Biblical Contradictions Answered (As best as possible) For Rook pt. 2

ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Biblical Contradictions Answered (As best as possible) For Rook pt. 2

This next set of Biblical contradictions seems silly being that most of these contradictions fall under the category of how the Hebrews classified animals.  They did not use the same classification system; they did not use the same numbering system. As a matter of fact most of the measuring systems that we use are not the same as the Hebrews, so simply picking out a bunch of classifications that are over 2000 years old is not accurately doing study or representing an argument in a scholarly manner.  Here is the second list of contradictions.

As a side not CONTRADICTIONS are when one scripture would say that Item 1 is A and another scripture would say that same item is not A.  The following are not really contradictions but simply unanswered questions which I believe an ANCIENT TEXT EXPERT would know the answers to.

  1. (a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);

First let me respond by saying, please stop just putting random scriptures in your argument just to fill up space.  Lev. 19:19 has NOTHING TO DO WITH BATS, BIRDS OR ANYTHING with wings.  The answer is simple.  These unclean birds listed were mainly birds of prey and scavengers. They were associated with dead flesh and were likely carriers of disease. (eagles, vultures, buzzards, red kites, falcons, ravens, ostriches, owls, sea gulls, hawks, owl, great owls, white owls, pelican, carrion vulture, the cormorant, the stork, herons, hoopoe, and BATS.)  The concept was not to make a scientific classification but it was to say DON’T EAT THESE UNCLEAN ANIMALS.  Because it had wings, some people of that culture would have simply just grouped bats with birds.  The Linnean taxonomic system, and our more extended one, was not only not known to the ancient Hebrews, such distinctions would have served them no purpose and thus would probably not have interested them.  The point was more to focus on NOT EATING THE ANIMAL as it was unclean.

  1. (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);

What version of the Bible says other than the King James Version says Fowls? For the sake of not having to argue I will post all the available translation to see where you got this argument from.

20 Every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four shall be an abomination unto you.
DARBY

 20 All winged creeping things that go upon all fours are an abomination unto you.
American Standard Version

20 “All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you.
English Standard Version

20 All winged insects are unclean, GNT

20 “All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. 
The Message Bible

20 “The various winged insects that walk on all fours are loathsome for you. NABWRNT

20 ‘All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
New American Standard Bible

20 ‘Don’t eat insects that have wings & walk on all four feet; they also are to be hated.
New Century Version

20 ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you.
New King James Version

20 “You must not eat winged insects that walk along the ground; they are detestable to you.
New Literal Translation

20 All winged insects that walk upon all fours are detestable to you.
New Revised Standard Version

20 “All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you.
Revised Standard Version

20 ‘Every teeming creature which is flying, which is going on four—an abomination it is to you.
Young’s Literal Translation

Simply put: get another translation.  The King James Version is really leading you astray.

  1. (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);

Some creeping do have four legs.  The adjective describes the noun.  So what does creeping mean? Let’s look at that word. Oh wait, the Hebrew word for creeping which is H7431 is not found any where in Leviticus!  The word actually is translated INSECT, which are creeping little things.  

A supporting sentence also continues on the subject of the paragraph.  If you look in the preceding verses as well as the following verses, you will see that the verses list these insects: crickets, locusts, and grasshoppers.  The word creeping does not signify that these would be worm like creatures, but winged insects that either fly or jump on the earth as noted in verse 21.

  1. (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);

Some background information:
Cud chewers are generally classified as belonging to the order of ruminants- (a sub order of artiodactyls) - and are defined as an "even-toed animal that regurgitates and masticates its food after swallowing.” This means that a cow, for example, will eat vegetation and swallow it. The cow's stomach is divided into four chambers where some of more easily digestible nutrients are absorbed by the body while other more fibrous material is stored in the stomach and then regurgitated. The cow will re-chew this material and re-swallow it so that it can digest it as well.
Rabbits and hares, however, do not have a chambered stomach such as the cow. They also do not regurgitate their food. What they do perform is a function named cecotropy. I will quote the process as cited at following site http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/rjbiology/ELOs/ELO45.html
SYMBIOSIS WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM
Bacterial Digestion of Cellulose Within Animals - Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals... Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. [They] eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. Efficiency approaches that of ruminants.
In a more detailed version, Margert "Casey" Kilcullen-Steiner, (M.S., L.A.Tg) writes:
http://microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htm
Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.
And Janet Tast, D.V.M. notes:
http://www.ultranet.com/~hrs/artcl03.htm
Cecotrophy by Janet Tast, D.V.M. "Cecotropy is the process by which rabbits will reingest part of their feces directly from the rectum. This should not be confused with the term coprophagy (eating fecal material) since rabbits only ingest the soft "night" feces or cecotrophs."
Caryl Hilscher-Conklin (M.S. in Biology, University of Notre Dame) also makes this claim:
http://www.rmca.org/Articles/coprophagy.htm
"One may not give much thought to the lazy chewing of the cud that we observe cows doing all the time, but this behavior is analogous to coprophagy. The only difference between cud chewing and coprophagy is the point in the digestive tract at which nutrients are expelled and then placed back into the mouth."
Now, we must also remember that artiodactyls were first defined as a separate order in 1847 by Richard Owen and the behavior of cecotropy was first recognized in 1882. Deuteronomy, however, was written approximately 1500 BC in an ancient Hebrew. It would be intellectually dishonest for someone to claim that a 3500 year old writing is contradictory because it doesn't match with a scientific classification invented only about a hundred years ago. Further, if the ancient Hebrews defined 'cud-chewing" as that process where half digested vegetation was re-chewed by an animal for easier re-digestion ( and that is a very specific and scientific definition), I would say the hare fits here fine.

For Rook...
Whenever someone translates an ancient language or writing, some word for word parallels are not going to be available. Most scholars understand this and accept the cultural backgrounds and meanings for what they are. This is why hermeneutics is a serious field of study in higher theological education.

  1. (e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);

I answered this question above.

  1. (f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);

The camel was eaten by some of Israel’s neighbors, who considered it a delicacy. But the camel would not have been an important source of meat for Israel even if it had been permitted, for it never was as numerous in Israel or as important to Israel’s economy as it was to their neighbors. The camel does have a split hoof, but its sole or pad is so thick that its imprint is like a single pad. 

  1. (g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);

You just won’t read the passage will you?  The passage speaks or makes a reference to the Flood of Noah.  If you examine the ENTIRE passage you will notice that the first part of the passage speaks clearly to the fact the God did create the world from his Word.  Then upon following the rest of the story the earth was DESTROYED by the flood except for those on the ark. So henceforth, the statement, “the earth was formed out of and by means of water” would make a reference to the earth being repopulated after the flood.

  1. (h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);

The pillars of the earth are poetic imagery. Since the very “pillars” that uphold the earth belong to God, all creation is stable and secure under His care.  You are challenging that the Bible is a book filled with inaccuracies as well as contradictions.  What you don’t realize, is that this Book contains poetry, history, alliteration, allegorical content, metaphors, similes, and many other types of language components.  You seem to want to so discredit it works that you sometimes go beyond the constraints of components of ANCIENT WRITING PRACTICES.   Your status of Ancient text expert is diminishing by each contradiction examined.

  1. (i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);

This is a Psalm of Thanksgiving.  It sings of the praises to the God.  This is one passage you should have gotten this right. It the scope of the Psalm, the Chronicler states that the World won’t be moved and guess what, it wont. It is still exactly where it should be in space -- in the only possible orbit which will sustain life as we have it. It has not been moved out of where it should be. It should be noted that this verse does not say that the earth itself will not move. It will not "be moved" which means forced out of where it should be.

  1. (j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);

This is ridiculous.  Hare don’t have hoofs.  They have feet.  So it seems that the scripture is right; the hare doesn’t divide the hoof. By taking this one out of context the implication is that the verse says a hare has a hoof. The Bible does not say that. The verse should be read in context. The point is being made that clean animals -- those which can be eaten -- have BOTH a split hoof and chew the cud. The hare, although it does one, does not have the other. Text without context is pretext

  1. (k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);

You’ll get two answers for this.  One will be on a scientific level and one on a Biblical level; both of which are going to eliminate this from YOUR CONTRADICTION LIST. Scientific Answer first.  What are rainbows?  Rainbows are optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere. They take the form of a multicoloured arc, with red on the outer part of the arch and violet on the inner section of the arch. More rarely, a double rainbow is seen, which includes a second, fainter arc with colours in the opposite order, that is, with violet on the outside and red on the inside.  So in summary first the rain comes, then the sunshine and then the rainbow.  This would indicate even on a simple level that the rainbow would be the last event in the order of events, thus time wise, making it the youngest.  Now the Biblical answer.

That verse does not say that, or imply it. We don’t have any Biblical record of rain before the flood. If there were any rain before the Flood of Noah, it would have been over the seas and at night. No rainbow would have been seen. Genesis 9:13 refers to God setting the rainbow in the clouds, to be seen in the daytime as a symbol of promise. This is was new. Rain over land in the daytime was not something that happened before the Flood that we know of. The implication here is of the drastic changes the earth had undergone atmospherically from antediluvian times

  1. (l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);

A few definitions should clear up this misconception.

Mustard -  Much controversy surrounds the identification of the plant (Gk. sinapi) whose seed was used by Christ as an illustration of something which develops rapidly from small beginnings, such as the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 13:31; Mk. 4:31; Lk. 13:19), or the faith of an individual (Mt. 17:20; Lk. 17:6). Some scholars consider that the black mustard (Brassica nigra) is indicated, since in NT times its seeds were cultivated for their oil as well as for culinary purposes. It can grow to a height of 5 meters (over 16ft), although it is usually much smaller. One interpretation sees the ‘mustard’ as a monstrous plant foretelling the worldly expression of Christendom, with evil, as exemplified by the birds, in its branches.           New Bible Dictionary

Mustard. A plant that grew wild along roadsides and in fields, reaching a height of about 4.6 meters (15 feet). The black mustard of Palestine seems to be the species to which Jesus referred (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:31–32; Luke 13:19). It was cultivated for its seeds, which were used as a condiment and for oil.
The mustard seed was the smallest seed known in Jesus’ day (Matt. 13:32). Nevertheless, Jesus said that if one has faith like a mustard seed, he can move mountains (Matt. 17:20) or transplant a mulberry tree in the sea (Luke 17:6).            Nelson's illustrated Bible Dictionary.

If this mustard seed is classified as a shrub, then 15 feet is pretty big.  If the mustard seed is classified as a tree it still would be a large plant.

  1. (m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);

I don’t even think that you deserve the respect of responding to this contradiction being that the entire book is Poetry.  For the sake of holding true to my mission, which is to attempt to give accurate information on this site I will respectfully answer this contradiction as well. First please get an ENGLISH TRANSLATION VERSION.   This would keep you from making simple minded assumptions.  The KJV says turtles; all other translation uses TURTLE DOVE and they do have voices. 

