. Earth = soul, Eve, woman. Waters = mind, thought, reason, the things of the mental. Fowel= thought as they come out of the water/mind, and they are of the earth/soul, and thinking in a particlar direction of thought. a mindset. 

IF, an interpretaion that has fowel "on" the earth it won't jive with the rest of the book where needed. It has to be "in".

Consider this mistake--- The mark of the beast in Rev- "in" the forehead, not on, The world has it "on" becaause it doesn't undersatand the originators. Why in the forehead---becasue that where you are, where the person is. You wouldn't be in your toe now would you.

This all has to do with the Psyche, the mind/person/psychology. Now then, transfer water to the time of Noah, what do you get. They went nuts and killed each other---no doubt about it.

If one can't understand creation properly then one cannot understand the prophets, Rev, or the apostles. They all point to the tennants of creation. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: We

Old Seer wrote:

We discovered that Biblical creation is the prime interpreter of the book, not in it's entirety as the Jewish religion does not conform to creation (although it may in some respects) because there ancestors lost the meaning of the originators. That loss took place at the fall, there fore, the folks that fell don't have the mind set of the originators. The KJV is more-so correct then the NIV, because it's translation is the same or close to the same as the originators intended.

One would think that if the bible was a holy book there would be a checksum, a mathematical formula, which would show its perfection. Since man wrote it, it is therefore flawed. contradictory and inconsistent. It will continue being modified. It will eventually become a Harry Potter book after enough changes have been made to it.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Old

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

We discovered that Biblical creation is the prime interpreter of the book, not in it's entirety as the Jewish religion does not conform to creation (although it may in some respects) because there ancestors lost the meaning of the originators. That loss took place at the fall, there fore, the folks that fell don't have the mind set of the originators. The KJV is more-so correct then the NIV, because it's translation is the same or close to the same as the originators intended.

One would think that if the bible was a holy book there would be a checksum, a mathematical formula, which would show its perfection. Since man wrote it, it is therefore flawed. contradictory and inconsistent. It will continue being modified. It will eventually become a Harry Potter book after enough changes have been made to it.




i've never read harry potter, but i imagine it must be far more consistent.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Star Trek is more consistent

Star Trek is more consistent than the bible. And that's saying something.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

We discovered that Biblical creation is the prime interpreter of the book, not in it's entirety as the Jewish religion does not conform to creation (although it may in some respects) because there ancestors lost the meaning of the originators. That loss took place at the fall, there fore, the folks that fell don't have the mind set of the originators. The KJV is more-so correct then the NIV, because it's translation is the same or close to the same as the originators intended.

One would think that if the bible was a holy book there would be a checksum, a mathematical formula, which would show its perfection. Since man wrote it, it is therefore flawed. contradictory and inconsistent. It will continue being modified. It will eventually become a Harry Potter book after enough changes have been made to it.

showed an Checksum, which is creation. If you mean outside the bible  the only thing positive on that account would be one's own person. JC deals with person, or otherwise seen as the spiritual.

Example. he was chatting with the High Priest Chiphus teeling him one must be reborn. the high priest asked, do you mean return to the womb and be born again. JC- you are a high priest and of all people should knoew what I'm saying. The difference here is , the high prest is looking at material and physical things, and JC is refering to spiritual things. One is an interpretaion of physical life and the other spiritual life. Spirit and person are the same thing. Reborn is nothing more then change in what basics one uses in life in general, and what factors one relates to other by.

There are two basic mind sets one relates to others by, one is seeing and regarding others from a phisical recognition as person. The other is seeing and regarding others as "person" the mental and non physical.

These two mind sets require different interpretaions of the book. The Apostles themselves had troubles with understanding JC , and JCs showed impatients with them. But after a while they caugh on to what he was about. To understand the Apostles and JC it can only be done if creation is inline with their mind set, becasue Christianity hinges on creation. And, that's all we Smurfers are trying to get across, look at creation differently then what is commonly understood. Christianity is veryones "good guy side".

Any checksum would be the self.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:showed an

Old Seer wrote:

showed an Checksum, which is creation. If you mean outside the bible  the only thing positive on that account would be one's own person. JC deals with person, or otherwise seen as the spiritual.

Example. he was chatting with the High Priest Chiphus teeling him one must be reborn. the high priest asked, do you mean return to the womb and be born again. JC- you are a high priest and of all people should knoew what I'm saying. The difference here is , the high prest is looking at material and physical things, and JC is refering to spiritual things. One is an interpretaion of physical life and the other spiritual life. Spirit and person are the same thing. Reborn is nothing more then change in what basics one uses in life in general, and what factors one relates to other by.

There are two basic mind sets one relates to others by, one is seeing and regarding others from a phisical recognition as person. The other is seeing and regarding others as "person" the mental and non physical.

These two mind sets require different interpretaions of the book. The Apostles themselves had troubles with understanding JC , and JCs showed impatients with them. But after a while they caugh on to what he was about. To understand the Apostles and JC it can only be done if creation is inline with their mind set, becasue Christianity hinges on creation. And, that's all we Smurfers are trying to get across, look at creation differently then what is commonly understood. Christianity is veryones "good guy side".

Any checksum would be the self.

I think you misunderstood me.

Do you know how a checksum works when it comes to computers? The bible has no checksum. People have tried, but failed.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:This topic is

Vastet wrote:
This topic is laughable. The bible has hundreds of internal contradictions. This is a simple fact. One need not go further than genesis or the commandments to see as much.

And for a very rare time I agree, but only 100s? That comic book should start with "Once upon a time".

Once you accept the age of our species, knowing it was around long before any written religion or even boarders, you cant, or at least should not ignore the ignorance of our species back then. Once you know and accept that our earth is 4 billion years old, and our planet has had 5 mass extincitons of only which 1% has survived, it is impossible in a lucid state to swallow that old book. Once you accept that our star is only one sun of billions in our galaxy, a galaxy so big it takes 100,000 years for a ray of light, at the speed of light to cross, it is impossible to swallow that old book. Once you accept that our galaxy is only 1 of hundreds of billions in the observable universe, it is absurd  and arrogant to think all that was put here for humans.

There are no special groups, there are only humans. Niether Christianity, or Judism or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism explain our existence. Our speices capability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not old religions or books of myth. They only explain our species pyschology of false perceptions that lead to powers setting up social structures.

 

So he can go on and on and on about how the bible is consistant. But the truth is in 5 billion years our sun will die and our solar system will die, and the universe will go on without any record of our existence or the myths or religions humans make up. He is in the exact same boat as any other religion. Religion is our species refusal to face our finite existence and when non violent a palacebo at best. No, it is not sexy, but it is reality.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Star Trek is

Vastet wrote:
Star Trek is more consistent than the bible. And that's saying something.

Star Trek fans don't need to treat it like a oracal or prophet. There were plenty of dipictions in that show that will never be a reality. And for the things the fans like to claim did come about, were dipicted in other ways with other details by competing si fi and prior si fi. The only thing I value from that show was it's promotion of humanity. 

Rodenberry got his ideas, just like religion does, from prior infuences, in his case, si fi,  but he was no prophet nor was he a scientist. He simply popularized ideas science was already working on. There was also lots in the original series that even today is still patently absurd. 

Rodenberry WAS a genus tapping into what our species needed to face, that we are all human, outside that, the science people like to attribute to that show was already being worked on in real labs. 

He was challenging humanity to see each other as the same species. That is what made him a genus, incorporating the si fi stuff was simply the vehicle.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Star Trek fans

Brian37 wrote:
Star Trek fans don't need to treat it like a oracal or prophet.

Irrelevant. Most christians don't treat the bible as a source of prophecy either. Just the noisy ones.

Brian37 wrote:
And for the things the fans like to claim did come about, were dipicted in other ways with other details by competing si fi and prior si fi.

No. Most things claimed to be pioneered by Star Trek were pioneered by Star Trek. There was no prior sci fi, except in novels. Shit like Flash Gorden and Lost in Space were incredibly ridiculous.

Brian37 wrote:
Rodenberry got his ideas, just like religion does, from prior infuences, in his case, si fi,  but he was no prophet nor was he a scientist. He simply popularized ideas science was already working on. There was also lots in the original series that even today is still patently absurd.

Irrelevant and wrong simultaneously. There's always been absurd stories in every Star Trek, that doesn't mean squat. It is fiction afterall. He might not have been a scientist but he was closer to being one than you'll ever be.

Brian37 wrote:
Rodenberry WAS a genus tapping into what our species needed to face, that we are all human, outside that, the science people like to attribute to that show was already being worked on in real labs. 
He was challenging humanity to see each other as the same species. That is what made him a genus, incorporating the si fi stuff was simply the vehicle.

That is not what Gene did. He didn't think about us needing to face being human, he had a hope that all life would work together in a peaceful and productive future. That all conflicts present today could be resolved in the future. He was certainly not a racist like you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Understood.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

showed an Checksum, which is creation. If you mean outside the bible  the only thing positive on that account would be one's own person. JC deals with person, or otherwise seen as the spiritual.

