quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 How on earth could the Bible, the inerrant Word of God, have word discrepancies at all? But seriously, there’s so many that I believe another thread would have to be created for this. This has been done in the past, BTW, but if you wish, feel free to start another thread. I think a good starting point, putting the difficulties of the Great Flood aside, would be to discuss the discrepancies between the historical account in Joshua vs. Judges. Occ has done a nice job with some other funny contradictions in the Bible, you can discuss them in the thread here as well: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s&pagenumber=26

Quite an interesting and entertaining thread... It's the exact point of view and attitude of a lot of creation-defenders in there that help give us a bad rep.

Although... interesting, occrider has taken every single ... yep, every one of those - completely out of context. If you want to see for yourself, copy the verse into google and it will pop up on a few "anti-creation" sites as a contridiction in the Bible - and then, of course, you'll see "pro-creation" sites that explain why it's not a contridiction. Although I admit some are interesting and thought-provoking, they are all debunkable.

quote:

But why do you intend to use the Bible as a science book when it was never intended as such?

Explain why it was never intended as such? It makes perfect sense for how I look at the world. True, it might not have the laws of gravity or quantum mechanics in it - but it tells you exactly how the world was made and how it came to be in the state it is in today.

quote:

Is that what I stated or implied? No. There are a number of scientific discoveries that has advanced our understanding greatly as a result of understanding evolution – germ theory, human genome project (actually most of genetics for that matter), accuracy of the modern-day classification system, just to name a few. So my question stands – can the same be said of creationism? Furthermore, could you foresee any scientific advancement in the future as a result of a creationist yelling, “Eureka! Godidit!”?

That's kind of a loaded question. However, since you'll take genetics, germ theory, human genome project and all the classification systems as "discoveries made in the name of evolution" - I'll take every discovery before say, 1850, and claim it in the name of religion. Since pretty much everyone was religious and believed in God (whether it's the Christian God, Buddha, Allah, whatever) before then - wouldn't it be fair to say that they all made their discoveries to find out how the world (which they believed God made and put them on) - worked.

quote:

Nothing ironic about that. What we know now, they simply didn’t know or understand then. And if you’re implying that Einstein was a creationist that was influenced by St. Thomas’ thoughts on creationism, I hope you have evidence to support that notion.

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
Albert Einstein

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Albert Einstein

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
Albert Einstein

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
Albert Einstein

(Those quotes taken a bit out of context... easy isn't it?)

quote:

quote: Seventil: I hope I don't fit into this stereotype. My perspective of life is far from the paradigm Christian outlook, or so I believe. MisterOpus1: This contradicts all evidence that you have brought forth up to this point.

I meant as the way I live my life. I do look at the world as a Christian would- but I do not consider myself a typical one, I guess. I don't go to Church, and I have issues with organized religion in general(somewhat unrelated to the topic). That's all I meant.

quote:

I do appreciate your roundness on cultural beliefs, however your arguments up to this point have been decisively Christian creationist arguments. And again my question stands, what allowed you to choose this creationist argument against evolution over other religions’ arguments?

I choose this one because it's what I believe in. I'll listen and usually be interested in any religions arguments. Including evolution.

quote:

This contradicts your notions to discredit evolutionary theory. You are attempting to give credibility to your belief system by eliminating what science has offered as a sound explanation to life. How could I think otherwise? Furthermore, I did not ask what others had stated - I asked for substantive evidence that evolution works on assumptions. This needs to be defined. The bottom line is you have not given me the “assumptions” that evolution supposedly utilizes to support itself. And just to give you a hint, it’s because there are no assumptions to begin with. There are other scientific discoveries and other research models that evolution requires in order to substantiate itself, but this is no different than any other scientific theory today. Like other sciences, evolution is built upon previous knowledge and research. If this is what you mean by “assumptions”, you’re stretching that definition out pretty darn thin – extremely thin to the point that it loses meaning.

See my above reply to tathi. I ask the same question to you:

Do we know - or assume - the past state and conditions of the universe that has led us up to modern science?