Five GOLDEN RINGS............., Four calling birds, three french hens, two TURTLE DOVES and a Patridge in a pear TREEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  1. (n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);

This passage is a passage filled with heavy metaphors as well as alliteration.  If we were going to be literal in the interpretation, the earth does have ends as any scientist will be able to give you a definite size of the earth.  The statement that God has sent lighting to the ends or edges of the earth to my knowledge would signify that there is no place to where lightning does not occur.  As clouds can cover the whole earth, lighting and or rain can be traced to all locations on the earth. This is an idiom we still use today, and it is used the same way in Job. "The ends of the earth" has a meaning that has come down through the languages and cultures and should not cause any thinking person a problem.

  1. (o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);

The four corners of the earth is simply a figurative expression that is similar to the words of Acts 1:8: “to the end of the earth.” The Messiah will gather disciples from all over the world. Even our weathermen today agree with this! They are either north, east, south, and west, or, alternatively, north-east, north-west, south-west, and south-east. Again, the Bible uses the same idioms we do today and, again, no thinking person will find this difficult to understand.

  1. (p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);

 The word animals should be insects therefore some 4 legged animals DO FLY.  This was answered earlier.

  1. (q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)

 The time frame for the changing of the languages is not given in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible. The fact was that the languages were confused, branching off from the one original language. This might have happened miraculously in the space of moments or it might have taken some time after the Babel catastrophe drove people from the area. Again, the timing is not indicated here.

  1. (r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44)

That is not what this verse says. This sort of comment is, however, typical of those who try to "prove" the Bible wrong. The passage states that when the baby inside Elizabeth heard the sound of Mary's voice, he jumped or leaped "for joy." The first thing that should be noted here is that there is no doubt about babies in utero being able to hear outside sounds. The second thing that should be noted is that this takes place during the miraculous happening of Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. That a baby in utero should react to the presence of the Lord is no more strange than any other person reacting to Him. Even those who deny Him are reacting quite strongly to Him.

Still waiting for Rook to respond to the first part and here is the second part. I welcome all of your comments.  Try to bring information not opinions. I haven't gotten any informational answers to my last post that would suggest that my studies are leading you (the readers) astray.  

Shout outs to simple theist and Master Dan.  

In His Service...(read my signature) 

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
another good post ILOVE,

another good post ILOVE, thank you.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I'm still trying to figure

I'm still trying to figure out why most of these actually made it to an official list, especially since no one has tried to refute them. Correct me if I"m wrong, but I would assume you found most of the answers in common books that everyone studing the Bible (for whatever reason) should have,


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
What proof do you have that

What proof do you have that the versions you work from simply didn't fix the parts that didn't make sense (as opposed to doing research)?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I'm

simple theist wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why most of these actually made it to an official list, especially since no one has tried to refute them. Correct me if I"m wrong, but I would assume you found most of the answers in common books that everyone studing the Bible (for whatever reason) should have,

The problem is that you and ILOVECHRIST have is that you believe (as did I) that this is a place for rational discussion and the pursuit of truth.  It most certainly is not.  What ILOVECHRIST is finding out is the Rook IS NOT an "Ancient Text Expert" and when anyone even asks about it (Rook's credentials) we are bombarded by people who think we should not even ask the question.  The idea that someone could teach a class on ancient history and no one even asks for credentials and Rook doesn't even offer them in itself is not rational.  I appreciate that ILOVECHRIST has taken his time to do an enormous amount of work to show how ridiculous Rook's list is, but don't think for a moment that no one has refuted them before.  I simply took one issue:

(g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);

and finally after days for debate with those who simply buy into Rook's list this was Rook's response.

You're right, and in Greek, in the LXX, it has been translated to be adelphos. The word is metaphorical or general. There is a variant of the Hebrew word used which would have meant brother, literally, however it is not that variant. So you are correct. I wonder then why the translaters of some of the versions used "brother" instead of "kin"? Perhaps by using the LXX they determined that in order to keep good with the theme in the Greek NT, they decided to keep it "brother", but that doesn't seem to jive well with the Hebrew, or the intentions of the seventy scholars.  This is why I am not a fan of english versions, because I don't like how they alter or paraphrase a word or sentence in Greek into english.

But either way, you're correct.  I should go through and update my list. 

(This can be found in Why Translation and Context Matters and the post from Rook is dated May 18, 2007)  We are almost 2 months after the fact and this particular "contradiction" is still on the list.  I also decided that since Rook conceded this point I disproved another - but of course there has been no response since. 

My point is that people have shown Rook that his list is a farce over and over - I am sure there are more buried in the different subjects and posts - but the list does not change and probably will not.  The pursuit of this website is to blast theism - not pursue truth.  I do not buy for a moment that Rook is "too busy" to respond.  I am not retired and just hanging out.  I have a full time job, I am a father, a husband, a coach, and I have to deal with life like everyone else - I am still waiting for a response to another of Rook's "contradictions" but none yet since I posted it on May 24, 2007.  I guess what I am trying to say ILOVECHRIST - Don't hold your breath.  Rook's list will stay on this site as is, so that those who do not know scripture will continue to think that what Rook has written is true.   

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
This has been fun to watch

This has been fun to watch but.. I've got dibbs on Norse Mythology contradictions next! I want to see if we can get anyone to defend Odin.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote: This has

neptewn wrote:

This has been fun to watch but.. I've got dibbs on Norse Mythology contradictions next! I want to see if we can get anyone to defend Odin.

don't hold your breath. ILOVECHRIST only has a hard-on for god. don't test his hard-on. it's for his hand only. 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote: simple

REVLyle wrote:

simple theist wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why most of these actually made it to an official list, especially since no one has tried to refute them. Correct me if I"m wrong, but I would assume you found most of the answers in common books that everyone studing the Bible (for whatever reason) should have,

The problem is that you and ILOVECHRIST have is that you believe (as did I) that this is a place for rational discussion and the pursuit of truth. It most certainly is not. What ILOVECHRIST is finding out is the Rook IS NOT an "Ancient Text Expert" and when anyone even asks about it (Rook's credentials) we are bombarded by people who think we should not even ask the question. The idea that someone could teach a class on ancient history and no one even asks for credentials and Rook doesn't even offer them in itself is not rational. I appreciate that ILOVECHRIST has taken his time to do an enormous amount of work to show how ridiculous Rook's list is, but don't think for a moment that no one has refuted them before. I simply took one issue:

(g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);

and finally after days for debate with those who simply buy into Rook's list this was Rook's response.

You're right, and in Greek, in the LXX, it has been translated to be adelphos. The word is metaphorical or general. There is a variant of the Hebrew word used which would have meant brother, literally, however it is not that variant. So you are correct. I wonder then why the translaters of some of the versions used "brother" instead of "kin"? Perhaps by using the LXX they determined that in order to keep good with the theme in the Greek NT, they decided to keep it "brother", but that doesn't seem to jive well with the Hebrew, or the intentions of the seventy scholars. This is why I am not a fan of english versions, because I don't like how they alter or paraphrase a word or sentence in Greek into english.

But either way, you're correct. I should go through and update my list.

(This can be found in Why Translation and Context Matters and the post from Rook is dated May 18, 2007) We are almost 2 months after the fact and this particular "contradiction" is still on the list. I also decided that since Rook conceded this point I disproved another - but of course there has been no response since.

My point is that people have shown Rook that his list is a farce over and over - I am sure there are more buried in the different subjects and posts - but the list does not change and probably will not. The pursuit of this website is to blast theism - not pursue truth. I do not buy for a moment that Rook is "too busy" to respond. I am not retired and just hanging out. I have a full time job, I am a father, a husband, a coach, and I have to deal with life like everyone else - I am still waiting for a response to another of Rook's "contradictions" but none yet since I posted it on May 24, 2007. I guess what I am trying to say ILOVECHRIST - Don't hold your breath. Rook's list will stay on this site as is, so that those who do not know scripture will continue to think that what Rook has written is true.

I don't suffer from that problem, I noticed it about a day after joining. I'm also really curious as to why Rook hasn't posted his credentilas. 


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
I'll Defend God. Don't Test

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose - ILOVEGOD

Pride.. It's what is written between the lines that is the contradiction here.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
I'll Defend God.(because


I'll Defend God.(because fictional characters can't defend themselves) Don't Test Me.(my faith is fragile in the face of criticism) You'll Lose(because i have an unhealthy obsession, so much so that if i can't create justification and clarification for scripture that should have been self explanatory on it's own, i'll resort to lame excuses like "poetic imagery" and "figure of speech" )

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Not to be a prick here,

Not to be a prick here, but instead of attacking this guys signature, why not deal with what he has posted, is he right or wrong with his statements regarding Rooks contradictions? Personally I can't say i don't study ancient history/text/language. However if these are incorrect why hasn't rook given a proper response, i figure 2 weeks is long enough, especially if you are studing this and writting a book on it.

 

Unfortuntely the silence is deafening on this, and credientials people actually does mean something, because no matter how much you can claim knowledge on it, if someone calls you on it, you shouldn't be afraid to post it, and show your credientials. None of us would use a doctor without any credientials or believe a biologist if he was afraid to show where they got their degree. Ken Hovid, and a host of other "creationalists scientists" are attacked beause of his credientials and disregarded because their credentials.....and stupid statements. However if someone calls you on it, either state there they are, or I don't have it, but don't defend someone beause they say they are studing it, but don't tell ya where at or anything at all. I don't think it is wrong to ask anyone for their credientials if necessary.


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
ILOVEGOD wrote: I sound

ILOVEGOD wrote:
I sound arrogant because to a degree I am.  I am confident that GOD can and will be Defended at all costs. This is my life. Not just arguing with some clowns on the internet, but giving the best possible effort to learn and defend what I believe in.  In no way do I mean to offend any of the posters, but if my attitude offends you, then how do you think your stance makes me feel?  Doesn't matter.

From Part 1

ILOVEGOD wrote:
In His Service...(read my signature)

He invited it in his post, wearing his arrogance on his sleeve, regardless of how it makes people feel or did you not read that?

When someone wields Pride as a badge of honor to justify a belief, I always question their motives. Sorry I grew up around racist they tend to carry themselves the same way and I am all to familiar with the evils it can unleash.

To his actual work I think he did an excellent job, it deserves a responce and the web site should be updated accordingly to account for any mistakes, then we move on.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote: This

ILOVECHRIST wrote:


This next set of Biblical contradictions seems silly being that most of these contradictions fall under the category of how the Hebrews classified animals. They did not use the same classification system; they did not use the same numbering system. As a matter of fact most of the measuring systems that we use are not the same as the Hebrews, so simply picking out a bunch of classifications that are over 2000 years old is not accurately doing study or representing an argument in a scholarly manner. Here is the second list of contradictions.

As a side not CONTRADICTIONS are when one scripture would say that Item 1 is A and another scripture would say that same item is not A. The following are not really contradictions but simply unanswered questions which I believe an ANCIENT TEXT EXPERT would know the answers to.


That is because these contradictions are not "in-text" contradictions - they're contradictions against science.

