Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I haven't actually read any of these, however, they serve to prove the point, being that there are quite a few people in the world that feel that there are inconsistencies in the bible.
I checked the first link and cracked up laughing:
"
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
"
This assumes the only source of light is the sun. Which it isn't, God's a source of light as well.
And besides the "light" God created was just energy, not literal light.
So it was the creation of physics.
Please EE if you're going to try and link dump check them out first.
All the rest of the quotes are the same, they're either taken out of context, or they're misconstrued.
Nice try.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Read what eternalman wrote on your "argumentation" of sorts. He also believes in god if I'm not mistaken btw so it's not really about taking sides or making myself feel more right or wrong.
Regardless if eternalman claims to believe in God or not, that doesn't make his statements anymore or less valid.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Not only this is an incredibly ridiculous and ignorant thing to say, this is also insulting to anyone who follows a different faith from yours. Just let me tell you, you're wrong.
Actually I'm not wrong.
No other faith in the world can prove themselves, and they know it.
If you think I'm wrong please name another faith and prove it's true.
Give me an hour to talk with anyone and they'll be on God's side.
Trust me, I do it all the time, and our church is growing rapidly.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Didn't god create earth ? Didn't he create us humans ?
Do I really need to quote the bible, aren't these passages well known enough ?
Of course he did, but that's not what you were misquoting, so please next time you feel like mentioning something from the Bible quote it too so people will believe your statement.
Otherwise you could just be making it up, which you did.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look I've mentioned quite a few inconsistencies, you either can't see them or you don't want to.
As for sodom and gommorrah, you still insist that everyone in those two cities used to burn babies ?
No you haven't, your so called "inconsistencies" are misquotes, so as I said before quote the Bible and give me chapter and verse if you want your argument to hold any weight.
And yes, everyone in those cites were required to burn their first born baby because it was their government sanctioned religion, but God stopped it.
Not only that but if the parents showed any kind of remorse they had to sacrifice their 2nd born and so on. This isn't from the Bible, this is from archeology of cities in that region.
It's also in the Bible in the book of Leviticus as well.
"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD." - Leviticus 18:21
A few more lines down it says this:
"(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled" - Leviticus 18:27
If you read the whole section it names to the tee everything wrong the nations in that area did, and it lines up completely with archeology.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Evolution doesn't prove how everything was created, it just proves we evolved from other species.
That's right! Good you're going in the right direction.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Therefore god didn't create us, and adam and eve never existed.
You just said that evolution doesn't prove how everything was created, so you contradicted yourself.
Nothing in this world can go from low complexity to high complexity on it's own.
It needs an input of energy and a mechanism for channeling that energy to be used constructively.
Not only does this violate the second law of thermodynamics, but it also violates logical thinking.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look And it's not just a theory, it's a fact.
It is a theory, although people like you wish it were true.
It's a "beautiful lie" to those who need an alternative to God.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Are you sure ?
Yes I'm sure. The Earth is obviously not flat, so the Bible wouldn't say that, and as suspected it doesn't.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
None of these scriptures say that the Earth is flat, so you misquoted as always when you said:
Originally Posted by Johnny Look ... i.e god creating earth flat and immovable, god creating earth in 7 days etc...
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Actually, the knowledge that the Earth was spherical only became widespread in the rest of the world by 300 a.c
Early christians for instance didn't accept that theory and it took several centuries before it became widely accepted.
You might be right about this, but it doesn't prove a thing.
Especially since the Bible doesn't say it.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Then there's this:
"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, ..." -Isaiah 40:22
Circle, not sphere- therefore flat.
The imagery is all that's important, God "sitting" is anthropomorphic, not literal.
The very fact that the word "circle" is used should tell you something.
If it said square or any other shape I might be inclined to believe you,
but regardless the Bible never says the Earth is flat so your argument is invalid.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Your theory being, I hate god and everything related to him and I don't believe because I don't want to even though I know he exists.
Shows how much you know about me and my past. If you make a site search I'm sure you can find the last big thread we had here on religion and perhaps you'll be surprised to see in which side I was.
I don't remember what side you took, so what happened? Did someone in church hurt your feelings?
Originally Posted by Johnny Look None of what you wrote in there made sense.
Don't you wish, lol.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Earth took about 15 million years to be created, not 7 days.
Did it take 15 million years to form? Or was it created instantly as a 15 million year old Earth?
(If the Earth is even that old in the first place, science can't prove it based on present evidence alone,
to make that assumption would require that the conditions of the current Earth is the same as it was 15 million years ago,
and you know as well as I do that it's impossible to know for sure)
Originally Posted by Johnny Look They found the ruins of all the other cities, except sodom and gommorrah. Sodom and gommorrah were the exception because they probably never existed in the first place.