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Quite an interesting and entertaining thread... It's the exact point of view and attitude of a lot of creation-defenders in there that help give us a bad rep. Although... interesting, occrider has taken every single ... yep, every one of those - completely out of context. If you want to see for yourself, copy the verse into google and it will pop up on a few "anti-creation" sites as a contridiction in the Bible - and then, of course, you'll see "pro-creation" sites that explain why it's not a contridiction. Although I admit some are interesting and thought-provoking, they are all debunkable.

Ok let's ignore the philosophical ones about beng good, killing, etc., for the time being. Debunk the ones that go towards describing specific ages, lineage, etc. eg:

How old was Ahaziah?
II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

vs.


II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

When was Jesus crucified?

Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him."

vs.


John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him."


How many animals on the ark?

Genesis 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark."
Genesis 7:8-9 "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah."
Genesis 7:15 "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life."

vs.


Genesis 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."

Did Michal have children?

II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."

vs.


II Samuel 21:8 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul."

How many stalls did Solomon have?

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

vs.


II Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

Who was Joseph's father?

Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."

vs.


Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."


These are all fairly straightforward ...

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok let's ignore the philosophical ones about beng good, killing, etc., for the time being. Debunk the ones that go towards describing specific ages, lineage, etc. eg: How old was Ahaziah? II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." vs. II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

Hey Occ good to see ya!

The correct age of Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem is 22. 2 Kings 8:17 tells us that Ahaziah's father Joram ben Ahab was thirty-two when he became king and he died eight years later, at the age of forty. Therefore, Ahaziah could not have been forty-two at the time of his father's death at age forty." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page. 206-207.)
The discrepency in ages is due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 20 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented decades. would equal the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyri, then the dates would be off by ten years or a factor of ten.
The fact that this is a copyist error does not invalidate the inspiration or authority of Scripture. Remember, God inspired the originals. They were without error. The copies have problems, though very very few. The copies are copies of inspired documents and, unfortunately, some copyist errors did creep into the manuscripts. However, they do not affect any doctrinal areas and are very rare.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I find this statement very disturbing. I assume you mean the theory of evolution has empirical and falsifiable evidence? /rant on Are we, as humans, so egotistical and arrogant that we will assume to know the history of our world? I mean really - every single scientific principle we know - every "empirical and falsifiable evidence" that we use to prove the theory that we evolved - is assumed. For the most part, we have no idea what the world was like 200 years ago, much less 2000 years ago. That's one big and very dangerous ASSUMPTION. I mean hell - you're betting your life on it. More than your life, your the eternal state of your "soul". Isn't that something you want to be really really sure about? I mean for fucks sake - the amount of ignorance that people today seem to have on this simple fact astounds me - doesn't it seem like one hell of a gamble for no payoff? What do you gain by putting all your faith into a theory like this? A clear conscience that you don't have to follow a Diest's rules? A spiritual freedom that allows you to fuck anyone of any sex, whether married or not, with the only fear in your mind the one of man-made laws? /rant off Saying that evolution relies on empirical and falsifiable evidence pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with how people think about this. Sorry for getting in your face or anything - I think I've been quite open minded about everything - but is there really anyone - anyone? - here that truely believes that we (as a human race) are so all-knowing - that we know exactly how the universe has always been? Thinking like that is not only close-minded, but dangerous.

Your incredulity absolutely astounds me. What on earth is an assumption with the evidence we have on what the earth was like 200 years ago? Do we not at least have documentation of it? What about 2000 years ago? You have problems with these supposed "assumptions" on 2000 yr. old history, yet you seem to have little difficulty in believing a man by the name of Jesus seemingly performed miracles and died as a martyr for his faith around that same time? If you have difficulty believing in one but not the other, how do you reconcile the two?

But to go further back into history, say 10,000 yrs. or so, you seem to think that it is pure assumption that we had an ice age? Or how about 65 million yrs. ago - is this pure assumption that dinosaurs were roaming about? Are these the assumptions you are referring to? If so, let's be specific, because every question you've had thus far has been answered, and I certainly want to make sure I and others here can do our best to answer any further questions.