  
Quote:
1. (a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);

First let me respond by saying, please stop just putting random scriptures in your argument just to fill up space. Lev. 19:19 has NOTHING TO DO WITH BATS, BIRDS OR ANYTHING with wings. The answer is simple. These unclean birds listed were mainly birds of prey and scavengers. They were associated with dead flesh and were likely carriers of disease. (eagles, vultures, buzzards, red kites, falcons, ravens, ostriches, owls, sea gulls, hawks, owl, great owls, white owls, pelican, carrion vulture, the cormorant, the stork, herons, hoopoe, and BATS.) The concept was not to make a scientific classification but it was to say DON’T EAT THESE UNCLEAN ANIMALS. Because it had wings, some people of that culture would have simply just grouped bats with birds. The Linnean taxonomic system, and our more extended one, was not only not known to the ancient Hebrews, such distinctions would have served them no purpose and thus would probably not have interested them. The point was more to focus on NOT EATING THE ANIMAL as it was unclean.


unclean or not - the passage STILL classified bats as birds. Listing the bat seperately couldn't have possibly been anymore difficult than listing the four-legged insects seperately.

So... what does whether or not this passage is interesting have to do with a deductibly rational reason for why god didn't correctly classify bats? This passage is mundane and boring - anyway... perhaps god should have thought ahead just a little bit.

  
Quote:
1. (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);

What version of the Bible says other than the King James Version says Fowls? For the sake of not having to argue I will post all the available translation to see where you got this argument from.

20 Every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four shall be an abomination unto you.
DARBY

20 All winged creeping things that go upon all fours are an abomination unto you.
American Standard Version

20 “All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you.
English Standard Version

20 All winged insects are unclean, GNT

20 “All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
The Message Bible

20 “The various winged insects that walk on all fours are loathsome for you. NABWRNT

20 ‘All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
New American Standard Bible

20 ‘Don’t eat insects that have wings & walk on all four feet; they also are to be hated.
New Century Version

20 ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you.
New King James Version

20 “You must not eat winged insects that walk along the ground; they are detestable to you.
New Literal Translation

20 All winged insects that walk upon all fours are detestable to you.
New Revised Standard Version

20 “All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you.
Revised Standard Version

20 ‘Every teeming creature which is flying, which is going on four—an abomination it is to you.
Young’s Literal Translation

Simply put: get another translation. The King James Version is really leading you astray.


The KJV bible is leading us astray? you don't say! So... what makes you think the other bibles are not doing likewise?

Quote:
   1. (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);

Some creeping do have four legs. The adjective describes the noun. So what does creeping mean? Let’s look at that word. Oh wait, the Hebrew word for creeping which is H7431 is not found any where in Leviticus! The word actually is translated INSECT, which are creeping little things.

A supporting sentence also continues on the subject of the paragraph. If you look in the preceding verses as well as the following verses, you will see that the verses list these insects: crickets, locusts, and grasshoppers. The word creeping does not signify that these would be worm like creatures, but winged insects that either fly or jump on the earth as noted in verse 21.


So... what are the creeping insects that have only four legs? You start off with the claim - then fail to mention any of them... your attempt to distract us from the bible has failed... crickets, locusts, and grasshoppers STILL have six legs.

  
Quote:
1. (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);

Some background information:
Cud chewers are generally classified as belonging to the order of ruminants- (a sub order of artiodactyls) - and are defined as an "even-toed animal that regurgitates and masticates its food after swallowing.” This means that a cow, for example, will eat vegetation and swallow it. The cow's stomach is divided into four chambers where some of more easily digestible nutrients are absorbed by the body while other more fibrous material is stored in the stomach and then regurgitated. The cow will re-chew this material and re-swallow it so that it can digest it as well.
Rabbits and hares, however, do not have a chambered stomach such as the cow. They also do not regurgitate their food. What they do perform is a function named cecotropy. I will quote the process as cited at following site http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/rjbiology/ELOs/ELO45.html
SYMBIOSIS WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM
Bacterial Digestion of Cellulose Within Animals - Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals... Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. [They] eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. Efficiency approaches that of ruminants.
In a more detailed version, Margert "Casey" Kilcullen-Steiner, (M.S., L.A.Tg) writes:
http://microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htm
Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.
And Janet Tast, D.V.M. notes:
http://www.ultranet.com/~hrs/artcl03.htm
Cecotrophy by Janet Tast, D.V.M. "Cecotropy is the process by which rabbits will reingest part of their feces directly from the rectum. This should not be confused with the term coprophagy (eating fecal material) since rabbits only ingest the soft "night" feces or cecotrophs."
Caryl Hilscher-Conklin (M.S. in Biology, University of Notre Dame) also makes this claim:
http://www.rmca.org/Articles/coprophagy.htm
"One may not give much thought to the lazy chewing of the cud that we observe cows doing all the time, but this behavior is analogous to coprophagy. The only difference between cud chewing and coprophagy is the point in the digestive tract at which nutrients are expelled and then placed back into the mouth."
Now, we must also remember that artiodactyls were first defined as a separate order in 1847 by Richard Owen and the behavior of cecotropy was first recognized in 1882. Deuteronomy, however, was written approximately 1500 BC in an ancient Hebrew. It would be intellectually dishonest for someone to claim that a 3500 year old writing is contradictory because it doesn't match with a scientific classification invented only about a hundred years ago. Further, if the ancient Hebrews defined 'cud-chewing" as that process where half digested vegetation was re-chewed by an animal for easier re-digestion ( and that is a very specific and scientific definition), I would say the hare fits here fine.


Newsflash: cecotropy does not equal "chewing cud". The Hebrews hadn't learned writing until right around 650BC - Deuteronomy was nothing other than a legend told by word-of-mouth before this time.

Not to you: it is intellectually dishonest to attempt to reword the bible's bullshit. The passage claims what it claims... and the peoples of the time, mistakenly, believed hares did chew their cud... and god failed to correct them.

Quote:
For Rook...
Whenever someone translates an ancient language or writing, some word for word parallels are not going to be available. Most scholars understand this and accept the cultural backgrounds and meanings for what they are. This is why hermeneutics is a serious field of study in higher theological education.


whoopity shit

Quote:
   1. (e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);

I answered this question above.


No you didn't.

**** cut crap i don't care about ****

Quote:
   1. (h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);

The pillars of the earth are poetic imagery. Since the very “pillars” that uphold the earth belong to God, all creation is stable and secure under His care. You are challenging that the Bible is a book filled with inaccuracies as well as contradictions. What you don’t realize, is that this Book contains poetry, history, alliteration, allegorical content, metaphors, similes, and many other types of language components. You seem to want to so discredit it works that you sometimes go beyond the constraints of components of ANCIENT WRITING PRACTICES. Your status of Ancient text expert is diminishing by each contradiction examined.


And I should accept your pretentious claim that this is "poetic imagery" because...?

Quote:
   1. (i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);

This is a Psalm of Thanksgiving. It sings of the praises to the God. This is one passage you should have gotten this right. It the scope of the Psalm, the Chronicler states that the World won’t be moved and guess what, it wont. It is still exactly where it should be in space -- in the only possible orbit which will sustain life as we have it. It has not been moved out of where it should be. It should be noted that this verse does not say that the earth itself will not move. It will not "be moved" which means forced out of where it should be.


again...?

Quote:
   1. (j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);

This is ridiculous. Hare don’t have hoofs. They have feet. So it seems that the scripture is right; the hare doesn’t divide the hoof. By taking this one out of context the implication is that the verse says a hare has a hoof. The Bible does not say that. The verse should be read in context. The point is being made that clean animals -- those which can be eaten -- have BOTH a split hoof and chew the cud. The hare, although it does one, does not have the other. Text without context is pretext


"Text without context is pretext"... or simply a bible passage you can't find enough bullshit to buld around...

Um... the hare has neither a split hoof nor chews its cud. So, why does the bible irrelevantly classify the hare here? Is this the point where god had a big brain fart? Why didn't he classify it along with, gee - i don't know - "animals that don't play with their genitals"?

You're good at fabricating the most absurd bullshit imaginable - i'll give you that Eye-wink

**** cut raindow and sunshine crap ****

Quote:
   1. (l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);

A few definitions should clear up this misconception.

Mustard - Much controversy surrounds the identification of the plant (Gk. sinapi) whose seed was used by Christ as an illustration of something which develops rapidly from small beginnings, such as the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 13:31; Mk. 4:31; Lk. 13:19), or the faith of an individual (Mt. 17:20; Lk. 17:6). Some scholars consider that the black mustard (Brassica nigra) is indicated, since in NT times its seeds were cultivated for their oil as well as for culinary purposes. It can grow to a height of 5 meters (over 16ft), although it is usually much smaller. One interpretation sees the ‘mustard’ as a monstrous plant foretelling the worldly expression of Christendom, with evil, as exemplified by the birds, in its branches. New Bible Dictionary

Mustard. A plant that grew wild along roadsides and in fields, reaching a height of about 4.6 meters (15 feet). The black mustard of Palestine seems to be the species to which Jesus referred (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:31–32; Luke 13:19). It was cultivated for its seeds, which were used as a condiment and for oil.
The mustard seed was the smallest seed known in Jesus’ day (Matt. 13:32). Nevertheless, Jesus said that if one has faith like a mustard seed, he can move mountains (Matt. 17:20) or transplant a mulberry tree in the sea (Luke 17:6). Nelson's illustrated Bible Dictionary.

If this mustard seed is classified as a shrub, then 15 feet is pretty big. If the mustard seed is classified as a tree it still would be a large plant.


Nice try at avoiding the issue! The mustard seed is STILL NOT the tiniest.

*** cute obscure turtle crap ***

Quote:

   1. (n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);

This passage is a passage filled with heavy metaphors as well as alliteration. If we were going to be literal in the interpretation, the earth does have ends as any scientist will be able to give you a definite size of the earth. The statement that God has sent lighting to the ends or edges of the earth to my knowledge would signify that there is no place to where lightning does not occur. As clouds can cover the whole earth, lighting and or rain can be traced to all locations on the earth. This is an idiom we still use today, and it is used the same way in Job. "The ends of the earth" has a meaning that has come down through the languages and cultures and should not cause any thinking person a problem.


and I should accept your pretense because....? "The ends of the earth" still means today what it did in the time the bible was written (when people believed the earth was flat and had corners & edges). The only thing is, today, we use it knowing better than the notion... the bible, however, fails to be classifiable as a text which would have been using it as a figure of speech.

  
Quote:
1. (o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);

The four corners of the earth is simply a figurative expression that is similar to the words of Acts 1:8: “to the end of the earth.” The Messiah will gather disciples from all over the world. Even our weathermen today agree with this! They are either north, east, south, and west, or, alternatively, north-east, north-west, south-west, and south-east. Again, the Bible uses the same idioms we do today and, again, no thinking person will find this difficult to understand.


Again... these figures of speech in our day were literal in theirs. nice attempt to construct meaningless bullshit, though.

  
Quote:
1. (p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);

The word animals should be insects therefore some 4 legged animals DO FLY. This was answered earlier.


"Some 4-legged animals fly"... yeah... like the unicorn (Numbers 23:22, Deuteronomy 33:17, Isaiah 34:7), right?

Quote:
   1. (q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)

The time frame for the changing of the languages is not given in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible. The fact was that the languages were confused, branching off from the one original language. This might have happened miraculously in the space of moments or it might have taken some time after the Babel catastrophe drove people from the area. Again, the timing is not indicated here.


and i should accept this absurd nonsense because...? Let us not forget we're talking about the rediculous fairy-tale about the "Tower of Babble" here. Either you accept it or you do not.