Seriously, just read what's on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Historicity
Ohh, it's on wikipedia! It must be right!
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Perhaps not the best source of reliable information in the world, but I looked everywhere and none of the articles and sites I found conflict with what's in there.
Prolly because it isn't true, and someone like you made it up.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look From what we know, everything started with the big bang; physics, matter, etc..
We don't know that, it can't be proven. Nor will it be.
Not only that but the idea of a big bang has already been proven false,
the universe is accelerating not slowing down as the big bang theory suggests.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
I don't think that necessarily says the earth is flat, sounds more to me that it suggests the earth is stationary, which of course is also false. How about this though?
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matthew 4:8 (KJV)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I haven't actually read any of these, however, they serve to prove the point, being that there are quite a few people in the world that feel that there are inconsistencies in the bible.
I checked the first link and cracked up laughing:
"
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
"
This assumes the only source of light is the sun. Which it isn't, God's a source of light as well.
And besides the "light" God created was just energy, not literal light.
So it was the creation of physics.
Please EE if you're going to try and link dump check them out first.
All the rest of the quotes are the same, they're either taken out of context, or they're misconstrued.
Nice try.
I see now that you are actually as unintelligent as you appear.
You can't discuss. You don't understand the concepts of interaction between people.
You make me very upset with your ever-present "I-have-to-twist-their-words-since-I-can't-hold-up-to-the-actual-argument"-ways of replying. Your patronizing, extreeeeeeemely-holier-than-thou approach to this is repulsive.
Of course, you don't understand what I mean. You actually believe that your way of discussing is correct, and that you inhabit some sort of universal truth that is applicable, and also must be applied(perhaps you'll go to hell otherwise? Go ask your minister), to everyone who wants to share their thoughts on belief in this forum.
1. As you can see in your own reply, I said I hadn't read them, cause their contents wasn't the issue or point to be proven. However, seeing as your distasteful ways of trying to display yourself in 'God's white gleam' would be erradicated by actually focusing on my actual meaning, you simply didn't. Instead, you take one example, give YOUR opinion on it, then re-impose your opinion on it by claiming God to be a lamp, topping it off with your blessed assurance that EVERY quote in those links are "the same", i.e not subjecting to YOUR opinion of thought. Effectively having it so, that any person casually just visiting this thread and simply going to the last page(since no one is interested in reading UrbanMonk's wall-o'-magic that has imposed itself on this once fruitful thread for sharing thought) is at risk of believing your sad reply to hold weight, when it in fact, is as paper-thin as your arguments, which leads me to my second point.
2. The contents of the links was not of importance, my post served to prove the point that A WHOLE LOT of people in the world see inconsistencies in the Bible. What that really means is that there are, for those people, inconsistencies in the Bible. And since those people(for example including the church and all respectable religious scholars) can claim an absolute majority over the boastful dimwit's who actually believe that there aren't(i.e you for one), it is safe to say the following:
The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies.
The majority of your actual species agree on this. Do you see how dumb it looks to claim them to be ignorant and wrong because you and your church think otherwise?
No sane person tries to claim that the Bible, read in it's context(i.e historical books being historical books), is true to fact and can be interpreted literally. Because it cannot. Simple as that.
I don't need to quote anything to prove it, since my opinion is with the scholars and the majority of the world.
Your argument however, needs only ONE inconsistency to crumble like an old cracker.
And since there are [insert shitload of numbers here] inconsistencies to be found that anyone(meaning the extreme majority) can agree upon, you only portrait yourself as a lunatic.
Now, to sum it up.
The Bible is great.
But you can't go around reading it like a scientific report, cause it isn't one.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Read what eternalman wrote on your "argumentation" of sorts. He also believes in god if I'm not mistaken btw so it's not really about taking sides or making myself feel more right or wrong.
Regardless if eternalman claims to believe in God or not, that doesn't make his statements anymore or less valid.
And just to point it out to you again, you can't read.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I see now that you are actually as unintelligent as you appear.
Oh my, another insult. Everything else you say must be right!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You can't discuss. You don't understand the concepts of interaction between people.
um what?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You make me very upset with your ever-present "I-have-to-twist-their-words-since-I-can't-hold-up-to-the-actual-argument"-ways of replying.
I haven't twisted anyone's words.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Your patronizing, extreeeeeeemely-holier-than-thou approach to this is repulsive.
I'm not any better than anyone else, nor have I implied as such.
You're just mad because you're wrong.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Of course, you don't understand what I mean. You actually believe that your way of discussing is correct
So what? Are you saying I have to discuss this by your rules? lol
You're basicly saying as long as I don't agree with you I'm "wrong." That's pretty funny, I'd say you're effectively "grasping at straws."
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] 1. As you can see in your own reply, I said I hadn't read them...
That much was evident. Please read them next time.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] 2. The contents of the links was not of importance, my post served to prove the point that A WHOLE LOT of people in the world see inconsistencies in the Bible...
I don't care if everyone in the world feels this way, it doesn't mean it's true. Nor is it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies.
No it isn't. Please point one out. If it's "riddled" with them it should be east to find right?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] No sane person tries to claim that the Bible, read in it's context(i.e historical books being historical books), is true to fact and can be interpreted literally. Because it cannot. Simple as that.
I don't need to quote anything to prove it, since my opinion is with the scholars and the majority of the world.
Every sane person knows that the Bible (read in it's context) is true, and history and science proves it.
And of course you won't try to prove it because you can't. "Simple as that" as you like to say.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Your argument however, needs only ONE inconsistency to crumble like an old cracker.
I agree, go ahead point out that inconsistency. One that's undeniable.
I love how you prove all of my points with your reply. <3
But just to humour you, I'll give you four!
(First off though, definition)
Pronunciation:/ɪnkənˈsɪst(ənsi/noun (plural inconsistencies)
[mass noun]
the fact or state of being inconsistent:
the inconsistency between his expressed attitudes and his actual behaviour[count noun] an inconsistent aspect or element:
a book riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions
(By the by, these are all from King James version)
Deuteronomy 6:5
5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deuteronomy 6:13
13Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
1 John 4:18
18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
We shall love God, but also fear him, but there is no fear in love..?
Proverbs 30:5
5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Ezekiel 14:9
9And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Every word of God is pure, but God also decieves and lies..?
Genesis 4:4-5
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
2 Chronicles 19:7
7Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.
Abel vs. Cain: 1-0, even though God doesn't deal in respect and weighing of gifts..?
Genesis 11:7-9
7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Proverbs 6:16-19
16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
God hates "he that soweth discord among brethren", but as long as it's God it's ok then..?
Now, of course you'll answer this 'with all ye might and smite me down' with contexts and such-if's and what-not's. However, you do have to realize that all you will be giving me is an interpretetation of the inconsistencies, you won't change the fact that they are inconsistencies. If they weren't, you wouldn't need to hand me an interpretation, we could just read it of the bat.
I must admit that when I saw your well thought out post I got excited!
Thank you so much!
The main reason I'm discussing this here is so people like you can give me really good arguments against my faith, that way I can "sharpen my sword" so to speak.
Now lets do this!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Now, of course you'll answer this 'with all ye might and smite me down' with contexts and such-if's and what-not's. However, you do have to realize that all you will be giving me is an interpretetation[sic] of the inconsistencies, you won't change the fact that they are inconsistencies. If they weren't, you wouldn't need to hand me an interpretation, we could just read it of the bat.
First you'll notice I quoted your "prediction" about my next move, so I'll address this first:
Ok, I'll play by this, I won't give you an interpretation, rather I'll give you what the original text says (Hebrew and Greek) rather than the English translation.
You are right, in these cases we can't just read it in English and accept it's direct meaning at face value. We've got to check the original Hebrew and Greek words and make sure there aren't multiple versions of each word that was translated into English.
So in your first comparison:
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Deuteronomy 6:5
5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deuteronomy 6:13
13Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
1 John 4:18
18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
We shall love God, but also fear him, but there is no fear in love..?
First you should know that there are multiple words in Hebrew that translate to "fear" in English because there isn't an English equivalent.
The would fear used here in Deuteronomy in the Hebrew is "yirah" which means respect or reverence, not terror.
http://yirah.com/ <- found through a google search, funny!
Therefore 1 John 4:18 isn't in conflict since it's talking about a different type of fear.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Proverbs 30:5
5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Ezekiel 14:9
9And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Every word of God is pure, but God also decieves and lies..?
So yes, God "lies" but he's sending a deceiving spirit, or allowing a deceiving spirit much like he allowed Satan to curse Job in the Book of Job.
Not lying himself.
So nope, these aren't in conflict either.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Genesis 4:4-5
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
2 Chronicles 19:7
7Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.
Abel vs. Cain: 1-0, even though God doesn't deal in respect and weighing of gifts..?
In Genesis these "gifts" (The word gift isn't used, but that's stretching it) are used for a specific purpose, the atonement of sins.
So no, God would not accept Cain's gift since blood needed to be shed in order to roll back his sins.
However you know as well as I do that this is no longer required since Jesus died on the cross, so all that's required now is to ask for forgiveness when you pray.
This is not a "interpretation" this is looking at the scripture in context, and it's very clear that there was a purpose for their sacrifice by reading the whole book of Genesis.
It's not ambiguous.
So the "gifts" talked about aren't the same, so therefore these scriptures aren't in conflict.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Genesis 11:7-9
7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Proverbs 6:16-19
16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
God hates "he that soweth discord among brethren", but as long as it's God it's ok then..?
Yes, actually. If it's God he can do whatever he wants. This isn't a conflict in scripture, it's a conflict of interests on your part. lol
Sorry couldn't help it.
But truly, those spoke about in Proverbs was meant for man. There are lots of commandments for man in the Bible that couldn't apply to God, and this is in every religion, it's not just unique to the Bible in this case.
Thanks so much for your well thought out reply,
I honestly had never seen some of those comparisons besides the first one.
The first one you mentioned is rather popular among atheists, at least at my school. lol
I stated a definiton of what I was about to point out, inconsistencies. Passages do not need to be in direct conflict or self-contradictory to be inconsistent. Both conflicting imagery and contradictions are indeed inconsistencies, but an inconsistency is not neccessarily a conflict or contradiction.
So my main point still stands, can you give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them "everything in here is true, science backs this up, it doesn't contain any inconsistencies at all" as you so whole-heartedily have put it to us many times in this thread?
It is also contradictory to claim the King James version as 'un-edited'(as you did earlier with quite the zeal), when you yourself point out that you have to go back to the original hebrew and greek scriptures to gain the information that should have been obtainable in the first one, seeing as it is 'un-edited'.
Secondly, I think it be quite saddening that you 'use' this thread to 'sharpen your sword', since it was meant as an open and peaceful sharing of thought, to invite everyone in this forum to give their opinion and share their beliefs. Most people steer clear of sharing very personal ideas if they are bound to be targetted as unfaithful heretics by rabid Christians. That's really why I'm upset, your opinion does not hold any weight to me, since you fubar-ed your credability quite som pages ago.
But on to your reply, the first thing I reacted towards was this:
"So yes, God "lies" but he's sending a deceiving spirit, or allowing a deceiving spirit much like he allowed Satan to curse Job in the Book of Job.
Not lying himself."
If you read more of the surrounding passages it's quite clear that there is no spirit involved, but rather God directly.
Ezekiel 14:7-10
7For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself:
8And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
9And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
10And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him;
I can't see how anyone but God is involved in this situation.
Next:
"Therefore 1 John 4:18 isn't in conflict since it's talking about a different type of fear."
Sad to say, that's beyond the point. The point was if the Bible (KJV) contained inconsistencies. Even though an earlier, more un-edited version, makes sense KJV is in fact a bible that contains inconsistencies. You agreed on your entire argument crumbling if I could find one inconsistency in the bible using KJV.
Next:
"In Genesis these "gifts" (The word gift isn't used, but that's stretching it) are used for a specific purpose, the atonement of sins.
So no, God would not accept Cain's gift since blood needed to be shed in order to roll back his sins.
[...]
So the "gifts" talked about aren't the same, so therefore these scriptures aren't in conflict."
Oh rly? One expects that such a specific purpose and modus operandi for an offering should be mentioned somewhere around the happening right?
Genesis 4:3-5
3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
As you can see, sin is not even mentioned. They are portraited as offerings to the Lord, without the specific purpose of atonement. Actually, the concept of 'sin' isn't even introduced in the Bible at this point. The first mentioning of the word 'sin' in KJV is AFTER Cain has killed Abel. So it's quite hard to picture them atoning for something that isn't yet available for them, right? Of course, they could simply be bearing gifts to God, but then it would be in conflict yet again, right? How troublesome.
And lastly:
"Yes, actually. If it's God he can do whatever he wants. This isn't a conflict in scripture, it's a conflict of interests on your part. lol
Sorry couldn't help it."
You really are treading on dangerous grounds with that statement, you shouldn't so hap-hazardly portrait God as a spoiled brat that can put his pet on fire if he wants to just because it's God.
"But truly, those spoke about in Proverbs was meant for man. There are lots of commandments for man in the Bible that couldn't apply to God, and this is in every religion, it's not just unique to the Bible in this case."
Of course, but it is indeed an inconsistency to condemn something you are doing yourself, and that was the point.
So, where we at?
Ah yes, you didn't manage to subdue any of the inconsistencies satisfactory to anyone, rather, you introduced even more inconsistencies. So here, have a cookie since your whole argument crumbled.
Actually I'm not wrong.
No other faith in the world can prove themselves, and they know it.
If you think I'm wrong please name another faith and prove it's true.
I don't really believe in any of them, but I can respect them seeing as I used to follow a religion.
You on the other hand you follow a religion but don't respect in what others believe.
Where's the proof of your god's existence ?
Give me an hour to talk with anyone and they'll be on God's side.
Trust me, I do it all the time, and our church is growing rapidly.
Let me tell you, so far you've failed miserably with any of us here. With the kind of arguments you are using, I can easily see how you could convert a weak minded or ignorant person, the same way I was taught the christian ways and beliefs as soon as I could speak.
Of course he did, but that's not what you were misquoting, so please next time you feel like mentioning something from the Bible quote it too so people will believe your statement.
Otherwise you could just be making it up, which you did.
Right, could you point out what parts of the bible did I make up ?
And yes, everyone in those cites were required to burn their first born baby because it was their government sanctioned religion, but God stopped it.
Not only that but if the parents showed any kind of remorse they had to sacrifice their 2nd born and so on. This isn't from the Bible, this is from archeology of cities in that region.
So all surviving children in the city had babies to burn ?
"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD." - Leviticus 18:21
A few more lines down it says this:
"(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled" - Leviticus 18:27
If you read the whole section it names to the tee everything wrong the nations in that area did, and it lines up completely with archeology.
I'll say it again, their neighbors habits or existence don't prove anything about the actual existence of sodom and gommorrah. Whoever wrote those parts in the bible could very well have based the story on what was going on in those cities.
That's right! Good you're going in the right direction.
LOL So adam and eve were monkeys ?
You just said that evolution doesn't prove how everything was created, so you contradicted yourself.
Nope. Read my posts again, I never said evolution explained how everything was created. It just proves how we, humans, were created.
Nothing in this world can go from low complexity to high complexity on it's own.
It needs an input of energy and a mechanism for channeling that energy to be used constructively.
And god is that energy, right ? Like you kept saying, bring the proof into the table then. Or at least a good reason to lead me to believe in that.
It is a theory, although people like you wish it were true.
It's a "beautiful lie" to those who need an alternative to God.
There is scientific evidence, it's a fact, not a theory.
You're incredible, and not in a good sense. Not only you refuse to accept facts you also think people who refuse to believe in god do it because they seek a way to disprove him. I've met a few fanatics in my lifetime, but you're in such a state that makes any sort of discussion impossible.
Yes I'm sure. The Earth is obviously not flat, so the Bible wouldn't say that, and as suspected it doesn't.
It does, I forgot to put the quotes about it:
Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. "
Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth., holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. "
Job 38:13 "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?"
Jeremiah 16:19 "O Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
Daniel 4:11 "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ends of all the earth"
I don't remember what side you took, so what happened? Did someone in church hurt your feelings?
Nope, I started to question my beliefs. Also provocation will lead you nowhere, it will only make you even look worse.
I'll talk about the other points later, I'm in a hurry right now.
It should be obvious that the Bible is speaking metephorically, Saying the Ends of the earth to imply vast distance.
also, there is a verse in the bible that says the earth is a circle.
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...
So, hundreds of years before man knew of earth's shape, the Bible said it was circular in shape.
A disc is circular too. But I suppose we can give the authors the benefit of a doubt and assume they didn't know the difference between a circle and a sphere.
Now, I'm going to bring up Matthew 4:8 again.
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matthew 4:8 (KJV)
It is impossible to see the entire surface of a sphere from a single point.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke A disc is circular too. But I suppose we can give the authors the benefit of a doubt and assume they didn't know the difference between a circle and a sphere.
Now, I'm going to bring up Matthew 4:8 again.
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matthew 4:8 (KJV)
It is impossible to see the entire surface of a sphere from a single point.
It's obvious that the bible is speaking metaphorically, and it was also an 'exceeding high mountain', who knows how far you can see from them?
Originally Posted by Phredreeke A disc is circular too. But I suppose we can give the authors the benefit of a doubt and assume they didn't know the difference between a circle and a sphere.
Now, I'm going to bring up Matthew 4:8 again.
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matthew 4:8 (KJV)
It is impossible to see the entire surface of a sphere from a single point.
It's obvious that the bible is speaking metaphorically, and it was also an 'exceeding high mountain', who knows how far you can see from them?
(note the sarcasm)
Maybe all of the kingdoms were quite close to the mountain. Or uh he sheweth'd him a map.
Advertisement
Post Reply
" - Leviticus 18:27
Edited by UrbanMonk
