218 replies to this topic

[Ransom]

so you, (being a catholic) believe some parts of the Bible but not the whole thing?

[Nevermind]

As for the Bible... the men who wrote it had no idea of what evolution was, so they either created or adopted two creation myths (remember that Genesis has two different creations, not one as most people think).

Pry'thee, do highlight said redundancy.

[Arturo]

so you, (being a catholic) believe some parts of the Bible but not the whole thing?

The Bible was written by humans, and although inspired by God, it's not the exact "Words of God". On the other hand, I believe in two ways of knowledge, a religious one and a scientifical one. While the first is known via revelation, the second is via research. They don't contradict each other since they speak of different things. For example I don't find any contradxiction between Genesis and Darwinism.

And some parts of the Bible are clearly not inspired by God, for example most of Leviticus or some things St. Paul said.

I am not an orthodox Catholic, you know, but I have a fairly good knowledge of the Bible and Theology.

[Korhend]

What? you cant be christian and not believe in creation? you would be an idiot. believe one thing or another please.

Warned for flaming. Don't do it again.

[Fyxe]

Yes I know about multiple events happening at the same time, but it's also about randomness. Remember the indetermination law, one of the pillars of Quatum Physics. And remember that if electrons didn't move randomly the structure would be tremendously unstable and atoms would disappear. Obviously, this hasn't happened (Don't ask me why it's unstable, I don't remember right now, I can ask my Physics teacher). Only Classical Physics are determinist. And they are obviously wrong. And a lot of things are random, starting with electrons.

Quantum physics doesn't rely on randomness.

Quantum indeterminacy is the assertion that the state of a system does not determine a unique collection of values for all its measurable properties.

This doesn't mean 'random'. Just because something is indeterminable doesn't mean that completely random events will happen. Quantum physics is an incomplete theory, it seems to thrive on it. Personally I think some of the concepts of quantum physics are a bit of a cop-out. Instead of working out the answer, it just sits back and says 'eh'. If there's more of a chance of something happening than something else, there has to be a reason for that, and that's not randomness.

Even if it was random or not, it wouldn't change the concept of free will. It's still a fact that we are defined and determined by our environment, our upbringing and past memories when it comes to making choices. We can't change those things. An electron in a different place hardly causes free will to exist.

[Ransom]

The Bible was written by humans, and although inspired by God, it's not the exact "Words of God". On the other hand, I believe in two ways of knowledge, a religious one and a scientifical one. While the first is known via revelation, the second is via research. They don't contradict each other since they speak of different things. For example I don't find any contradxiction between Genesis and Darwinism.

And some parts of the Bible are clearly not inspired by God, for example most of Leviticus or some things St. Paul said.

I am not an orthodox Catholic, you know, but I have a fairly good knowledge of the Bible and Theology.

How can you say that genesis and darwinism speak of different things?
genesis says: God created man. Darwinism says: man evolved from another inferior species. these two beliefs cannot co-exist.
However if you dont believe in genesis at all, but believe other parts of the bible, i dont see how you could say they have any more validity then genesis. And if you do believe that the Bible is God-inspired, i think he would "inspire" the writers enough to make sure that his holy book has no historical or scientifical flaws. or let it contradict itself.

[Korhend]

And if you do believe that the Bible is God-inspired, i think he would "inspire" the writers enough to make sure that his holy book has no historical or scientifical flaws. or let it contradict itself.

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

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

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

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

I could go on and on all day with these.

Edited by Korhend, 30 September 2006 - 09:31 AM.

[Arturo]

It's God inspired, not God written. Thus it's not a total truth, but a partial truth. And last time I checked the Bible wasn't a book about sciences or history. So it contains pseudo-historical and pseudo-scientifical things. But that doesn't make it better or worse.

I believe in Genesis, but not in a literal way. The same for the rest of the Bible.

[TheAvengerLever]

As for the Bible... the men who wrote it had no idea of what evolution was, so they either created or adopted two creation myths (remember that Genesis has two different creations, not one as most people think).

No...bad Arturo.

There's only one. I know about the theories that people have about this particular topic, and I've studied Genesis many times, and there is nothing wrong with the events of chapter one or chapter two.

[Ransom]

i respect that consistency.
and yeah you got a point korhend.
but the solomon thing couldve been at different times?
(pointless, since i didnt refute the others.)