Quote:
   1. (r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44)

That is not what this verse says. This sort of comment is, however, typical of those who try to "prove" the Bible wrong. The passage states that when the baby inside Elizabeth heard the sound of Mary's voice, he jumped or leaped "for joy." The first thing that should be noted here is that there is no doubt about babies in utero being able to hear outside sounds. The second thing that should be noted is that this takes place during the miraculous happening of Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. That a baby in utero should react to the presence of the Lord is no more strange than any other person reacting to Him. Even those who deny Him are reacting quite strongly to Him.


Either way... i don't care about this one... it's nonsense to me.

Quote:
Still waiting for Rook to respond to the first part and here is the second part. I welcome all of your comments. Try to bring information not opinions. I haven't gotten any informational answers to my last post that would suggest that my studies are leading you (the readers) astray.


You could start by supplying relevant information Eye-wink

Quote:
Shout outs to simple theist and Master Dan.

In His Service...(read my signature)


"In His Service"... you habitually fabricate rediculous nonsense.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: Not

latincanuck wrote:

Not to be a prick here, but instead of attacking this guys signature, why not deal with what he has posted, is he right or wrong with his statements regarding Rooks contradictions?

"In His Service...(read my signature)"

I attacked his silly signature because I was invited to do so, and I happily obliged. 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
I agree that it is

I agree that it is silly, i am still waiting to see what four legged fowl or flying creatures there are, and what insects that have 4 legs as well.


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: I

latincanuck wrote:
I agree that it is silly, i am still waiting to see what four legged fowl or flying creatures there are, and what insects that have 4 legs as well.

I am going to assume the "four legged foul" is refering to a unicorn :-P 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1263
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Rook should indeed respond

Rook should indeed respond to your postings, as one who professes scholarly knowledge on these matters. I make no such claims, yet I observe some rather obvious distortions on your part:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
(f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);

  1. (g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);

You just won’t read the passage will you? The passage speaks or makes a reference to the Flood of Noah. If you examine the ENTIRE passage you will notice that the first part of the passage speaks clearly to the fact the God did create the world from his Word. Then upon following the rest of the story the earth was DESTROYED by the flood except for those on the ark. So henceforth, the statement, “the earth was formed out of and by means of water” would make a reference to the earth being repopulated after the flood.

This is an attempt to say that "formed out of and by means of water" refers to subsiding flood waters, on an earth which had already been formed, and not out of water. Desperation aside, this presupposes that the story of noah and the flood is actually true. Unless you can prove (without using the bible) that the story of noah and the flood is actually true, you are simply using the bible to defend the bible.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);

The pillars of the earth are poetic imagery. Since the very “pillars” that uphold the earth belong to God, all creation is stable and secure under His care. You are challenging that the Bible is a book filled with inaccuracies as well as contradictions. What you don’t realize, is that this Book contains poetry, history, alliteration, allegorical content, metaphors, similes, and many other types of language components. You seem to want to so discredit it works that you sometimes go beyond the constraints of components of ANCIENT WRITING PRACTICES. Your status of Ancient text expert is diminishing by each contradiction examined.

Is the bible color-coded to indicate precisely which passages are poetry, history, alliteration (?), allegorical content, metaphors, similes and other types of language components? If not, how do we determine where the poetry ends and history starts, which instances are metaphors, and which are other types of language components? You are free to say that "pillars of earth" is poetic imagery. Am I free to say that the flood story is allegorical content, rather than history? Could jesus be nothing more than a metaphor, or other type of language component?

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);

... It is still exactly where it should be in space -- in the only possible orbit which will sustain life as we have it. It has not been moved out of where it should be. It should be noted that this verse does not say that the earth itself will not move. It will not "be moved" which means forced out of where it should be.

Are you suggesting that david (the one psalming here) had knowledge of the earth's orbit (and the importance of such to sustaininglife) back then?

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);

You’ll get two answers for this. One will be on a scientific level and one on a Biblical level;

Two-for-one bargain! No purchase necessary, right?

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
...Scientific Answer first...This would indicate even on a simple level that the rainbow would be the last event in the order of events, thus time wise, making it the youngest.

Cute. If you had left it at this "scientific" answer, you might have weaseled out of this one. But you had to provide a biblical answer...

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

Now the Biblical answer. That verse does not say that, or imply it. We don’t have any Biblical record of rain before the flood.

And because we don't have any biblical record of rain before the flood, there must not have been any rain before the flood? When you are seeking to refute claims of biblical contradiction, you cannot cite other biblical passages and simply declare them to be true without proof. Neither can you claim a lack of biblical record as indication that something (such as rainfall, or even rainfall while the sun is out) never occurred until the bible mentions it. Otherwise, you are simply using the bible to defend the bible.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);

A few definitions should clear up this misconception.

If (hypothetically speaking) jesus had any concern for accuracy, this misconception could have been avoided to begin with.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

The mustard seed was the smallest seed known in Jesus’ day (Matt. 13:32).

So since it happened to be the smallest seed known at the time, "smallest of all seeds" isn't a falsehood? If david could invoke advanced astronomy (see above), you'd think jesus could handle botany several generations afterwards.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

If this mustard seed is classified as a shrub, then 15 feet is pretty big. If the mustard seed is classified as a tree it still would be a large plant.

But not the greatest of all shrubs. Or did we suddenly switch to poetic imagery or alliteration again?

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)

The time frame for the changing of the languages is not given in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible.

OK.  Who cares?  Does that lack of mention in the bible make this statement (of languages appearing suddenly) any less ridiculous?  When you are seeking to refute claims of biblical contradiction, you cannot reference the bible (or the bible's lack of mention of something) and simply declare it to be true without proof.  Otherwise, you are simply using the bible to defend the bible.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

The fact was that the languages were confused, branching off from the one original language.

How do you establish this as a fact -- without using the bible?

 

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
This might have happened miraculously in the space of moments or it might have taken some time after the Babel catastrophe drove people from the area.

Or it might not have happened this way at all.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44)

That is not what this verse says. This sort of comment is, however, typical of those who try to "prove" the Bible wrong. The passage states that when the baby inside Elizabeth heard the sound of Mary's voice, he jumped or leaped "for joy." The first thing that should be noted here is that there is no doubt about babies in utero being able to hear outside sounds. The second thing that should be noted is that this takes place during the miraculous happening of Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. That a baby in utero should react to the presence of the Lord is no more strange than any other person reacting to Him. Even those who deny Him are reacting quite strongly to Him.

This presupposes that the miraculous happening of mary's pregnancy with jesus and the prescence of the lord are actually true. Unless you can prove (without using the bible) that the miraculous happening of mary's pregnancy with jesus and the prescence of the lord are actually true, you are simply using the bible to defend the bible.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
NarcolepticSun

NarcolepticSun wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
I agree that it is silly, i am still waiting to see what four legged fowl or flying creatures there are, and what insects that have 4 legs as well.

I am going to assume the "four legged foul" is refering to a unicorn Sticking out tongue

nah, it's a "dragon". Smiling 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: ILOVECHRIST wrote:

Quote:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

The fact was that the languages were confused, branching off from the one original language.

How do you establish this as a fact -- without using the bible?

You can't really establish what happened in the past as a fact.  You can only look at the evidence and try to make the best guess you can.  I mean, in all seriousness I can't even prove I was born.  Obviously, there is great evidence that I was, seeing as how every other person on this planet is, and there might have been eyewitnesses, but the fact is, you can't go back into the past and see things happen.  You just have to make an assumption from the evidence you are given.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
NarcolepticSun

NarcolepticSun wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
I agree that it is silly, i am still waiting to see what four legged fowl or flying creatures there are, and what insects that have 4 legs as well.

I am going to assume the "four legged foul" is refering to a unicorn :-P 

 

So can you attempt to refute what is posted here, http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html A well?


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
NarcolepticSun

NarcolepticSun wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
I agree that it is silly, i am still waiting to see what four legged fowl or flying creatures there are, and what insects that have 4 legs as well.

I am going to assume the "four legged foul" is refering to a unicorn Sticking out tongue

Naw, it's a pegasus. Eye-wink 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1263
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Master Jedi Dan wrote: You

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

You can't really establish what happened in the past as a fact. You can only look at the evidence and try to make the best guess you can. I mean, in all seriousness I can't even prove I was born. Obviously, there is great evidence that I was, seeing as how every other person on this planet is, and there might have been eyewitnesses, but the fact is, you can't go back into the past and see things happen. You just have to make an assumption from the evidence you are given.

 Correct, you can't really establish what happened in the past as a fact.   You have to rely on evidence.  And as should be clear to you, that is not what ilovechrist is doing.  He/she demands that there must have been one original language, with only the bible's tower of babel story as a premise.  More egregiously, he/she elsewhere declares that it didn't rain before noah's flood (or at best, only rained at night), with only the premise that bible does not mention rain prior to the flood.  biblical citation does not count as evidence.  And biblical citation is particularly inadmissible when one is arguing against claims of biblical contradiciton.

 Thanks for tagging in, though.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Not to be a prick here, but instead of attacking this guys signature, why not deal with what he has posted, is he right or wrong with his statements regarding Rooks contradictions? Personally I can't say i don't study ancient history/text/language. However if these are incorrect why hasn't rook given a proper response, i figure 2 weeks is long enough, especially if you are studing this and writting a book on it.

 

Unfortuntely the silence is deafening on this, and credientials people actually does mean something, because no matter how much you can claim knowledge on it, if someone calls you on it, you shouldn't be afraid to post it, and show your credientials. None of us would use a doctor without any credientials or believe a biologist if he was afraid to show where they got their degree. Ken Hovid, and a host of other "creationalists scientists" are attacked beause of his credientials and disregarded because their credentials.....and stupid statements. However if someone calls you on it, either state there they are, or I don't have it, but don't defend someone beause they say they are studing it, but don't tell ya where at or anything at all. I don't think it is wrong to ask anyone for their credientials if necessary.

I agree with LatinCanuck and zarathustra on this one. It concerns me that Rook apparently hasn't responded. If he has no credentials, he should just say so. Truth will withstand scrutiny regardless of who speaks it.

Yes, credentials grant authority, but if Rook doesn't have a degree, he should say so...or that he is working toward obtaining credentials.

I'm speaking on my own behalf here, as someone who values honesty and fair discourse.

Rook, if you have addressed these issues, please show me where.  I admit to not having read the entire first thread, so I could be in error. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
NarcolepticSun wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
I agree that it is silly, i am still waiting to see what four legged fowl or flying creatures there are, and what insects that have 4 legs as well.

I am going to assume the "four legged foul" is refering to a unicorn Sticking out tongue

 

So can you attempt to refute what is posted here, http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html A well?

So... you're wanting me to refute an article which refers to fairy tales to support the wording of the this bible passage? Yeah... okay.

I have a question, first - understanding that the fairy tale being referred to for support is in ENGLISH - while the original texts of Leviticus would have been early HEBREW - with the reference to "four legs" REMAINING in said language - do you have any evidence that this idiom was used in Hebrew?

And are you truly comfortable using fairy tales in an attempt to back up the bible? Especially considering that the fairy tale you use would turn the edict from Leviticus on its head?

