• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Bible says two things (I dont want this to turn into a bash thread)

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
Check this page out.

Humans were created after the other animals. (1:25-27)
Humans were created before the other animals. (2:18-19)

The first man and woman were created simultaneously. (1:27)
The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib. (2:18-22)

Very nice page when you read it all. Loads of neat info on the Bible.

God, the mass murderer. Gen.7:4, 19:24
God tells Abraham to kill his second son for a burnt offering Gen.22:2, 10
God threatens to kill the Pharaoh's firstborn son Ex.4:23
God murders the Egyptian firstborn humans and animals Ex.12:30
God drowns Pharaoh's army Ex.14:27-28

Nice god some people have:)
 

aUt0eXebat

Banned
Oct 9, 2000
2,353
0
0
if you were a christian and read and studied the Bible you would understand that what or how your inturpting it is wrong
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Boring!

What a lack of knowledge these skeptics have.

The first quote Genesis 1:27-29 shows that animals were created before man. The second account Genesis 2:18-19 says "God was forming (past tense) . . . and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would name them." There is no conflict here.

Genesis 1:27 does not show any timeline, simply that the man and woman were created. Chapter 2:18-22 gives the details.

<<God the mass murder>>. Yes, he does judge his creation. According to the Bible we are ALL condemned to death. It is the ransom through his son Jesus that provides for salvation. Read the CONTEXT to see why these people were executed. Most societies have the death penalty for hardened criminals and murders.

Telling Abraham to kill his son was a test. He had no intention for Abraham to actually sacrifice his son or else he would not have earlier promised by means of this son a future blessing. Read the context.

The Egyptians enslaved Israel and killed their sons. God first brought plagues on the land and when they refused to let His people go, the Egyptians lost their firstborn children. When they again came after the Israelites to kill and enslave them, God defended his people.

Don't judge a book by it's covers or what other people say is in it. Read it for yourself and make up your own mind.

 

thebestMAX

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
7,457
106
106
You mentioned the Bible. Religion and politics always turn into bash threads. Thats why I never comment on either. :D
 

Eeks

Senior member
Dec 8, 1999
457
0
0
People who interpret the Bible literally are being silly. This is a man made piece of work. God did not come down and write it himself (assuming there is a God). So any inconsistencies are accounted for as flaws of man. Which is also a reason why people who read too much into the Bible and quote it as the word of God are being silly too - it is as best a Tertiary source, but more likely a much more derived one than that.
 

ltk007

Banned
Feb 24, 2000
6,209
1
0
I can understand your first two problems w/the bible being contradictory, but most of that is due to translation problems.


<< God, the mass murderer. Gen.7:4, 19:24
God tells Abraham to kill his second son for a burnt offering Gen.22:2, 10
God threatens to kill the Pharaoh's firstborn son Ex.4:23
God murders the Egyptian firstborn humans and animals Ex.12:30
God drowns Pharaoh's army Ex.14:27-28
>>


All of this is taken out of context. I dunno bout the first one and I don't have a bible handy.

1) Abraham never killed his son, it was just a test of faith.
2) God didn't murder the Egyptians, he killed them as punishment for holding the Isrealites as slaves.
3) He didn't specifically target the Pharaoh's first born son either, he did it to every household's firstborn male if they didn't have sheep's blood (I think) around the doorway.
4) He drowned Pharaoh's army for pursuing the Isrealite people after Pharaoh went back on his promise to allow them to go.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
There are so many things on that page that say one thing or another about the bible, like how violent it is. I think it should get a PG18 sticker on it.

Anyway, if you want the other side of the story go to http://www.chick.com There you can see bible and religous fanatics at their peak.
 

Athanasius

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
975
0
0
If the Bible should have a PG18 sticker on it, so should life itself. The Bible doesn't minimize reality or gloss over the failings of its &quot;heroes.&quot;

It also has the annoying habit of pointing out that I will be held reponsible for my actions, and that my wrong choices actually affect other people.

As far as the &quot;contradictions&quot; listed, I think appoppin sums up very well the absurdity of those particular examples.
 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81


<< I dont want this to turn into a bash thread >>



Oh Boy....... You have to be very good with your biblical history to keep the koo-koo's at bay, they will spend all day finding fragments of stuff from old and new testement to rebuke you with, beware, this thread has been started and the bible thumpers will flock like flys to sh1t. Hmmm intresting metaphor......:D








SHUX
 

eia430

Senior member
Sep 7, 2000
369
0
0
Apoppin, You just can't stand it when someone even hints that the bible might contradict it's self can you? This is ALL FROM THE SAME BIBLE...

Gen 1:25 &quot;And God made the beasts of the earth (established when animals were made)

Gen 1:26 &quot;Then God said, &quot;Let us make man...&quot; &quot;(established when man was made, notice order...25 THEN 26, animals THEN man)


We have now established in the bible that animals were made before man.

Gen 2:18-19 &quot;Then the Lord God said, &quot;it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.&quot; So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air...&quot;

Hmm this is interesting... now we just established that man was created BEFORE animals.... interesting indeed. We have a contradiction here apoppin, a very CLEAR contradiction. So which is a lie? is it Gen 1:25-26? or is it Gen 2:18-19 we know one is a lie beacause they can't BOTH be right.