[TheAvengerLever]

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

If these were written by the same guy, then I would say thats wrong. But seeing as they were written by different people, they're going to have inconsistancies.

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Again, probably written by different people, so the inconsistancies aren't all that big of a deal.

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

This one does not contradict anything, since verse 7:2 says "of every clean beast" are taken by seven, whereas in both versus it speaks of the unclean beasts going in twos.

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

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

It actually sounds like these can go one after the other. He hangs himself, then the body falls out of the tree and bursts open. Interesting.

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Nothing wrong with this. It talks about unclean animals (specifically insects) and then defines the ones that you should eat, and says the rest are unclean.

[Ransom]

i think the solomon one is because it is written at different stages of his wealth.

[Korhend]

If these were written by the same guy, then I would say thats wrong. But seeing as they were written by different people, they're going to have inconsistancies.

Again, probably written by different people, so the inconsistancies aren't all that big of a deal.

A so if you have two people say something they don't contradict.

This one does not contradict anything, since verse 7:2 says "of every clean beast" are taken by seven, whereas in both versus it speaks of the unclean beasts going in twos.

Read it again


GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Nothing wrong with this. It talks about unclean animals (specifically insects) and then defines the ones that you should eat, and says the rest are unclean.

Except that if you had payed attention to biology class you would know that locust, grasshoper and beetles have six legs, not four. You also skipped commenting on the scientific accuracy of hares chewing cud (they do not) and snakes eating dust (again, they do not). If you claim that in order to believe in the bible you have to take everything literally, why don't you get a pet snake and feed it dust?

i think the solomon one is because it is written at different stages of his wealth.

Every horsemen requires 3-4 horses. Why would he keep the same number of horsemen when he could only use a tenth of them?

[Arturo]

No...bad Arturo.

There's only one. I know about the theories that people have about this particular topic, and I've studied Genesis many times, and there is nothing wrong with the events of chapter one or chapter two.

Chapter 1

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Chapter 2:

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Really consistent. They are clearly two different accounts. On the first one God creates through word man and woman on the sixth day, while on the second he creates animals after he creates Adam from dust and the woman from Adam's rib.

That the Genesis contains two creation myths is as evident as the Gospels relying on different sources.

[Reflectionist]

Chapter 1
Chapter 2:
Really consistent. They are clearly two different accounts. On the first one God creates through word man and woman on the sixth day, while on the second he creates animals after he creates Adam from dust and the woman from Adam's rib.

That the Genesis contains two creation myths is as evident as the Gospels relying on different sources.

The second one doesn't say when they were created.

If I said the following sentence:

The deer drank from the river and farted.

It could mean that the deer farted while drinking from the river. It could mean that the deer farted and then took a drink. It could mean that the deer drank and then farted.


The key words there would be "And then"

Since those words are not mentioned in the verse, there's no reason to assume what you don't know. Modern English Rules did not apply before Modern English was around.

[Arturo]

The second one doesn't say when they were created.

If I said the following sentence:

The deer drank from the river and farted.

It could mean that the deer farted while drinking from the river. It could mean that the deer farted and then took a drink. It could mean that the deer drank and then farted.
The key words there would be "And then"

Since those words are not mentioned in the verse, there's no reason to assume what you don't know. Modern English Rules did not apply before Modern English was around.

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

The order is CLEARLY stated, Adam needs a help and because of that, God creates animals. Saying otherwise is simply stubborn.

[TheAvengerLever]

Read it again


GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah

Alright, I'm settling this: There were seven of each of the clean animals brought on board and 2 of the rest of the animals brought on board. Seven clean animals were brought on board. Most of the 7 were probably used for SACRIFICING and EATING.

A so if you have two people say something they don't contradict.

Do what? Sorry, I didn't understand that sentence, can you rephrase it?

Except that if you had payed attention to biology class you would know that locust, grasshoper and beetles have six legs, not four. You also skipped commenting on the scientific accuracy of hares chewing cud (they do not) and snakes eating dust (again, they do not). If you claim that in order to believe in the bible you have to take everything literally, why don't you get a pet snake and feed it dust?

1. I don't think everything in the Bible is literal. I just think if you can prove things literal than that's that, and leave the rest up for interpretation.