Understand, I already dismiss Leviticus as lore, so I look at this and see fairy tale vs. fairy tale.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
hmmm, so should i be more

hmmm, so should i be more concerned about how scripture references the back legs of a locust or about how religion is poisoning our government and schools? trivial bickering over the wording in an ancient fictional work or the xian zealot bashing of life saving scientific experiments? the phrasing of hearsay documents or the xian war on sexual freedom, birth control and gay rights? hmmm. tough choice.

i'll defend reality. don't test me. you'll lose. 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote: (a)

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
  1. (a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);

First let me respond by saying, please stop just putting random scriptures in your argument just to fill up space. Lev. 19:19 has NOTHING TO DO WITH BATS, BIRDS OR ANYTHING with wings. The answer is simple. These unclean birds listed were mainly birds of prey and scavengers. They were associated with dead flesh and were likely carriers of disease. (eagles, vultures, buzzards, red kites, falcons, ravens, ostriches, owls, sea gulls, hawks, owl, great owls, white owls, pelican, carrion vulture, the cormorant, the stork, herons, hoopoe, and BATS.) The concept was not to make a scientific classification but it was to say DON’T EAT THESE UNCLEAN ANIMALS. Because it had wings, some people of that culture would have simply just grouped bats with birds. The Linnean taxonomic system, and our more extended one, was not only not known to the ancient Hebrews, such distinctions would have served them no purpose and thus would probably not have interested them. The point was more to focus on NOT EATING THE ANIMAL as it was unclean.

Necrophagous animals are likely carriers of disease? At the time it would have been a matter of opinion, since if cooked most of the pathogens would have been eliminated. Unclean? Only if you don't remove the skin and cook it. They may be carriers of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Mad Cow disease), but that's invalidated by the fact that this would make the cows carriers too!

 Worse, you can't even say that about most bats. This is just bad advice for people who might not have much to eat. None of the megabats (long tongued fruit bats, flying foxes, etc.) are necrophagous. Most microbats (pallid bats, bulldog bats) are insectovorous, and the three species of vampire bat (white winged, common, and hairy legged) live in the americas and are still perfectly fine to eat once cooked!

Insects are perfectly edible as well, some even raw. If you're still not sure about whether an insect is "clean" or not, you can always cook it! Don't even get me started on shellfish and crustaceans, I friggin' love lobster, oysters, and crab.

 

So really, from the perspective of a holy person in contact with an all knowing god it should have been this:

"Clean and cook that which thou wilt eat, making sure to cleanse the carcass of worms." 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
So the one question is why

So the one question is why are bats included as unclean? 3 species in Central and south american drink blood, and they rather cattle and birds over humans. So ,if the rest of the 950 species eat either fruits or insects, i don't understand why they would be on this list? or where the hebrews unable to observe what the bats eat? Or could it be just pure superstition? Second what Fowl has four legs that fly? So far i haven't received an answer to this one?


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Oh, heck, I might as well

Oh, heck, I might as well do more of these. I think in this case Rook means places where the bible contradicts science; oddly, a lot of these would contradict even the science of the time which was, obviously, very limited.

So far I've taken care of the "cleanliness" of necrophagous animals, bats, and insects. 

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);

Some creeping do have four legs. The adjective describes the noun. So what does creeping mean? Let’s look at that word. Oh wait, the Hebrew word for creeping which is H7431 is not found any where in Leviticus! The word actually is translated INSECT, which are creeping little things.

A supporting sentence also continues on the subject of the paragraph. If you look in the preceding verses as well as the following verses, you will see that the verses list these insects: crickets, locusts, and grasshoppers. The word creeping does not signify that these would be worm like creatures, but winged insects that either fly or jump on the earth as noted in verse 21.

Maybe what they meant was little creeping things but they say this right after mentioning locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers. Obviously they are refferring to little armored insects, none of which have four feet. Obviously they're not referring to mice (which are also perfectly edible when cooked). Can you name an insect with four feet?  Our definition of insect is any bug with six legs. Maybe they were including centipedes, which can be poisonous to eat. But really, that's the exception that prooves how stupid the rule is. They should have said "don't eat those insects with more than 8 legs." Other than that they're just as unclean as cattle.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);

Further, if the ancient Hebrews defined 'cud-chewing" as that process where half digested vegetation was re-chewed by an animal for easier re-digestion ( and that is a very specific and scientific definition), I would say the hare fits here fine.

This is patently absurd. You even posted this, which makes it moreso: "They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole." Where's the chewing? It seems more likely that they observed the rabbit doing that chewing motion and figured that it was chewing cud, which of course it is not. They just do that. Plus, this is all revolving around the uncleanliness of the animal. These animals would have been no more unclean than common cattle.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);

I answered this question above.

You better show us what they mean by chewing then. 

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);

The camel was eaten by some of Israel’s neighbors, who considered it a delicacy. But the camel would not have been an important source of meat for Israel even if it had been permitted, for it never was as numerous in Israel or as important to Israel’s economy as it was to their neighbors. The camel does have a split hoof, but its sole or pad is so thick that its imprint is like a single pad.

 Okay, look at a horse's hoof. Then look at a cow's hoof. Then look a camel's TOE. See the nails? If you have toe nails YOU DO NOT HAVE A HOOF! In fact, if you have a PAD, you do not have a HOOF. So the passage is correct in saying they don't divide the hoof. Furthermore, making it a law that you can't eat them is just. . .stupid. It's more of that deviciveness we're always talking about. "See those people over there? They eat camels, which we all know are unclean." Us versus them.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
 

  1. (g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);

You just won’t read the passage will you? The passage speaks or makes a reference to the Flood of Noah. If you examine the ENTIRE passage you will notice that the first part of the passage speaks clearly to the fact the God did create the world from his Word. Then upon following the rest of the story the earth was DESTROYED by the flood except for those on the ark. So henceforth, the statement, “the earth was formed out of and by means of water” would make a reference to the earth being repopulated after the flood.

I see no mention of the flood.  Do you?

2 Peter 3

The Day of the Lord Will Come
 1This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." 5For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

 

 8But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,[a] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies[b] will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.[c]

 

 11Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);

The pillars of the earth are poetic imagery. Since the very “pillars” that uphold the earth belong to God, all creation is stable and secure under His care. You are challenging that the Bible is a book filled with inaccuracies as well as contradictions. What you don’t realize, is that this Book contains poetry, history, alliteration, allegorical content, metaphors, similes, and many other types of language components. You seem to want to so discredit it works that you sometimes go beyond the constraints of components of ANCIENT WRITING PRACTICES. Your status of Ancient text expert is diminishing by each contradiction examined.

Whatever. Your status as an apologist diminishes everytime I find one of your arguments almost verbatim on another website. Go do your own research. For a book that's supposed to have all the answer, it's a little confusing when some of the answers are just metaphor.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
 

  1. (i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);

This is a Psalm of Thanksgiving. It sings of the praises to the God. This is one passage you should have gotten this right. It the scope of the Psalm, the Chronicler states that the World won’t be moved and guess what, it wont. It is still exactly where it should be in space -- in the only possible orbit which will sustain life as we have it. It has not been moved out of where it should be. It should be noted that this verse does not say that the earth itself will not move. It will not "be moved" which means forced out of where it should be.

 

Wow, how did they know the earth has an orbit? They must've gotten it straight from God himself! Pfft, more likely they were just following the cosmology of the day since the earth could be moved by another celestial body (such as an planetoid) floating by. Fortunately that hasn't happened yet because WE'D ALL BE DEAD.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);

This is ridiculous. Hare don’t have hoofs. They have feet. So it seems that the scripture is right; the hare doesn’t divide the hoof. By taking this one out of context the implication is that the verse says a hare has a hoof. The Bible does not say that. The verse should be read in context. The point is being made that clean animals -- those which can be eaten -- have BOTH a split hoof and chew the cud. The hare, although it does one, does not have the other. Text without context is pretext

Damn, neither do camels! See the above statement where you peed on your own shoes. (Hey, if he can ad hominem Rook I can return the favor in his stead.)

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);

You’ll get two answers for this. One will be on a scientific level and one on a Biblical level; both of which are going to eliminate this from YOUR CONTRADICTION LIST. Scientific Answer first. What are rainbows? Rainbows are optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere. They take the form of a multicoloured arc, with red on the outer part of the arch and violet on the inner section of the arch. More rarely, a double rainbow is seen, which includes a second, fainter arc with colours in the opposite order, that is, with violet on the outside and red on the inside. So in summary first the rain comes, then the sunshine and then the rainbow. This would indicate even on a simple level that the rainbow would be the last event in the order of events, thus time wise, making it the youngest. Now the Biblical answer.

That verse does not say that, or imply it. We don’t have any Biblical record of rain before the flood. If there were any rain before the Flood of Noah, it would have been over the seas and at night. No rainbow would have been seen. Genesis 9:13 refers to God setting the rainbow in the clouds, to be seen in the daytime as a symbol of promise. This is was new. Rain over land in the daytime was not something that happened before the Flood that we know of. The implication here is of the drastic changes the earth had undergone atmospherically from antediluvian times

There was no worldwide flood, either way. 

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);

A few definitions should clear up this misconception.

Mustard - Much controversy surrounds the identification of the plant (Gk. sinapi) whose seed was used by Christ as an illustration of something which develops rapidly from small beginnings, such as the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 13:31; Mk. 4:31; Lk. 13:19), or the faith of an individual (Mt. 17:20; Lk. 17:6). Some scholars consider that the black mustard (Brassica nigra) is indicated, since in NT times its seeds were cultivated for their oil as well as for culinary purposes. It can grow to a height of 5 meters (over 16ft), although it is usually much smaller. One interpretation sees the ‘mustard’ as a monstrous plant foretelling the worldly expression of Christendom, with evil, as exemplified by the birds, in its branches. New Bible Dictionary

Mustard. A plant that grew wild along roadsides and in fields, reaching a height of about 4.6 meters (15 feet). The black mustard of Palestine seems to be the species to which Jesus referred (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:31–32; Luke 13:19). It was cultivated for its seeds, which were used as a condiment and for oil.
The mustard seed was the smallest seed known in Jesus’ day (Matt. 13:32). Nevertheless, Jesus said that if one has faith like a mustard seed, he can move mountains (Matt. 17:20) or transplant a mulberry tree in the sea (Luke 17:6). Nelson's illustrated Bible Dictionary.

If this mustard seed is classified as a shrub, then 15 feet is pretty big. If the mustard seed is classified as a tree it still would be a large plant.

Okay, I claim algae as the representation of Atheism's spread. Not just one type either, the whole family. For algea was already prolific in nature, and like algae the atheists were as they had been when wet from birth and shall be without theism for ever after. It's just a metaphor, after all. No real substance. No answers.

 

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);

I don’t even think that you deserve the respect of responding to this contradiction being that the entire book is Poetry. For the sake of holding true to my mission, which is to attempt to give accurate information on this site I will respectfully answer this contradiction as well. First please get an ENGLISH TRANSLATION VERSION. This would keep you from making simple minded assumptions. The KJV says turtles; all other translation uses TURTLE DOVE and they do have voices.