Are you simply stating that because no one was there, we cannot classify certain historical events as having occurred? By that logic, I believe it's safe to say that you are not alive, because you were certainly not conscious or even aware of your mother's birth, were you? How do you know that your great-grandfather was alive? What constitutes knowing historical events occur to you? (I'll give you a hint, it has to do with forensics and basic logic).

Do you believe in quantum theory? How could such an event occur if we just can't see it with our own eyes?

Do you believe in gravity? How can such an event occur even if we do not fully understand or truly know the underlying mechanism?

How about special relativity?

The methodology that went into constructing the theory of evolution is the same methodology that went into constructing the above theories. All theories in science were created using methodological naturalism. Not once has light been shed on the our investigation of the natural world by first assuming supernatural causes. Can you name one scientific discovery that relies on someone believing in a supernatural diety?

Evolution would not be a part of mainstream science if it wasn't supported by evidence. I reiterate, no faith (or what you call "assumptions") is needed here. The evidence is in the fossil record and in the DNA in your cells. Again, evolution is not assumption based, it is based on evidence. Please show me any part of the theory of evolution that is solely supported by assumptions and no evidence whatsoever. Just because you accept things on blind faith doesn't mean that science does the same thing. Again, observation is how science works, and this is no different for evolution than any other scientific theory listed above (and that list is certainly not exclusive, BTW).

You must sincerely forgive me for not taking your Bible as a very strong biological account of events. I just read through Deuteronomy, and for some reason God told people that one could judge a virgin on her wedding night if she bleeds (i.e. her hymen breaks). This is an old wives tale, because the hymen can certainly break without sex, or it certainly may not break the first time during intercourse. But it gets worse - God allows man to get out of the sanctimony of marriage and kill an innocent woman because her hymen doesn't break. Putting that obvious ethical question of sanctity of marriage aside, why should I trust a Book that has obvious biological errors? Why would you ask me to consider that over a mountain of corroborating evidence from numerous scientific fields?

BTW, why are you attempting to confuse morality issues with evolutionary theory? Whatever morality issues you have certainly has no place with evolution. Why are you mixing these two?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider When was Jesus crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." vs. John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him."

What appears to be a conflict vanishes when we consider John penned his gospel sometime between 80 and 98 AD, most likely from Ephesus where he spent many years. There is NO question that it was written from the area of Asia Minor, for gentiles, and hence reflects a Greko-Roman conception of time. Ephesus, capital of the Roman providence of Asia, operated under the Roman system of numbering time instead of the Jewish system. The Jewish time system started numbering from sunup, approximately 6 AM. Matthew, Mark and Luke used the Jewish system, and give the third hour (9 AM) for crucifixion, sixth hour (Noon) start of darkness, and the ninth hour (3 PM) for Jesus’ death. Roman time numbering started at midnight, and, when John states that Jesus was handed over to be crucified sometime after the sixth hour he is referencing Roman time, 6 AM. Clearly two and one-half hours from the time Jesus was handed over for crucifixion (after 6 AM), until the actual crucifixion (9 AM) fits the time frame perfectly.

The reason Matthew, Mark and Luke used the Jewish time system can be easily explained by the fact that while Mark probably wrote from Rome his source was Peter who used the Jewish time system. Most scholars believe Matthew and Luke used both Mark and Q as source material, which would explain why they agree with Mark.

There is no contradiction.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil There is no contradiction.

The others?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Methinks this thread is not going to last much longer unless it attracts a true fundie.

ill be the fundie,

starting out, creationism is right. (opinion) both are theories because niether can be proven "without a doubt".

ive never seen that a bacteria could evolve into the extremely complex species system that has come up today.

what could a flood so massive as so cover the highest mountain do the the climate. such asss an ICE AGE?

i believe that the earth wasnt created at the same time the universe was created (in biblical contexts).

The Beginning

Genesis
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

the heavens could certainly be just this solar system, hypothetically. think about it. when a solar system is born, it, by itself is born. not an entire universe with it. just that system is created. if u believe in god, i dont see why he would create earth with its surrounding solar system AND then the entire universe for our nightly enjoyment. there is a purpose for everything, and that wasnt it.

-----------------
genetic mutations. if anyone knows anything about genetics, they would know that inbreeding does cause genetic mutations. even though we may not realize it, we all have them. moles, birthmarks, etc. etc. from adam and eve, there could be only one way to reproduce into the next generations.

-------------------
and what of the intelligence of animals. there are very intelligent animals of this world. dogs, dolphins, apes, etc. in genesis, it is an animal, a serpent, a lizard that deceives adam and eve into eating into the fruit of the tree of knowledge. and because of that they are banished, for if they were to eat of the tree of life after that, they would live forever with their knowledge. and the serpent was forever cursed without legs to move on, and only able to strike at a mans heel, and man to smash his head. we have that serpent as the snake today, usually thought of as a vile creature with venom.

-------------------
and this starts the stories of satan and his evil. throughout the entire bible he is described as The Deciever, The Liar, The God of the World, of which is all true. he is the god of this world, and his lies resonate in every aspect of life.

John 8
43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son.

John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

-------------------------

Revelation 12:9
The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

hurled to earth from heaven, no longer to be a ruler of angels in heavens but a ruler on earth using us, deceiving us to get back at god.

Revelation 13:3
One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.

anti-christ might have been assasinated in some way, but somehow came back to life healed. and the whole world will be deceived by this as a maricle.

-------------------

the evolutionist scientists can make many hypothesis's, but were never there at the time these events took place of evolution. yet in creationism, this history was written thousands of years ago, when these events had very recently taken place in their time.

but, there were no evolutionist 5000 years ago, so accordingly, they have no basis.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Quite an interesting and entertaining thread... It's the exact point of view and attitude of a lot of creation-defenders in there that help give us a bad rep. Although... interesting, occrider has taken every single ... yep, every one of those - completely out of context. If you want to see for yourself, copy the verse into google and it will pop up on a few "anti-creation" sites as a contridiction in the Bible - and then, of course, you'll see "pro-creation" sites that explain why it's not a contridiction. Although I admit some are interesting and thought-provoking, they are all debunkable.

Rather than telling me to go do a Google search, I would appreciate the courtesy of seeing how you personally reconcile the contradictions yourself. I am not debating Google, I am debating you, sir.

quote:

Explain why it was never intended as such? It makes perfect sense for how I look at the world. True, it might not have the laws of gravity or quantum mechanics in it - but it tells you exactly how the world was made and how it came to be in the state it is in today.

What is there to explain? Tell you what, do me the courtesy and explain your 6,000 yr. earth with evidence. Explain the Flood with supporting evidence. Explain the historical contradictions between Joshua and Judges. Explain how God had gotten it so wrong about a woman's hymen in Deuteronomy. These are but a few.

Now explain why I should believe that over the overwhelming evidence with literally millions of pieces of fossilized evidence and the literally hundreds of thousands of research papers that work specifically with evolutionary theory in genetics, microbiology, comparitive anatomy and physiology, marine biology, plant biology, etc. etc. etc.

quote:

That's kind of a loaded question. However, since you'll take genetics, germ theory, human genome project and all the classification systems as "discoveries made in the name of evolution" - I'll take every discovery before say, 1850, and claim it in the name of religion.

Well it would help if you correctly quoted what I stated, which is here specifically:

quote:

There are a number of scientific discoveries that has advanced our understanding greatly as a result of understanding evolution

Quite a different statement than the one you completely distorted. But I'll bite and play along with your logic.....

quote:

Since pretty much everyone was religious and believed in God (whether it's the Christian God, Buddha, Allah, whatever) before then - wouldn't it be fair to say that they all made their discoveries to find out how the world (which they believed God made and put them on) - worked.

I did not ask what their beliefs were, I specifically asked the following:

quote:

There are a number of scientific discoveries that has advanced our understanding greatly as a result of understanding evolution – germ theory, human genome project (actually most of genetics for that matter), accuracy of the modern-day classification system, just to name a few. So my question stands – can the same be said of creationism? Furthermore, could you foresee any scientific advancement in the future as a result of a creationist yelling, “Eureka! Godidit!”?