Example. he was chatting with the High Priest Chiphus teeling him one must be reborn. the high priest asked, do you mean return to the womb and be born again. JC- you are a high priest and of all people should knoew what I'm saying. The difference here is , the high prest is looking at material and physical things, and JC is refering to spiritual things. One is an interpretaion of physical life and the other spiritual life. Spirit and person are the same thing. Reborn is nothing more then change in what basics one uses in life in general, and what factors one relates to other by.

There are two basic mind sets one relates to others by, one is seeing and regarding others from a phisical recognition as person. The other is seeing and regarding others as "person" the mental and non physical.

These two mind sets require different interpretaions of the book. The Apostles themselves had troubles with understanding JC , and JCs showed impatients with them. But after a while they caugh on to what he was about. To understand the Apostles and JC it can only be done if creation is inline with their mind set, becasue Christianity hinges on creation. And, that's all we Smurfers are trying to get across, look at creation differently then what is commonly understood. Christianity is veryones "good guy side".

Any checksum would be the self.

I think you misunderstood me.

Do you know how a checksum works when it comes to computers? The bible has no checksum. People have tried, but failed.

I didn't know what a Checksum is. I took it as a way to crosscheck information. I just looked before coming online---ooops.

The book crosschecks itself. IOW what is staed in one place can also be found in another, but probably in a different way. That's what makes the bible seem contradictory. That's not to say it isn't in all regards but I've never looked to see if there was contradictions. You'll notice my posts to Dave ssems to be establishing contradiction but not so. In a material interpretation there is a contradiction, but it isn't contradictory in the spiritual. Thyat's one reason the book has a bad reputation---it's been interpreted wrongly.

 What I was trying to do in Daves case is develope an understanding of the differences in in terpretation from one type to another. Fowel coming out of water is a contradiction in one interpretation, but not in the other. The fowel are ideas and mental things that come "out" of the mind.    etc.  The same terminalogies in creation are also in Rev. This is to say, that Rev cannot be understood without knowing the structure of Creation. Thats one reason Rev seems so odd to most. We can read it quite well.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So you still

Vastet wrote:
So you still can't name one of the many documented contradictions in the bible. Which proves most everyone here (brian37 being the exception) knows the bible better than you do.

How many of the Harry Potter books do you have to read before you realize it is fiction?

No, I cannot quote the bible verse for verse, but in my 15 years of online debate, I have read the contradictions between the OT and NT such as fufilling the law vs others claiming the OT is old law. I know about the contradictions about the begats in his linage. I know about his claims of bringing peace in the NT while other verses demand that if you don't follow bring them before him and kill them. But the fantastic claims that do not match science are very glaring just in genisis alone. It does not take a genus to know that book is a book of myth.

The great thing about google is that if you want to look something up, you can. 

I do know that it took over 1,000 years for the first completed version to be compiled and took over 40 authors and books left out. And again, still does not matter to me which religion or holy writing in human history one may argue. They all argue the same things.

 

1. I am special because of my religion.

2. I can point to my religion's contributions.

3. Science doesn't know everything 

4. Science matches my religion (The argument made when they cant get away with 3)

 

I have gotten these arguments not only from Christians, but Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists over the years. And again, knowing what science says about our past and what will happen to our sun in the future, it is glaringly obvious humans make up all religions based on a false perception.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i'll say it for the fiftieth

i'll say it for the fiftieth time, you have obviously never talked to a hindu in your fucking life. not about religion, anyway. maybe you read some chopra bullshit (the vast majority of hindus have no idea who chopra is) and are basing your "arguments" on that, but you've never debated a practicing hindu. they wouldn't be interested in debating you anyway. and if you've talked to a buddhist, i'd bet money it was a white, crunchy granola, richard gere-type. if you want to lump all religion together, fine, but don't lie and say you've engaged certain religions when you clearly haven't.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian has never talked with

Brian has never talked with anyone his whole life. He just talks, making everything up as he goes.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
There very well

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So you still can't name one of the many documented contradictions in the bible. Which proves most everyone here (brian37 being the exception) knows the bible better than you do.

How many of the Harry Potter books do you have to read before you realize it is fiction?

No, I cannot quote the bible verse for verse, but in my 15 years of online debate, I have read the contradictions between the OT and NT such as fufilling the law vs others claiming the OT is old law. I know about the contradictions about the begats in his linage. I know about his claims of bringing peace in the NT while other verses demand that if you don't follow bring them before him and kill them. But the fantastic claims that do not match science are very glaring just in genisis alone. It does not take a genus to know that book is a book of myth.

The great thing about google is that if you want to look something up, you can. 

I do know that it took over 1,000 years for the first completed version to be compiled and took over 40 authors and books left out. And again, still does not matter to me which religion or holy writing in human history one may argue. They all argue the same things.