Five GOLDEN RINGS............., Four calling birds, three french hens, two TURTLE DOVES and a Patridge in a pear TREEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, you're actually right for once on account that nobody can decide how to properly translate a text so old it could barely be considered as a decent cookbook let alone a guide to life. 

 

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);

This passage is a passage filled with heavy metaphors as well as alliteration. If we were going to be literal in the interpretation, the earth does have ends as any scientist will be able to give you a definite size of the earth. The statement that God has sent lighting to the ends or edges of the earth to my knowledge would signify that there is no place to where lightning does not occur. As clouds can cover the whole earth, lighting and or rain can be traced to all locations on the earth. This is an idiom we still use today, and it is used the same way in Job. "The ends of the earth" has a meaning that has come down through the languages and cultures and should not cause any thinking person a problem.

  1. (o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);

If the book wasn't from a time where the shape of the earth wasn't being called into question I might agree with you.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

(p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
  1. (q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)

The time frame for the changing of the languages is not given in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible. The fact was that the languages were confused, branching off from the one original language. This might have happened miraculously in the space of moments or it might have taken some time after the Babel catastrophe drove people from the area. Again, the timing is not indicated here.

So what? We have evidence for the origins or language. You have a single book that apparently projectile vomits allegorical BS most of the time, and then stops for breaks to ramble on about nothing we didn't already know by that point.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

  1. (r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44)

That is not what this verse says. This sort of comment is, however, typical of those who try to "prove" the Bible wrong. The passage states that when the baby inside Elizabeth heard the sound of Mary's voice, he jumped or leaped "for joy." The first thing that should be noted here is that there is no doubt about babies in utero being able to hear outside sounds. The second thing that should be noted is that this takes place during the miraculous happening of Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. That a baby in utero should react to the presence of the Lord is no more strange than any other person reacting to Him. Even those who deny Him are reacting quite strongly to Him.

Still waiting for Rook to respond to the first part and here is the second part. I welcome all of your comments. Try to bring information not opinions. I haven't gotten any informational answers to my last post that would suggest that my studies are leading you (the readers) astray.

So how do you know which parts are allegorical and which parts are speaking literally? Obviously you get all your material from other people, so I'd say it's what you were told. I'm sorry if we're not up to date on all the lame explanations the churches give, but the fact remains that they're still lame.

Also, I think the Biblical Contradictions are a group effort, not just Rook. I'm sure he has all the time in the world to cross reference the various translations, having no life outside of the RRS. So before anyone rants about not updating, you better not say that we spend all our time on this, don't have lives, and are obsessed.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: So the

latincanuck wrote:
So the one question is why are bats included as unclean? 3 species in Central and south american drink blood, and they rather cattle and birds over humans. So ,if the rest of the 950 species eat either fruits or insects, i don't understand why they would be on this list? or where the hebrews unable to observe what the bats eat? Or could it be just pure superstition? Second what Fowl has four legs that fly? So far i haven't received an answer to this one?

Actually, come to think of it bats can be rabies carriers. But the supreme god with all knowledge should know this:

"How can I tell if a bat has rabies?
Rabies can be confirmed only in a laboratory. However, any bat that is active by day, is found in a place where bats are not usually seen (for example, in a room in your home or on the lawn), or is unable to fly, is far more likely than others to be rabid. Such bats are often the most easily approached. Therefore, it is best never to handle any bat."
- Center for Disease Control

Basically, bats are about as dangerous as anything else around that time. Rabies is pretty bloody rare, even more rare at that time. A lot of christian countries  have rabies but there are a number of "heathen" countries which don't, where missionaries hadn't sailed over to bring rabid pests. Either God made a mistake somewhere and was trying to cover it up/make it more difficult to spread the word, or rabies follows the same vector every other saliva transmissable virus does.


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Responding to Narcoleptic.

Responding to Narcoleptic. I'll deal with inspectormustard later.

narcoleptic sun wrote:

That is because these contradictions are not "in-text" contradictions - they're contradictions against science.

What era of science are you using? Are you using the science of the writers day which would inevitably be the Hebrew culture of 2000 years ago or the American or present day Science which is far more advanced in its present form? If you compare any TEXT from 2000 years ago against today’s standards you will find just as many if not MORE supposed errors than those that you are “finding” in the Biblical text.

narcoleptic sun wrote:

1. (a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);

unclean or not - the passage STILL classified bats as birds. Listing the bat separately couldn't have possibly been anymore difficult than listing the four-legged insects separately.

You say that this passage is a classification against science right? Well then when was the system used in that day? Remember according to Rook, he is an Ancient Text Expert and in order to properly examine this passage he would have to have detailed information on the science of the Biblical Day. The Linnaeus system is roughly 250 years old and is not even native to us as Americans. The inventor is Swedish. If we have no record of the classification as of the writing of the book, then how do you justify the error in the passage? You can’t say that they were using the Linnaeus system of 2000 years later. Are you using today’s classification of birds and mammals? It is safe to say that if you lived in that day, it is very possible bats would have been classified as birds because they FLY. This doesn’t seem irrational even by today’s standards. If you saw a bat from a distance, would you be able to immediate classify its species and classification? Would you be able to determine its habits and patterns? As I stated before the purpose of this passage does not seem to be MAKE A PROFOUND SCIENTIFIC CLASSIFICATION, but do not eat this bird as it is unclean.

narcoleptic sun wrote:
So... what does whether or not this passage is interesting have to do with a deductibly rational reason for why god didn't correctly classify bats? This passage is mundane and boring - anyway... perhaps god should have thought ahead just a little bit.

Because God inspired the writer to classify bats as birds does not imply that God has made a mistake. You are making the assumption that the scientific knowledge you possess or use is superior to that of infinite knowledge of God. It would seem that the classifications of animals are fairly new (200 years) even though most of the species are extremely old. What proof do

narcoleptic sun wrote:

Quote:

1. (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);

The KJV bible is leading us astray? you don't say! So... what makes you think the other bibles are not doing likewise?

I’ve established this in previous post. Here is the original Hebrew word as defined by several dictionaries:

Strong’s Hebrew H8318 - 3. LN 4.47-4.50 swarmers, teemers, i.e., a class of creatures which are small animals found in large numbers as insects in the air (Lev 11:20, 21, 23, 29; Dt 14:19+), note: possibly these references should all be under one general domain of LN 4 since they tend to defy western classification – Dict. Of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains

The word here is not fowl. It is amazing how you guys will only continue to do partial study. As I stated before, read different translations. This would assist you and the other Ancient Text Experts making assumptions.

narcoleptic sun wrote:

Quote:

1. (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);

A supporting sentence also continues on the subject of the paragraph. If you look in the preceding verses as well as the following verses, you will see that the verses list these insects: crickets, locusts, and grasshoppers. The word creeping does not signify that these would be worm like creatures, but winged insects that either fly or jump on the earth as noted in verse 21.

So... what are the creeping insects that have only four legs? You start off with the claim - then fail to mention any of them... your attempt to distract us from the bible has failed... crickets, locusts, and grasshoppers STILL have six legs.

The passage is clear in its explanation.

Lev: 20 ‘All the "winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
21 ‘Yet these you may eat among all the "winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth.

The passage says that these insects walk on all fours and have jointed legs with which they jump. This does not imply that they only have four legs only. The passage clearly states that these insects have Four FEET for walking and additional JOINTED LEGS WITH WHICH TO JUMP on the earth. This completely agrees with science.

narcoleptic sun wrote:

Quote:

1. (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);

whoopity shit

????????????????????????????

narcoleptic sun wrote:
1. (e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);

I answered this question above.
No you didn't.



Definition of conies - . A rabbit, especially the European rabbit. If you read the response to hares, which are a species of rabbits then according to the definition of conies would also apply to this species of animal as well

narcoleptic sun wrote:
**** cut crap i don't care about ****

If you don’t care about it, then why respond especially with somewhat trivial responses that don’t bring any info to the table like “whoopity sh_t”

Quote:

1. (h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);

narcoleptic sun wrote:
And I should accept your pretentious claim that this is "poetic imagery" because...?

Definition of pretentious: making usually unjustified or excessive claims

Let us for the sake of argument say that the whole Bible is fiction. (I know you are happy) Then we’ll define poetic imagery in confines of simple literary definitions which are much older than the scientific system that you are using to try to derail the Bible. Poetic imagery is defined as a figure of speech that cast up a picture in your mind. These pictures created or suggested by the poet (writer) are called 'images'. To participate fully in the world of poem, we must understand how the poet (writer) uses image to convey more than what is actually said or literally meant. Although most of the image-making words in any language appeal to sight (visual images), there are also images of touch (tactile), sound (auditory), taste (gustatory), and smell (olfactory). The last two terms in parentheses are mainly used by lovers of jargon. An image may also appeal to the reader's sense of motion.

Now let us examine the passage. This is a Prayer of Hannah as stated in verse 1. If you have followed the story you will note that Hannah’s womb was barren and the Lord blessed her with a child, Samuel. This chapter now is in the middle a pray of Thanksgiving to the Lord.
From simply reading the 11 verses you will see a pattern of extreme gratefulness. Remember we are still looking at this passage from a fictional point of view. Here are the verses:

Hannah’s Song of Thanksgiving
1 Then Hannah "prayed and said, “My heart exults in the Lord;
"My "horn is exalted in the Lord, (example of poetic imagery; Hannah does not have a literal horn) My mouth "speaks boldly against my enemies, Because "I rejoice in Your salvation.
2 “"There is no one holy like the Lord, Indeed, "there is no one besides You, "Nor is there any rock like our God. (example of poetic imagery. God cannot be literally compared to a rock)
3 "Boast no more so very proudly, "Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; "For the Lord is a God of knowledge, "And with Him actions are weighed.
4 “The bows of the mighty are shattered, "(example of poetic imagery) the feeble gird on strength.
5 “Those who were full hire themselves out for bread, But those who were hungry cease to hunger. "Even the barren gives birth to seven, But "she who has many children languishes.
6 “The Lord kills and makes alive; "He brings down to "Sheol and raises up.
7 “The Lord makes poor and rich; "He brings low, He also exalts.
8 "He raises the poor from the dust, "(example of poetic imagery) He lifts the needy from the ash heap "To make them sit with nobles, And inherit a seat of honor; "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, And He set the world on them. (example of poetic imagery; the entire verse)
9 "He keeps the feet of His godly ones, "But the wicked ones are silenced in darkness;
"For not by might shall a man prevail. (example of poetic imagery; the entire verse)
10 "Those who contend with the Lord will be shattered; (example of poetic imagery)
"Against them He will thunder in the heavens, "The Lord will judge the ends of the earth; "And He will give strength to His king, "And will exalt the "horn of His anointed.”
11 Then Elkanah went to his home at "Ramah. "But the boy ministered to the Lord before Eli the priest.

Hannah uses a common literary device in creating images in the mind through words like any other writer would do. If the Bible were fiction, then the notion, that “the earth rests in pillars” does not violate scientific evidence of that day or any other day being that it is simple a literary element. Since I hold that the Bible is true, the literary element still holds validity being that the statement not made to contradict science but to create an image while reading the passage. I am citing a source

2:7, 8 dust … ash heap: These parallel terms describe the festering compost piles outside the city walls where people dumped their refuse, including the ash from ovens. It was there that beggars and lepers would sit and solicit alms. Hannah used the image to indicate the deepest degradation: God assists those in the worst circumstances (Ps. 113:7–9). The pillars of the earth is poetic imagery. Since the very “pillars” that uphold the earth belong to God, all creation is stable and secure under His care. Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson's new illustrated Bible commentary (1 Sa 2:7-8). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

Quote:

1. (i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);

This is a Psalm of Thanksgiving. It sings of the praises to the God. This is one passage you should have gotten this right. It the scope of the Psalm, the Chronicler states that the World won’t be moved and guess what, it wont. It is still exactly where it should be in space -- in the only possible orbit which will sustain life as we have it. It has not been moved out of where it should be. It should be noted that this verse does not say that the earth itself will not move. It will not "be moved" which means forced out of where it should be.

again...? Yes again Read the Bible passage again.

narcoleptic sun wrote:

Quote:

1. (j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);

Um... the hare has neither a split hoof nor chews its cud. So, why does the bible irrelevantly classify the hare here?

What are you using to justify this rational? You cannot say that you are using the scientific classification of that day because we have not been presented with any factual information from Rook or yourself as to what system he is using or comparing these scriptures with?

narcoleptic sun wrote:
You're good at fabricating the most absurd bullshit imaginable - i'll give you that Eye-wink

**** cut rainbow and sunshine crap ****

And these are your rational responses?

narcoleptic sun wrote:

Quote: 1. (l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);

Nice try at avoiding the issue! The mustard seed is STILL NOT the tiniest.

Compared to what time period and according to what classification system? And by the way since we are dealing with rational answers, which seed is? Please use the Hebrew culture as your means of classification and or comparisons. The mustard seed as a side note is only 1 mm in size.

narcoleptic sun wrote:

Quote:

1. (n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);

and I should accept your pretense because....?

You don’t have to except my pretenses. This can be purely proven to scientific knowledge. There are 4 directions which govern all maps, North South, East and West. This is purely factual.

narcoleptic sun wrote:
"The ends of the earth" still means today what it did in the time the bible was written (when people believed the earth was flat and had corners & edges). The only thing is, today, we use it knowing better than the notion...

You assertion here would seem to actually weaken your own argument. You say that the phraseology of “the ends of the earth” still means today what it did in the times the Bible was written. This would suggest on a simple level that the Bible’s language and culture are similar to our culture. You have just said that the words inspired 2000 years ago are the same as today; the only difference is that our understanding has grown. This would suggest several things such as the fact that if the words of that day meant the exact same thing in one passage, then all passages would be subject to the same criteria. If the words are literal in the very sense of the word, then any words that would suggest the God exists are very literal and true to this day now. This would also suggest that our language is not unique, but has derived from the text that you so desperately dispute. You also, by making an incorrect assumption, liken all early ancient text language to 21st century language.

narcoleptic sun wrote:
the bible, however, fails to be classifiable as a text which would have been using it as a figure of speech.

What system of classification for writing credentials are you using to justify this claim? Even if you were not a Bible believing Christian as I am, you could in no way deny that the Biblical text contains just about every type of writing style and literary component.

narcoleptic sun wrote:

Quote:

1. (o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);

Again... these figures of speech in our day were literal in theirs. nice attempt to construct meaningless bullshit, though.

Ok so you keep saying that these figures of speech were literal in their day and where are you getting this from? Parts of speech and literary elements of writing are as old as the Hebrew language. In fact the etymology of many words we use have a Hebrew, Greek, or Latin derivation.

narcoleptic sun wrote:
Quote:

1. (p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);

"Some 4-legged animals fly"... yeah... like the unicorn (Numbers 23:22, Deuteronomy 33:17, Isaiah 34:7), right?

The Hebrew word in the original text was not unicorn but wild ox or buffalo. Stop using the King James Version. It makes you look like an incompetent because you won’t read any of the other 30 translations.
Quote:

narcoleptic sun wrote:
1. (q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)

and i should accept this absurd nonsense because...? Let us not forget we're talking about the rediculous fairy-tale about the "Tower of Babble" here. Either you accept it or you do not.


According to you, the language written in the Bible times means today exactly what it meant then which would suggest that maybe the language did just appear. If you could just cite some sources of how the language evolved and when it evolved then this issue could be cleared up. You must realize that if you answer this, then you will totally destroy the theory of evolution as languages are regulated by men. Men speak the language; men translate the language and men determine which words can be used in the language. If you can put a name on the originator then you would destroy the notion that our language evolved but you will establish that it was created just like everything else in this universe. It's a catch 22.

narcoleptic sun wrote:

Quote:

1. (r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44)

Either way... i don't care about this one... it's nonsense to me.

This is nonsense to you because it is true and you don’t have any other evidence to refute it.

narcoleptic sun wrote:
You could start by supplying relevant information Eye-wink

I have provided plenty and have yet to hear from your Ancient text expert. Many of your responses were simply retorts with no background information to substantiate them. Even if you didn’t believe in the Biblical text, the corresponding dictionaries, commentaries, handbooks, and manners and customs books support the answers I provided on this site.

You must be an Atheist or an evolutionist. I rarely meet any that provide me with any information that is useful, or can be justified.

narcoleptic sun wrote:
Quote:

"In His Service"... you habitually fabricate rediculous nonsense.

What is rediculous? Listen Rook gives me info, I return with info. I try to leave out at much opinion as I can. Just the info I find. It was brought to my attention that I quote other sources and don’t do study. Ha Ha. When you read any post from me and it is identical to something else you may or may not have read, it is simply because these scholars or organizations are able to communicate an answer more clearly than myself. I attempt to post the most rational and thorough answer I can. If someone would just contact the Ancient Text Expert and check my findings this would help solve all the back and forth. You would also see that many of the contradictions listed would be removed.

We are comparing the Bible Times to the Bible Times; the Hebrew Culture to the Hebrew Culture. Please stop using your understanding of life and science to view how you read the Bible. This is NOT RATIONAL.

To address the questions about why bats were seen as unclean, it would seem that even there are 1100 species in of bats, it can be determined through scientific evidence from that period, that all 1100 species did not all live that time period and that same region. Inspector Mustard pointed out that bats are carriers to rabies but scientifically it is proposed that less than 2% of bats carry rabies. Ome thing we do know is that guano which comes from bats contains AMMONIA and Phosphorus, neither which would go good on a hamburger. This is no way the only possible answer however it must be brought to light when dealing with the subject. We also note that bats mainly ate insects. If most insects were not allowed to be eaten at that time, this could inherently disqualify the bat as meal.

Still in His Service

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Answer my question,

Answer my question, please.

 What proof do you have that the versions you work from simply didn't fix the parts that didn't make sense (as opposed to doing research)?

Do you have proof that the translators didn't look at a passage and say "Damn, that doesn't make sense, does it? Maybe we can just change this word and it'll work...Yes! We'll tell the sheep who buy it it's a new "translation". We have degrees - we can make it stick."

Not saying that was the case - just musing over possibilities. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

narcoleptic sun wrote:

So... what are the creeping insects that have only four legs? You start off with the claim - then fail to mention any of them... your attempt to distract us from the bible has failed... crickets, locusts, and grasshoppers STILL have six legs.

The passage is clear in its explanation.

Lev: 20 ‘All the "winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
21 ‘Yet these you may eat among all the "winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth.

The passage says that these insects walk on all fours and have jointed legs with which they jump. This does not imply that they only have four legs only. The passage clearly states that these insects have Four FEET for walking and additional JOINTED LEGS WITH WHICH TO JUMP on the earth. This completely agrees with science.

Um... you didn't answer the question.

If "winged insects that walk on all fours" refers to insects such as grasshoppers, which have four "walking legs" and two "jumping legs" then what are the other insects with four legs? There must be some insects with for legs that don't have two legs to jump, right? Otherwise there wouldn't be any that aren't good to eat.

So, which insects have four legs that are "detestable"?


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Simply read the passage

Simply read the passage again. I'll post it one more time so that you can read it.

Lev: 20 ‘All the "winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
21 ‘Yet these you may eat among all the "winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth

Leviticus states ALL WINGED INSECTS THAT WALK ON ALL FOURS ARE DETESTABLE TO YOU. YET THESE YOU MAY EAT AMONG THE WINGED INSECTS WHICH WAL ON ALL FOURS THOSE WHICH HAVE JOINTED LEGS ABOVE THEIR FEET.

There is a clear distinction in the text between LEGS and FEET. The legs are jointed and used for jumping. The feet are used for WALKING. This is identical to the fact the we as humans are said to have FIVE FINGERS when in actuality the thumb could be classified differently being that it only has TWO Bones while the other fingers have THREE. 

If you just read vs. 20 you could say that the Bible states that ALL WINGED INSECTS have four legs. If you just read vs. 21 you could say that the Bible specificaly says that All winged insects have four legs for walking and additional feet for jumping. However if you read them together, then we have a clear distinction between the two. Look, lets just for the sake of the arguement look at the Bible in its literary form. First and foremost as a Book with various writing components. If you do that, you can in NO WAY ask some of the questions you are asking because the text is clear.

To answer your question, here is a list of insects: (that fit into the context of verses 20 AND 21)

The Grasshopper
The Locust
The Cricket
Some species of the Bee Family
The Leafhopper.
Katydids
Moths
Butterflies

Also an insect that would to the NAKED eye easily be mistaken for the above list is the Praying Mantis (which if you wanted to be literal does only walk on four legs) It doesn't have wings but it does jump just like a grasshopper.

Continually "In His Service" 

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote: Simply

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

Simply read the passage again. I'll post it one more time so that you can read it.

Lev: 20 ‘All the "winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
21 ‘Yet these you may eat among all the "winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth

Leviticus states ALL WINGED INSECTS THAT WALK ON ALL FOURS ARE DETESTABLE TO YOU. YET THESE YOU MAY EAT AMONG THE WINGED INSECTS WHICH WAL ON ALL FOURS THOSE WHICH HAVE JOINTED LEGS ABOVE THEIR FEET.

There is a clear distinction in the text between LEGS and FEET. The legs are jointed and used for jumping. The feet are used for WALKING. This is identical to the fact the we as humans are said to have FIVE FINGERS when in actuality the thumb could be classified differently being that it only has TWO Bones while the other fingers have THREE.

If you just read vs. 20 you could say that the Bible states that ALL WINGED INSECTS have four legs. If you just read vs. 21 you could say that the Bible specificaly says that All winged insects have four legs for walking and additional feet for jumping. However if you read them together, then we have a clear distinction between the two. Look, lets just for the sake of the arguement look at the Bible in its literary form. First and foremost as a Book with various writing components. If you do that, you can in NO WAY ask some of the questions you are asking because the text is clear.

To answer your question, here is a list of insects: (that fit into the context of verses 20 AND 21)

The Grasshopper
The Locust
The Cricket
Some species of the Bee Family
The Leafhopper.
Katydids
Moths
Butterflies

Also an insect that would to the NAKED eye easily be mistaken for the above list is the Praying Mantis (which if you wanted to be literal does only walk on four legs) It doesn't have wings but it does jump just like a grasshopper.