How has Creationism advanced ANY scientific discovery?

quote:

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." Albert Einstein "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." Albert Einstein "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." Albert Einstein "God is subtle but he is not malicious." Albert Einstein (Those quotes taken a bit out of context... easy isn't it?)

They are taken out of context, some more than others. For example, the "God does not play dice" comment refers to Einstein talking about quantum theory, which he grappled with incessantly. In no way does it support the notion that he was a creationist, or that he even beleived in the Christian God for that matter:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheis...s.html#einstein

Your second quote refers to nothing in regards to my question.

Here's some other interesting quotes for you. I certainly won't deny that Einstein was spiritual (many scientists are), but it's quite a stretch to say he was a creationist, or was even remotely influenced by creationism:

-"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.

My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God."

-"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."

-"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/thi...ligion/id8.html

quote:

I meant as the way I live my life. I do look at the world as a Christian would- but I do not consider myself a typical one, I guess. I don't go to Church, and I have issues with organized religion in general(somewhat unrelated to the topic). That's all I meant.

Not to completely fence you in, but many fundamentalists I've known state exactly what you stated - having issues with organized religion, don't attend a Church, don't consider themselves a "typical" Christian, even if they consider themselves "Christian" at all.

Yet your arguments are exactly as the same from fundamentalists who distort or misunderstand evolutionary theory, and feel it as a major conflict with their beliefs.

So again, why confuse faith with science? Would it surprise you that up to 40% of evolutionists believe in a Deity or Higher Being of sorts, many of them Christian? Speaking of Christians, do you have a problem with the Catholic church which proclaims evolutionary theory as a major tenet of science, and does not conflict with their beliefs?

quote:

I choose this one because it's what I believe in. I'll listen and usually be interested in any religions arguments. Including evolution.

You have yet to successfully define how evolution is a religious argument. Please do so now.

quote:

See my above reply to tathi. I ask the same question to you: Do we know - or assume - the past state and conditions of the universe that has led us up to modern science?

See my answer reply to your answer to Tathi. We do not assume, we observe evidence which best supports a given theory. This is exactly what occurs with ALL scientific theories, and evolutionary theory is no different.

Science is about supporting evidence. Kindly get over it.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: ill be the fundie, starting out, creationism is right. (opinion) both are theories because niether can be proven "without a doubt". ive never seen that a bacteria could evolve into the extremely complex species system that has come up today. what could a flood so massive as so cover the highest mountain do the the climate. such asss an ICE AGE? i believe that the earth wasnt created at the same time the universe was created (in biblical contexts). The Beginning Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. the heavens could certainly be just this solar system, hypothetically. think about it. when a solar system is born, it, by itself is born. not an entire universe with it. just that system is created. if u believe in god, i dont see why he would create earth with its surrounding solar system AND then the entire universe for our nightly enjoyment. there is a purpose for everything, and that wasnt it. ----------------- genetic mutations. if anyone knows anything about genetics, they would know that inbreeding does cause genetic mutations. even though we may not realize it, we all have them. moles, birthmarks, etc. etc. from adam and eve, there could be only one way to reproduce into the next generations. ------------------- and what of the intelligence of animals. there are very intelligent animals of this world. dogs, dolphins, apes, etc. in genesis, it is an animal, a serpent, a lizard that deceives adam and eve into eating into the fruit of the tree of knowledge. and because of that they are banished, for if they were to eat of the tree of life after that, they would live forever with their knowledge. and the serpent was forever cursed without legs to move on, and only able to strike at a mans heel, and man to smash his head. we have that serpent as the snake today, usually thought of as a vile creature with venom. ------------------- and this starts the stories of satan and his evil. throughout the entire bible he is described as The Deciever, The Liar, The God of the World, of which is all true. he is the god of this world, and his lies resonate in every aspect of life. John 8 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 1 John 2:22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son. John 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ------------------------- Revelation 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. hurled to earth from heaven, no longer to be a ruler of angels in heavens but a ruler on earth using us, deceiving us to get back at god. Revelation 13:3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. anti-christ might have been assasinated in some way, but somehow came back to life healed. and the whole world will be deceived by this as a maricle. ------------------- the evolutionist scientists can make many hypothesis's, but were never there at the time these events took place of evolution. yet in creationism, this history was written thousands of years ago, when these events had very recently taken place in their time. but, there were no evolutionist 5000 years ago, so accordingly, they have no basis.