 

1. I am special because of my religion.

2. I can point to my religion's contributions.

3. Science doesn't know everything 

4. Science matches my religion (The argument made when they cant get away with 3)

 

I have gotten these arguments not only from Christians, but Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists over the years. And again, knowing what science says about our past and what will happen to our sun in the future, it is glaringly obvious humans make up all religions based on a false perception.

 

 

may be contradictions between the OT and NT. That is understandable that the two don't go together on certain things. That's why there is an NT. The Jewish religion doesn't match with the NT. The peoblem lies in--JC was not a Jew in terms of religion. He was genetically a hebrew but that's where it ends. He couldn't have believed in the Jewish religion as he had to be a believer of Adam. The Jewish religion and Adam are two vastly differnt beliefs. As it sits, the Jews are a fallen away entiy from Adam so their religion can't be true to ancient beliefs that were prior to the fall.,and those understandings got lost in the fall of their ancestors. The Jewish religion is a common "at fault" religion no different then most others.

Then again, Adam wasn't a civil entity as there were no civilization in his time. Being the Jews are of a civilization, and civilization being highly contradictory on it's own leaves them to be contradictory to the NT. In the OT there are plenty of passages that relate to the coming of something/someone but the Jews don't recognise JC as JC doesnt fit their interpretaion of the Messiah. Their OT Messiah  is to arrive physically with armies to destroy Israel's enemies. The NT Messiah is basically a culture change. The mistake the Jews are making is---they think they have a one true religion which is an imossibility because thay woul;d have to be as Adam their founder. The tennents of Adam would have to be their true religion, anyhting else w could not be,and, they don't hold to Adam or seem to know anything about. The fall of Adam has no meaning if it's not representaive of a Hebrew true religion.

The fall can only equate to what was true that got fallen away from. If they aren't holding to Adam's Religion (so to speak) then they can't possibly have the true religion they calim to have, as Adam had to (underbiblical circumstances)(and logically) have been righteous so that leaves the fall being a fall away from righteous. So then, where is the list of what's righteous so the Jews can return to the true religion. There isn't any, so how can the Jewish religion be true if they have no apparent way of knowing
what" righteousness is.

So, at this particular point the OT has to have hypocracies and contradictions just as any civilization would be subject to.

 As far as any book missing or not used that of no matter, because they all arent needed to know from where the book is from and to where it's going. TYhose book/records may very well have been left out because the religions can't explain them and may very well show them to be highly contradictory---so they can't explain them.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i'll say it for

iwbiek wrote:
i'll say it for the fiftieth time, you have obviously never talked to a hindu in your fucking life. not about religion, anyway. maybe you read some chopra bullshit (the vast majority of hindus have no idea who chopra is) and are basing your "arguments" on that, but you've never debated a practicing hindu. they wouldn't be interested in debating you anyway. and if you've talked to a buddhist, i'd bet money it was a white, crunchy granola, richard gere-type. if you want to lump all religion together, fine, but don't lie and say you've engaged certain religions when you clearly haven't.

Who the fuck is talking about Chopra? He is a loon in his own right but that is a separate subect I never mentioned Chopra in this thread 

 

I was talking about every major religion in our species history. There are 365 days in a year Multiply that by 15 and almost every single day since 01 I have been online on countless pages on the net and facebook and twitter as well I HAVE run into Hindus and they have as much a claim to be the center of the planet and patent holders of science or morality as any other which is none. Their reliion started in the same age of lack of modern scientific knowledge and is just as rooted in mytholoy and superstition as any other. Yes that includes Buddist too and EVERY RELIION human have made up

 

Humans make up ALL reliions. You want to cherry pick which ones you are skeptical about not me. All of them started in an age when we AS A SPECIES WORLDWIDE didn't have our modern scientific undertanding of the world. Reliion in our species back then was a childlike way of making sense of the world and I include the dead reliions like the Eyptians and Roman and Greek polytheism in that assment of my species history. Human's make up ALL religions.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:iwbiek

David Henson wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
i'll say it for the fiftieth time, you have obviously never talked to a hindu in your fucking life. not about religion, anyway. maybe you read some chopra bullshit (the vast majority of hindus have no idea who chopra is) and are basing your "arguments" on that, but you've never debated a practicing hindu. they wouldn't be interested in debating you anyway. and if you've talked to a buddhist, i'd bet money it was a white, crunchy granola, richard gere-type. if you want to lump all religion together, fine, but don't lie and say you've engaged certain religions when you clearly haven't.

Who the fuck is talking about Chopra? He is a loon in his own right but that is a separate subect I never mentioned Chopra in this thread