Continually "In His Service"

Isn't that a distinction without a difference?

or are the things attached to the jumping legs not feet? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
So it is your claim that

So it is your claim that insects, such as Moths, Butterflies, and Bees, fall into the first category, i.e. "Lev: 20 ‘All the "winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. " but not into the second? (i.e. those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth)

But all those insects walk on six legs, they don't have two for jumping, they have six for walking. How are they "winged insects taht walk on all fours"?

Yes, I see that the two lines put together indicate that grasshoppers fall into the category of four for walking and two for jumping, but it still doesn't make sense to say that the others also have four feet.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote: ILOVECHRIST

Fish wrote:
ILOVECHRIST wrote:

narcoleptic sun wrote:

So... what are the creeping insects that have only four legs? You start off with the claim - then fail to mention any of them... your attempt to distract us from the bible has failed... crickets, locusts, and grasshoppers STILL have six legs.

The passage is clear in its explanation.

Lev: 20 ‘All the "winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
21 ‘Yet these you may eat among all the "winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth.

The passage says that these insects walk on all fours and have jointed legs with which they jump. This does not imply that they only have four legs only. The passage clearly states that these insects have Four FEET for walking and additional JOINTED LEGS WITH WHICH TO JUMP on the earth. This completely agrees with science.

Um... you didn't answer the question.

If "winged insects that walk on all fours" refers to insects such as grasshoppers, which have four "walking legs" and two "jumping legs" then what are the other insects with four legs? There must be some insects with for legs that don't have two legs to jump, right? Otherwise there wouldn't be any that aren't good to eat.

So, which insects have four legs that are "detestable"?

I could also point out that grasshoppers use all six legs for walking.  So, which insects have four legs and are "detestable"? Smiling

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


doc-o-pharm
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
If you'll forgive the

If you'll forgive the "newb" jumping in on this.....

I think you have to be careful when choosing which inaccuracies and contradictions you want to discuss with the Christian. Many can be explained through translational differences, context, etc. I got myself into a bit of pickle in this very situation when bringing up some "contradictions" that were readily explained. An excellent article to prepare yourself for your opponent's point of view if your thinking of debating the issue can be found here: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Alleged-Contradictions-in-the-G.pdf

It's a long read, but worthwhile I think.

 

7/13/07 - ehhh, nvrmnd, I just saw that Rook had responded to that particular piece...wish I had seen it before... 

There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.


lpetrich
lpetrich's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

narcoleptic sun wrote:

That is because these contradictions are not "in-text" contradictions - they're contradictions against science.

What era of science are you using? Are you using the science of the writers day which would inevitably be the Hebrew culture of 2000 years ago or the American or present day Science which is far more advanced in its present form?

Pure special pleading. Here's how I can "demonstrate" my infalliblility. I judge my statements in the context of my beliefs, and I find 100% perfect agreement. ILOVECHRIST, your defense of the Bible is exactly the same thing, only with some names changed.

And when are you going to slam the creationists for using clearly erroneous Bible science?

Quote:
If you compare any TEXT from 2000 years ago against today’s standards you will find just as many if not MORE supposed errors than those that you are “finding” in the Biblical text.

Like what texts?

(stuff on bats being birds...)

Quote:
The Linnaeus system is roughly 250 years old and is not even native to us as Americans. The inventor is Swedish.

Science has no nationality. Sticking out tongue

And though bats have the size and approximate shape of small birds, they differ in a LOT of details. Let's compare a mouse, a bat, and a pigeon.

  • Front limbs are wings: no, yes, yes
  • Body covering: hair, hair, feathers
  • Flight surfaces: none, stretched skin, feathers
  • External ears: yes, yes, no
  • Bare-skin nose: yes, yes, no
  • Teeth: yes, yes, no
  • Beak: no, no, yes
  • "Live" birth as opposed to laying eggs: yes, yes, no

Furthermore, Leviticus 11 starts out with some careful examination of the extremities of various animals; if one does that, then why not notice how many legs a grasshopper has or notice how bats resemble mice as opposed to pigeons?

Quote:
Because God inspired the writer to classify bats as birds does not imply that God has made a mistake.

An omnimax and omnibenevolent being would surely want to reveal how to do classification, and describe how one can show that bats are much more like mice than like pigeons, except for their flying.

Quote:
You are making the assumption that the scientific knowledge you possess or use is superior to that of infinite knowledge of God.

Begging the question. You are assuming what you wish to prove.

Quote:
It would seem that the classifications of animals are fairly new (200 years) even though most of the species are extremely old.

So what?

(the Tower of Babel story of the origin of different language...)

ILOVECHRIST's response was too incoherent for me to make sense out of.

Quote:
You must be an Atheist or an evolutionist. I rarely meet any that provide me with any information that is useful, or can be justified.

Why are you slamming evolution? And if you are willing to thump the Bible in favor of creationism, then why not also thump it in favor of:

  • Flat-earthism
  • Geocentrism
  • Lamarckian inheritance (Genesis 30)
  • The demon theory of disease (Jesus Christ's exorcisms)
  • The efficacy of salivary therapy (JC did that also)

Quote:
We are comparing the Bible Times to the Bible Times; the Hebrew Culture to the Hebrew Culture. Please stop using your understanding of life and science to view how you read the Bible. This is NOT RATIONAL.

More special pleading.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1263
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
What happened here?  Did

What happened here?  Did the OP give up on defending the bible?


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
This entire set of "contradictions" irrelevant to inerrancy

I think this entire line of argument about the Bible's contradictions with science to be irrelevant to the theological concept of inerrancy.  There are plenty of inerrantists who would argue that the doctrine of inerrancy does not extend to every realm of knowledge.  In other words, the Bible does not have special insight into various categories of knowledge about the physical world that other people of that time period did not already have.  God basically met people where they were in their knowledge about this world in various times in history.  Hence, when Jesus said the sun set, we should understand it as we do in our own culture as an idiom rather than an astronomical description.  I would argue the same for just about all of these so-called scientific inaccuracies.  The presence of these ancient viewpoints on nature has nothing to say with reference to the theological concept of inerrancy. 

Aaron


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote: I

irrespective wrote:

I think this entire line of argument about the Bible's contradictions with science to be irrelevant to the theological concept of inerrancy. There are plenty of inerrantists who would argue that the doctrine of inerrancy does not extend to every realm of knowledge. In other words, the Bible does not have special insight into various categories of knowledge about the physical world that other people of that time period did not already have. God basically met people where they were in their knowledge about this world in various times in history. Hence, when Jesus said the sun set, we should understand it as we do in our own culture as an idiom rather than an astronomical description. I would argue the same for just about all of these so-called scientific inaccuracies. The presence of these ancient viewpoints on nature has nothing to say with reference to the theological concept of inerrancy.

Aaron

why would a creator communicate to 'his' own creation with a book in the first place? It's a bit like the president of verizon calling home by using tin cans and string. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1263
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
irrespective wrote: I

irrespective wrote:

I think this entire line of argument about the Bible's contradictions with science to be irrelevant to the theological concept of inerrancy. There are plenty of inerrantists who would argue that the doctrine of inerrancy does not extend to every realm of knowledge.

There are plenty of inerrantists who argue that the doctrine of inerrancy does extend to every realm of knowledge.  And they wish to have such "knowledge" taught alongside science.

irrespective wrote:
God basically met people where they were in their knowledge about this world in various times in history. Hence, when Jesus said the sun set, we should understand it as we do in our own culture as an idiom rather than an astronomical description. I would argue the same for just about all of these so-called scientific inaccuracies. The presence of these ancient viewpoints on nature has nothing to say with reference to the theological concept of inerrancy.

A valiant attempt, to be sure.  However, with this proposed dichotomy, the question remains of how to distinguish between the two.   I would argue that  god is an "ancient viewpoint", just like the setting of the sun.  And just as through increased knowledge we can now say that the sun doesn't set, we can likewise say that god doesn't exist.  

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST you keep

ILOVECHRIST you keep referring to "the science of the time.", when addressing responses. Yet, you offer no evidence of what was the science of the time. You are asking us to assume you opinion of what the science was to defend your assumptions.

I am not ancient Hebrew scientist, so if you have documrntation or links to web sites outlining what the science theory was at that time, please post.

 

Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
God hasn't only communicated

God hasn't only communicated to his creation with a book; in fact, it is not even the pinnacle of his revelatory activities.  Jesus is.  The Bible is merely the record of the various ways God has communicated to his creation.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry, what is?

I'm sorry, what is?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote: God

irrespective wrote:
God hasn't only communicated to his creation with a book;

This response only serves to avoid my question.

Quote:
 

 in fact, it is not even the pinnacle of his revelatory activities.

This only serves to make your own response problematic

Quote:
 

Jesus is. The Bible is merely the record of the various ways God has communicated to his creation.

If 'jesus' is the pinnacle, and the bible is, in your own estimation, an inferior communication, then why have 'jesus' life only recorded in an inferior tool...

That's like putting a carbon copy of the mona lisa in a frame, isn't it?

Do you see the problem with your response... you've still got 'god' communicating by using tin cans and strings....

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: There are plenty of

Quote:
There are plenty of inerrantists who argue that the doctrine of inerrancy does extend to every realm of knowledge.  And they wish to have such "knowledge" taught alongside science.

 I am merely pointing out that inerrancy does not lock one into defending every little statement that seems to contradict modern science.  There is a lively debate among inerrantists on this point.

Quote:
 However, with this proposed dichotomy, the question remains of how to distinguish between the two.   I would argue that  god is an "ancient viewpoint", just like the setting of the sun.  And just as through increased knowledge we can now say that the sun doesn't set, we can likewise say that god doesn't exist.

I don't understand of what dichotomy you speak.  Perhaps you could elaborate on that.  Also please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that there is as much evidence against the existence of God as there is that the sun doesn't actually set.  Please. 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote: God

irrespective wrote:
God hasn't only communicated to his creation with a book; in fact, it is not even the pinnacle of his revelatory activities. Jesus is. The Bible is merely the record of the various ways God has communicated to his creation.

Blood sacrifice of a mythical 'son' is the pinnacle of revelation? A bit privative wouldn't you say?

Todangst is right, "tin cans and string". 


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Okay, just so we're

Okay, just so we're clear:

 

What is a more fitting way for God to have communicated to his creation in a way that would preserve it for succeeding generations?  Any suggestions that God could take into account?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
 I am merely pointing out

 I am merely pointing out that inerrancy does not lock one into defending every little statement that seems to contradict modern science.  There is a lively debate among inerrantists on this point.

 

Sounds like a real pisser. It concedes that the observations were flawed because 'Yahweh' chose to condescend to his creation. If 'Yahweh' refrains from correcting such scientific boners, one wonders what truth 'Yahweh' is meant to offer, and how it's meant to be distinguished from more godly condescension.


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Blood sacrifice of

Quote:

Blood sacrifice of a mythical 'son' is the pinnacle of revelation? A bit privative wouldn't you say?

 

No I didn't say that revelation by a "mythical 'son'" was the pinnacle of revelation.  That would not be the pinnacle of revelation.  If only I knew what you mean by "privative" i could answer your question...but dammit, i'm only an uneducated theist....