 

eia430

Senior member
Sep 7, 2000
369
0
0
Czar, thank you thank you... I've been looking for something to counter the idiots that keep on spewing that the bible has no contradictions. This is just what I needed.
 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
Every Christian religion seems to have a different version of the Bible and it has been translated several times. Of course you can find contradictions if you look hard enough and take everything literally.

But if we all followed the 10 commandments, wouldn't the world be a much better place? Are those 10 rules to live by really so bad? If so, what's wrong with them?
 

eia430

Senior member
Sep 7, 2000
369
0
0
PG you're right, it would be. But too many searches for knowledge about the things and events around us have been cut short by simple and vastly ignorant phrases like... &quot;it is something only God can comprehend&quot; &quot;it's God's work&quot; &quot;it's the devil's work&quot; &quot;because it says to in the bible&quot; etc. All of this stems from what must be a drug induced notion that the bible has been untouched by the base wants and desires of man. Why can't people accept reality? just as churches have not gone unscathed by man, neither has the bible. It is so simple to do, if it does not feel right (whichever scripture you read) then pray on it, if it still does not feel right after praying on it then reject it. Don't just take it as God's word just because it's written down on a piece of paper, if it really is God's work then it WILL feel right, if it doesen't then it's not.
 

Wangel

Banned
Mar 30, 2000
1,491
0
0
The bible is not meant to be interpretted literally. Neither is Edgar Alan Poe! Quote the raven nevermore!
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
<< The bible is not meant to be interpretted literally >>

I might agree with the above if you drop the word &quot;literally&quot;. :)
 

Regine

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2000
3,668
0
0
Hey, I like Poe!!! ;)

And when will people learn that we can't have a civilized conversation over politics or religion in here? :p
 

jaydee

Diamond Member
May 6, 2000
4,491
2
81
Just because its taken from the same Bible doesn't mean squat. Anything but the KJV, is a bad translation. NKJV is allright as well. I can believe the people who actually think there are contradictions. Guess some people just can't face the reality that they are sinners and are subject to take the consequences for there actions. There are no contradictions. Just some fools mis-interpretations. And yes it can be taken literally. Its historically backed up.
Bible skeptics should read Job 38:24. It states (NKJV): &quot;By what way is light diffused, or the east wind scattered over the earth?&quot;
Gee, scientists didn't figure out that light caused the wind until about 150 years ago. And this book was written thousands of years ago? I guess the Author of that book knows what he's talking about after all!
 

Regine

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2000
3,668
0
0
Then how do you explain the fact that many cultures have a story about a great flood among their legends? If the bible is right, shouldn't only the followers of god have survived?
 

Athanasius

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
975
0
0
eia430:

I don't want this to turn into a &quot;bash thread&quot; anymore than anyone else. Nor am I interested in debating every potential biblical self-contradiction with people who perhaps don't agree with or are not interested with the spirit of the Bible itself. But the apparent contradiction that you sight between Genesis 1:25-26 and Genesis 2:18-19 is a shallow attempt to set aside the biblical writings without a more honest and thorough explanation.

People act like the ancient Hebrews were stupid. If the ancient Hebrews had such an obvious contradiction in what they obviously viewed as their &quot;sacred writings,&quot; you would think there would be evidence that they had &quot;covered it up&quot; by editing the text hundreds of years ago. But no such evidence exists, because no such editing occurred (at least in this case), because there is no contradiction in the Hebrew text.

The Hebrew verb translated &quot;formed&quot; by the KJV is the word &quot;yatsar.&quot; It means &quot;to fashion or shape out of pre-existing materials.&quot; In its participial form, the Hebrew word is sometimes trnaslated &quot;potter.&quot; In Genesis 2:19, the Hebrew word is in an qal imperfect tense. Any respectable Hebrew grammar book will inform the reader that a qal imperfect tense means that the action is being viewed as one part of an entire event or situation. In other words, the text is emphasizing that God formed the animals. It is not making a statement about when He did it. It is answering the question &quot;Who?&quot; Not the question &quot;When?&quot; The imperfect aspect means that, since the action being described is only viewing it as part of the whole, it never takes into account whether the event has been completed or not. In fact, the Hebrew imperfect tense is often translated by the English future tense.

So how do we know whether Genesis 2:18-19 is referring to a past, a present, or a future creation of animals? Not by the tense of the verb &quot;formed&quot; but by the greater context. While this particular case might be confusing to modern English readers, it was not confusing, and certainly not contradictory, to the original Hebrew readers. The NIV version helps in this case by trnslating the KJV &quot;formed&quot; with the NIV &quot;had formed.&quot; In this case, adding the word &quot;had&quot; is an entirely appopriate translation and helps bridge the gap between ancient Hebrew and modern English. Still, the greater context makes it clear that the ancient Hebrews viewed animals as having existed before man did.

 

IronMike

Senior member
Jun 24, 2000
356
0
0


<< People who interpret the Bible literally are being silly >>


Slight understatement.

Some of the authors of this wonderful guide filled with beautiful allegories would crap themselves if they knew mankind, after thousands of years, was no further along than taking theses stories literally.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,667
5,989
126
beyond the fact that there is an overall meaning and its a pretty good one, new testament especially. i think the old testament was kept around more as a &quot;how we got here&quot; type bit, since Jesus is much nicer than God in the old testament. the romans figured Jesus was a new god to save the Jews from the old God, when it is taught that They are one in the same God.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY