Contridictions in the Bible

[Man-ofGod]

That answered precisely zero of my questions, and the last quote you gave says "eastward in Eden", not outside, like you claimed. Could you please address the questions I asked you.

I will try again, its really not that complicated.  Question was does GE 1 in which God creates man after he creates everything else, contradict GE 2 which it would appear he creates man and then everything else after?  The answer is GE 1, GE 2: 1-7 is outside the garden and refers to creation week, GE 2 8 is the creation of the garden and everything that happens thereafter is inside that garden, I never said inside or outside of Eden.  

If case you haven't noticed, the earth is not completely leveled out. Also, the bible specifically says that the water was above the highest mountain. So this may be interesting, but irrelevant. If things were not the way that they are but some different way, then anything is true. If I were small enough, then I could ride mice! Doesn't change the fact that I can't ride mice without a change to the state of affairs of the world, and it doesn't change the fact that there isn't nearly enough water to flood the entire planet without a change to the state of affairs of the planet.

First of all,  your statement was implying that it was impossible that we ever had a global flood.  This shows that it was not impossible, although the theory in Encyclopedia Britannica is not the theory I subscribe to.  Secondly, go back to your basics and read about what evolution says in relation to how the earth was created.  What does cosmic evolution say about torrential rain or about how water even arrived to this planet?  I think that theory takes more faith then anything else I ever encountered.  If I was going to call anything impossible, I would definitely put that towards the top of the list.

The "kinds" argument is irrelevant, and absurd, even considering that there are still hundreds of thousands of "kinds", and the food to feed them would still be impossible to fit on any boat, but the flood supposedly took place only four thousand years ago, it is completely absurd to say that they all speciated within that time to the millions of species today.

I see you have not considered the "other side" of the story.  

"
Based on my own biological research into created kinds, I would be even bolder than Nelson. Over the past decade, I have worked to develop new methods of studying created kinds using statistics.8 This research is still very new and preliminary, but a pattern is beginning to emerge. For land animals and birds, the created kind most often corresponds to the conventional classification rank called “family,” which includes many species. There is evidence that the camel, horse, cat, dog, penguin, and iguana families are each a created kind.9 Like Nelson, I would put the coyote, wolf, jackal, and dog in the same kind, and I would include the fox. I would put the lion and house cat in another kind, and the llama and camel in yet another kind. Today these species (i.e., llama and camel) look amazingly different, but they seem to have been generated after the Flood from information already present within their parent kind. Lions, coyotes, and dromedary camels were probably not on the Ark but were born to parents within the cat, dog, and camel kinds.

How many animals were on Noah’s Ark? If created kinds really are families, as few as 2,000 individual animals might have been on the Ark.10 There were probably a bit more than that since the clean animals came in by sevens. Whatever the exact number, though, there would have been plenty of room to house these and their food, plus Noah and his family. Caring for these animals for a year would have been difficult but not impossible."

You also ignored my point on marine life.

You assume incorrectly that every fish died. If there was a flood, wouldn't you see fossilized fish? That is exactly what we see today.  Answer this, how long can a fish be dead before it becomes fossilized?

You just got done doing it. You implied that the whole surface of the planet was leveled out -- ergo, a miracle.

See previous note on the flood.

That the bible is true. You said that you already have to believe that the bible is true in order to believe that the flood happened. Thus, you need to beg the question.

My implication actually is that since you been indoctrinated into a world belief that runs counter to biblical belief,  the odds are very low of convincing you of a worldwide flood regardless of the facts I present.  If the Bible didn't exist, I suspect a worldwide flood would not be that hard of a doctrine to accept since it makes the most geological sense.

That creationisms new face is at least progressing. I figured since every point I made is countered by just saying how biased, and unaccepting I am that you would perhaps respond better to pointing to people that are closer to your views, perhaps they would be more apt to talk some sense into you. If you have already decided that everything I say is worthless, maybe it would help to point to other people.

I actually appreciate that.  I do know of ID, but I do not follow there movement. And if I did, I still wouldn't take everything they say as gold. Interesting though how many evolutionist make a big deal of ID. Not everyone in ID is Christian, yet many evolutionist refuse to believe this.  They just cannot comprehend how someone that is non-Christian be involved in a movement like ID. "They must be stupid." Its beyond their imagination.  "Evolution is fact, not theory."  Ever hear that one before? ;-)

Of course my mind is made up. Isn't yours? You just got done saying you were a YEC, not an agnostic, you very much hold a position. What is your point?

You shouldn't wait to be "corrected", you should actually look into things yourself.

My mind is definitely in the Christian camp since I already researched both sides.  I mentioned in the previous post that I filter the world through the Christian lens.  Previously, however, I filtered the world though the Atheist lens.  Never thought in my wildest dreams that I would be a Christian.  3 years ago, I would have agreed with most of what you said.  Funny how that works out.

Finally, when I said corrected, I was referring specifically to your "mind being made up."  Thanks for listening, its hard to set a friendly tone on a message board.  So I hope I do not come across as too much of a troll.

[Man-ofGod]

Okay.  Please post or present this authentication... I'll take just 10 if that's okay.  I don't need a million.  And I'd like these to be scientific tests, not those presented by CARM or other religious websites who have an agenda to present.  I'd like to see unbiased, scientific, peer-reviewed and researched proof that the bible is truth.

Thanks for your inquiry.  I just want a little more clarity of what your asking.  You want proof that the Bible is historically accurate?  And how do you want me to present this information?  What  sources are you willing to accept as valid? Anything or anyone in specific?  Is not telling you the results of the evidence acceptable or do you want to see artifact?  Would the history channel be valid or do you want to see the actual scientific papers in established scientific journals.  Are sources from Israelis Antiquities Authorities valid even though there respected in Archeological circles or do you need something else?  Let me know your standard and ask yourself if you put your current beliefs under the same standard.  Thanks.

And why, for the sake of argument, is the Odyssey any less "truthful" than the bible?  Have you met the author or anyone who knew him to know for sure?

Why would I need to have met the author to know that.  That is not archeological method for studying the accuracies of any historical document.

[Ihateyoumike]

Thanks for the good laugh Man-ofGod. I needed that.

[Man-ofGod]

Thanks for the good laugh Man-ofGod. I needed that.

With out trying to insult me personally, tell me whats funny?

[Whitney]

Thanks for your inquiry.  I just want a little more clarity of what your asking.  You want proof that the Bible is historically accurate?  And how do you want me to present this information?  What  sources are you willing to accept as valid? Anything or anyone in specific?  Is not telling you the results of the evidence acceptable or do you want to see artifact?  Would the history channel be valid or do you want to see the actual scientific papers in established scientific journals.  Are sources from Israelis Antiquities Authorities valid even though there respected in Archeological circles or do you need something else?  Let me know your standard and ask yourself if you put your current beliefs under the same standard.  Thanks.

I underlined what I would consider valid.  Any reputable archeologist will publish their findings in a peer reviewed journal.

Btw, just because parts of the Bible are historically accurate doesn't mean the Bible is historically accurate.  Many ancient myths contain some historically accurate information.

[Man-ofGod]

Thanks for your inquiry.  I just want a little more clarity of what your asking.  You want proof that the Bible is historically accurate?  And how do you want me to present this information?  What  sources are you willing to accept as valid? Anything or anyone in specific?  Is not telling you the results of the evidence acceptable or do you want to see artifact?  Would the history channel be valid or do you want to see the actual scientific papers in established scientific journals.  Are sources from Israelis Antiquities Authorities valid even though there respected in Archeological circles or do you need something else?  Let me know your standard and ask yourself if you put your current beliefs under the same standard.  Thanks.

I underlined what I would consider valid.  Any reputable archeologist will publish their findings in a peer reviewed journal.

Btw, just because parts of the Bible are historically accurate doesn't mean the Bible is historically accurate.  Many ancient myths contain some historically accurate information.

Yes, but are there living descendents of these ancient myths that subscribe to the truths contained therein?

[joeactor]

Yes, but are there living descendents of these ancient myths that subscribe to the truths contained therein?

Yes.  I'm one of them.

In the Iliad and the Odyssey, Homer mentions Phoenicia.

I am Lebanese, and the Phoenicians are my direct ancestors.

That doesn't make the Odyssey an historical document.

[Ihateyoumike]

With out trying to insult me personally, tell me whats funny?

Couldn't do it without insulting your ideas, which in turn would insult you for believing in those ideas. I don't feel like insulting you personally since you are going about this discussion in a respectful manner, and I want to show you a level of respect which many religious fundies do not deserve from me.

That being said, I find all of your ideas humorous. Just about as funny as I would find a scientologist coming in here trying to explain why they are right. Just about as funny as someone who came in here trying to tell me the world was flat. Just as funny as someone telling me Elvis is still alive.To me they are all at the same level of ridiculousness, and I get a kick out of people who not only believe them, but try to talk others into believing them as well.

[Whitney]

Yes, but are there living descendents of these ancient myths that subscribe to the truths contained therein?

You are moving the goal posts.  But yes, some of these ancient myths are still followed (yours included).

[curiosityandthecat]

That being said, I find all of your ideas humorous. Just about as funny as I would find a scientologist coming in here trying to explain why they are right. Just about as funny as someone who came in here trying to tell me the world was flat. Just as funny as someone telling me Elvis is still alive.To me they are all at the same level of ridiculousness, and I get a kick out of people who not only believe them, but try to talk others into believing them as well.

Yep.

People forget that popularity does not denote correctness. Just because a billion people believe it doesn't make it any more true. Hell, have you seen how many people like American Idol? I rest my case.

[Man-ofGod]

Yes, but are there living descendents of these ancient myths that subscribe to the truths contained therein?

Yes.  I'm one of them.

In the Iliad and the Odyssey, Homer mentions Phoenicia.

I am Lebanese, and the Phoenicians are my direct ancestors.

That doesn't make the Odyssey an historical document.

Now if you said the Phoencians were some of the inspired writers of the text and that the decedents, in this case the Lebanese, were the result of a movement that occurred in those days, then Homers writings would be worth a second look.  But unfortunately, there are two problems with Homers writings:  It is not a valid archeological source, and has never had a movement directly tied to his writings that with stood the test of times.  Finally, some people forget to use common sense when it comes to the Bible, what would inspire 40 different authors to write 66 different books?  Add into the mix that the Bible can get pretty boring especially when you read the book of Numbers (so its not for entertainment).  What would inspire someone to write a whole chapter about genealogy and naming the members of the tribes of Israel.

Point is, you have archeological evidence and a movement tied into the contents of scripture, that both testify to its validity.  Finally, the Odyssey does not claim to be the truth that all should follow.  This last point may sound minor but its important.  The authors of the Bible is asking its readers to believe its contents.  Yet why would a book of fiction do this?

[Man-ofGod]

People forget that popularity does not denote correctness. Just because a billion people believe it doesn't make it any more true. Hell, have you seen how many people like American Idol? I rest my case.

And that is not what makes the Bible true.  Its true on its own merits.  Now apply your same philosophy to evolution.  Just because a million people believe its true, doesn't make it any more true.

[Hitsumei]

I will try again, its really not that complicated.  Question was does GE 1 in which God creates man after he creates everything else, contradict GE 2 which it would appear he creates man and then everything else after?  The answer is GE 1, GE 2: 1-7 is outside the garden and refers to creation week, GE 2 8 is the creation of the garden and everything that happens thereafter is inside that garden, I never said inside or outside of Eden.

You again have not answered my questions, you have merely reiterated your original assertion. Read the post I first addressed to you to see the specific questions I asked you.

First of all,  your statement was implying that it was impossible that we ever had a global flood.

It is. At no time was the earth ever leveled off. It is also impossible for me to ride mice, despite the fact that if I were a difference size I could.

Secondly, go back to your basics and read about what evolution says in relation to how the earth was created.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how the earth formed. Not even knowing this shows a staggering ignorance of evolutionary theory.

What does cosmic evolution say about torrential rain or about how water even arrived to this planet?

The water cycle There are a few ideas about how the liquid water came about

I think that theory takes more faith then anything else I ever encountered.  If I was going to call anything impossible, I would definitely put that towards the top of the list.

I think I'll go with the opinions of the relevant experts, over a completely unsupported assertion by a layman.  

I see you have not considered the "other side" of the story.

I just outlined it. I could not have done that if I hadn't known about it, or considered it.

Based on my own biological research into created kinds, I would be even bolder than Nelson. Over the past decade, I have worked to develop new methods of studying created kinds using statistics.8 This research is still very new and preliminary, but a pattern is beginning to emerge. For land animals and birds, the created kind most often corresponds to the conventional classification rank called “family,” which includes many species.

I'm well aware what creationists mean by "kinds". However you do realize that if you accept that species change over time, and speciate into related species, then you accept that evolution occurred. You previously implied that you thought that evolution entailed explaining the entire universe or something earlier, when it does not. Darwin wrote "on the origin of species", not "on the original of everything".

There is evidence that the camel, horse, cat, dog, penguin, and iguana families are each a created kind.

Where?

9 Like Nelson, I would put the coyote, wolf, jackal, and dog in the same kind, and I would include the fox. I would put the lion and house cat in another kind, and the llama and camel in yet another kind. Today these species (i.e., llama and camel) look amazingly different, but they seem to have been generated after the Flood from information already present within their parent kind.

On what basis does it "seem" this way? Just a gut feeling? Your gut feelings are not arguments.

How many animals were on Noah’s Ark? If created kinds really are families, as few as 2,000 individual animals might have been on the Ark.

You think that there are only a thousand animal families? There are more than you see on old Mc"Donald's farm, you do realize?

You assume incorrectly that every fish died. If there was a flood, wouldn't you see fossilized fish? That is exactly what we see today.  Answer this, how long can a fish be dead before it becomes fossilized?

99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct, there isn't enough room on the planet to house even remotely that size of a biosphere. That is why there are so many fossils. It only takes a few decades for something to fossilize. What's your point? I certainly hope you are not implying that because it only takes a few decades for something to fossilize that all of the fossils we have are only a few decades old... That would be a huge non sequitur. That is tantamount to asking how long it takes a person to grow up, and then asserting that everyone who has ever lived was that age.  

See previous note on the flood.

What note? Where have you explained how the entire earth could have become flooded without invoking a miracle? I didn't catch that.

If the Bible didn't exist, I suspect a worldwide flood would not be that hard of a doctrine to accept since it makes the most geological sense.

The entire body of the geological sciences disagrees with you, but I'm sure they're just too biased and arrogant to see the light.

I actually appreciate that.  I do know of ID, but I do not follow there movement. And if I did, I still wouldn't take everything they say as gold. Interesting though how many evolutionist make a big deal of ID. Not everyone in ID is Christian, yet many evolutionist refuse to believe this.  

They're all religious. They all are members of a religious group that promotes some form of creationism, and personally think that it was their specific god that created it all. Though that isn't directly relevant to their arguments. Arguments need to be addressed, not people.

They just cannot comprehend how someone that is non-Christian be involved in a movement like ID. "They must be stupid." Its beyond their imagination.  "Evolution is fact, not theory."  Ever hear that one before? ;-)

Evolution is fact, Darwinism is theory. Evolutionary theory encompasses the process, not the occurrence, this is a common misconception. Just as gravitational theory attempts to explain gravity, gravity itself is not a theory. Theories are explanations for observed phenomena, evolution is such an observed phenomena, and evolutionary theory is the explanation for it.

A rudimentary understanding of what a "scientific theory" is reveals this. This misunderstanding is normally followed by talking about scientific laws, and the misapprehension that they are senior to theories, when actually scientific theories are senior to laws. Theory is the highest level of scientific achievement.

A rather simple obfuscation of "theory" with the colloquial term leaves many in confusion.

My mind is definitely in the Christian camp since I already researched both sides.  I mentioned in the previous post that I filter the world through the Christian lens.  Previously, however, I filtered the world though the Atheist lens.  Never thought in my wildest dreams that I would be a Christian.  3 years ago, I would have agreed with most of what you said.  Funny how that works out.

Well, I am not an atheist, you should really check out people's "world view" things by their names. I filter things through a scientific, and philosophical lens, and subscribe to no metaphysical positions. I'm in no one's camp.

Finally, when I said corrected, I was referring specifically to your "mind being made up."  Thanks for listening, its hard to set a friendly tone on a message board.  So I hope I do not come across as too much of a troll.

The constant ad hominem are annoying, I would prefer it if you addressed the points I made specifically, and refrained from saying anything at all about me personally, I am not relevant to the topic at hand. Saying "you're just biased and close-minded" over and over again is not an intellectual objection to anything I say.

[Man-ofGod]

With out trying to insult me personally, tell me whats funny?

Couldn't do it without insulting your ideas, which in turn would insult you for believing in those ideas. I don't feel like insulting you personally since you are going about this discussion in a respectful manner, and I want to show you a level of respect which many religious fundies do not deserve from me.

That being said, I find all of your ideas humorous. Just about as funny as I would find a scientologist coming in here trying to explain why they are right. Just about as funny as someone who came in here trying to tell me the world was flat. Just as funny as someone telling me Elvis is still alive.To me they are all at the same level of ridiculousness, and I get a kick out of people who not only believe them, but try to talk others into believing them as well.

Appreciate it.  

I know exactly what your talking about.  Thats why I never thought I would be on the other side of the conversation.  BTW, whats funny is that the world being flat was the science of that day. Based on observable evidence (uniformitarianism), a flat world made sense.  Christopher Columbus was off his bonkers with his ideas at the time.  In hind site, we know he was right. Today, it is no different.  Evolution is the science of the day, and everyone thinks they can explain the origins of the universe on what we can observe today.  Or they admit that they cant, but there like "go with it", its better then using the Bible. Anything but the bible is acceptable.  Remember that when you read a scientific article whose evidence appears it could fit in a theory that supports scripture but then goes off into the opposite direction.

Isaiah 55:9
“ For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

FYI, I am not quoting this to be arrogant.  Bear w/ me here, I just wanted to point out that if there is an all knowing God, His thoughts are way above our comprehension.  Our knowledge is nothing in comparison.  Furthermore, our wisdom is foolish to Him. The only one that can be uniformatarian and be 100% accurate, is God himself.  Anyways, again, thanks for listening to my rhetoric.

[curiosityandthecat]

Oops, I said I wouldn't comment.  



...circular logic! *flee*