2.Back then people probably thought differently about beetles and such...not the two forelegs on a beetle resemble arms, and the four back legs are like legs. Same with the grasshoppers and the locusts. People back then could've just been looking at it differently than us modern age people.

3. From http://www.answersin...i4/rabbits.asp:

"The book of Leviticus contains a number of food laws that the ancient Israelites were to obey. Modern medicine has shown that many of them had very good health benefits for people in that time and place. As the Law of Moses was our tutor to lead people to Christ (Galatians 3:24), many of the individual commands are no longer applicable after Christ’s death for our sins and His bodily resurrection from the dead. In particular, the Lord Jesus and His Apostles declared that all foods are now ‘clean’ (Mark 7:18–19, Acts 10:10–15, Colossians 2:16).

Some of the food laws have been attacked by sceptics as ‘proof’ that the Bible makes mistakes, meaning it could not be God’s written word. For example, Leviticus 11:3–6 says:

‘Whatever divides the hoof, and is cloven-footed, chewing the cud, among the animals, that you shall eat.

‘Only, you shall not eat these of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: the camel, for he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.

‘And the rock badger, because he chews the cud, but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.

‘And the hare, because he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.’

We showed a photo of the camel’s hoof in Creation 19(4):29, 1997, proving that the Leviticus 11:4 assertion was right that the camel did not completely ‘divide the hoof’, despite what some sceptics claim. Other sceptics have claimed that the Coney (Hebrew shaphan, = hyrax, rock badger) and hare (Hebrew ’arnebeth = rabbit) don’t chew the cud.

In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong."

Really consistent. They are clearly two different accounts. On the first one God creates through word man and woman on the sixth day, while on the second he creates animals after he creates Adam from dust and the woman from Adam's rib.

That the Genesis contains two creation myths is as evident as the Gospels relying on different sources.

It doesn't say how God created man in the first account, so Chapter 2 explains it.

[Korhend]

Alright, I'm settling this: There were seven of each of the clean animals brought on board and 2 of the rest of the animals brought on board. Seven clean animals were brought on board. Most of the 7 were probably used for SACRIFICING and EATING.

Gee I didn't realize it was up to TheAvengerButton to correct what Moses wrote

Do what? Sorry, I didn't understand that sentence, can you rephrase it?

Just because two people wrote it doesn't mean its not contradictory.

1. I don't think everything in the Bible is literal. I just think if you can prove things literal than that's that, and leave the rest up for interpretation.

And you can prove genesis is true? Shouldn't that them be up to interperetation.

2.Back then people probably thought differently about beetles and such...not the two forelegs on a beetle resemble arms, and the four back legs are like legs. Same with the grasshoppers and the locusts. People back then could've just been looking at it differently than us modern age people.

Ah so we're admitting the bible was not based on scientific accuracy but on the beliefs of a less then advanced ancient civilization.

Edited by Korhend, 01 October 2006 - 05:44 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

Gee I didn't realize it was up to TheAvengerButton to correct what Moses wrote

I'm not correcting anything. o.o

Just because two people wrote it doesn't mean its not contradictory.

...I never said it wasn't contradictory. I admitted that they are going to have minor inconsistancies.

And you can prove genesis is true? Shouldn't that them be up to interperetation.

No really, I can't understand you if you say something that's fraught with grammatical errors, and I say this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to bash you or anything, so I'm sorry if this makes you mad.

Ah so we're admitting the bible was not based on scientific accuracy

I never said it was. o.o

but on the beliefs of a less then advanced ancient civilization.

I'm pretty sure they were advanced for their time, just like we're advanced for our time, just like people in the future will be advanced for their time, and so on and so forth. Sure, we've got technology and all this. But [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of us are lazy, overweight, and greedy. Look at the Native Americans. Everyone had jobs. And they performed them to the best of their ability. I would say that they knew what they were doing, whilst we in our day and age look at magazines that tell us what we should wear, what we should eat, and who to like and dislike. We stereotype, we have racists, and all sorts of problems that the Native Americans didn't have.

[Nevermind]

The order is CLEARLY stated, Adam needs a help and because of that, God creates animals. Saying otherwise is simply stubborn.

It's not really CLEARLY stated. I'd say it's a "by the way, God had created beasts and stuff which he now brought forth to Adam". I see it as just cross-referenced with the first chapter.

Chapter 1 - Create beast, create man, create woman

Chapter 2 - Create man, bring created animals to man, create woman.

[Fyxe]

You forget to mention that God put fossils in the ground to test our faith.

...Or maybe not, and I'd like to question why this topic has turned into a debate about the niggling issues surrounding an ancient metaphorical creation myth when the topic is clearly about the *rapture*.

Don't you SEE, people? You're coming at it the wrong way around. Creation first, THEN apocalypse. This topic is about the fiery-death story, not the story that undermines woman and blames all mankind's troubles on the female of the species.

[Arturo]

It's not really CLEARLY stated. I'd say it's a "by the way, God had created beasts and stuff which he now brought forth to Adam". I see it as just cross-referenced with the first chapter.

Chapter 1 - Create beast, create man, create woman

Chapter 2 - Create man, bring created animals to man, create woman.

What do you mean as clearly? That the Bible should say "Hey, this is a different myth !". And abou the summary, ths is the correction:

Chapter 1- Create beast, create man and woman

Chapter 2- Create man, creates animals and brings them to man and creates woman.

There is no logical account, they are just different myths. There is no other logical explanation.


What's wrong with admitting that the Bible combines different accounts? We have the highly cotradictive Gospels, we have the contradictions between Kings and Chronicles, etc.

Edited by Arturo, 02 October 2006 - 08:59 AM.

[TheAvengerLever]

You forget to mention that God put fossils in the ground to test our faith.

Read in Job about the Behemoth and the Leviathon, and the plenty of other references in the bible to dragons and such.

What's wrong with admitting that the Bible combines different accounts?

There's nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't provide different accounts in the books themselves and the accounts come from other books.

We have the highly cotradictive Gospels, we have the contradictions between Kings and Chronicles, etc.

The Gospels don't contradict if they have the same story. A contradiction would be if in Mark it said that Jesus died and never rose and in John it said Jesus died and he was risen from the dead.

That's a contradiction. What you're talking about is not a contradiction.

Here, now read and don't argue any longer about the Bible's contradictions, you sillies.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 02 October 2006 - 03:43 PM.

[Nevermind]

There is no logical account, they are just different myths. There is no other logical explanation.
What's wrong with admitting that the Bible combines different accounts? We have the highly cotradictive Gospels, we have the contradictions between Kings and Chronicles, etc.

Actually it doesn't really contradict as much as you think when you cross-reference it all.



Speaking of which, the Book of Daniel has a fair bit of things to do with the Apocalypse and stuff, it's not just Revelations.

[TheAvengerLever]

The Book of Daniel AND the Book of Zechariah.

[Alakhriveion]

And Isaiah. And the Psalms.

[Reflectionist]

And certain parts of the Gospels themselves.... And a couple Epistles.

[Fyxe]

You can read the apocalypse into anything, especially with a book as vague and metaphorical as the Bible.

[Arturo]

Read in Job about the Behemoth and the Leviathon, and the plenty of other references in the bible to dragons and such.
There's nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't provide different accounts in the books themselves and the accounts come from other books.
The Gospels don't contradict if they have the same story. A contradiction would be if in Mark it said that Jesus died and never rose and in John it said Jesus died and he was risen from the dead.

That's a contradiction. What you're talking about is not a contradiction.

Here, now read and don't argue any longer about the Bible's contradictions, you sillies.

That the Bible contadicts itself is not atheory, but a fact. And it's only because:

1 The writers were humas, an as humans, not perfect

2 And writers used other sources that might contradict each other.

I can give you more examples of contradictions in the Bible. For example in John's account of resurrection, Mary the Magdalene appears for the second time in the tomb as if from nowhere and turns twice. If this is not a contradiction what's that?


And that insult other's intelligence.

[TheAvengerLever]

That the Bible contadicts itself is not atheory, but a fact. And it's only because:

1 The writers were humas, an as humans, not perfect

2 And writers used other sources that might contradict each other.

I can give you more examples of contradictions in the Bible. For example in John's account of resurrection, Mary the Magdalene appears for the second time in the tomb as if from nowhere and turns twice. If this is not a contradiction what's that?


And that insult other's intelligence.

I'm now convinced that you don't know what you're talking about.