I love these arguments that resort to "you were never there".

You were never there to witness the Holocaust either. Did 6 million Jews die, according to your eyewitness testimony, or not?

You seem to like written history as a text of basing your notions. You do realize that the Biblical Genesis version is not unique, and that there is an older religion that sounds so gosh darn eerily familiar to the Biblical Genesis version, don't you?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider How many animals on the ark? Genesis 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark." Genesis 7:8-9 "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah." Genesis 7:15 "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." vs. Genesis 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."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr110.html

quote:

[i][b] Did Michal have children? II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death." vs. II Samuel 21:8 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul."

THE ATHEIST'S COMPLAINT:
How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul have? 2 Samuel 6:23 says Michal had no children till the day of her death. However, 2 Samuel 21:8 says that she had five sons born to her.

Is there a contradiction?

RESPONSE:
Before being returned to David (2 Samuel 3:14), Michal gave birth to five sons to Adriel, the son of Brazillai (2 Samuel 21:8). However, on account of her conduct, it appears that the Lord shut up her womb, and she bore no children to David. The writer's comment in 2 Samuel 6:23 would seem specific to her barren nature before David, as the same writer shortly thereafter mentions the five sons bore to Adriel.

There is no contradiction.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider How many stalls did Solomon have? I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen." vs. II Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen” (1 Kings 4:26).

“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” (2 Chronicles 9:25).

Gleason Archer, in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, devoted a small portion of that text to discussing differences related to numbers in the books of 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles (1982, pp. 221-223). And, as he pointed out, there are between eighteen to twenty such differences found among reports in those six Bible books. Archer termed this group of difficulties “transmissional errors,” noting that numerals and proper names are “more liable to copyist errors” (p. 222). Therefore, two possibilities exist for addressing the difficulty between the forty thousand of 1 Kings 4:26 and the four thousand of 2 Chronicles 9:25: (1) either forty is correct and four is a mistake; or (2) vice versa.

E.M. Zerr believed that forty thousand was the more accurate of the two, suggesting that forty thousand horses would be adequate for twelve thousand horsemen (1948, 2:94). [However, Zerr did note that in the Hebrew language, it requires the addition of only three letters on the end of the word “four” to make it into “forty” (2:94).] On the other hand, Barnes (1998, 2:152), Clarke (n.d., 2:399), Keil and Delitzsch (1996, 3:39), and the editors of The Pulpit Commentary (Spence and Exell, 1978, 5:75) emphasized that four thousand, not forty thousand, is the correct rendition. Keil and Delitzsch noted that the “forty” of 1 Kings 4:26 “is an old copyist’s error” (1996, p. 39).

What are the reasons for believing that the four thousand figure is correct? First, in both verses the numbers correspond to how many “stalls” or “stables” Solomon had. Spence and Exell pointed out that most likely there was one horse per stall (or stable) corresponding to what is seen commonly today (3:75). Second, Barnes mentioned the concordance of four thousand horses with the number of chariots when he wrote: “Solomon’s chariots were but 1,400 (x. 26; 2 Chr. i. 14), for which 40,000 horses could not possibly be required. The Assyrian chariots had at most three horses apiece, while some had only two. 4,000 [sic] horses would supply the full team of three to 1,200 and the smaller team of two to 2000 chariots” (2:152). [Barnes (2:152), as well as Spence and Exell (5:75), further noted that the number twelve thousand corresponds to the number of horses for cavalry, as opposed to being merely the number of horsemen. This, however, is of no consequence in the current discussion other than to point out that four thousand and twelve thousand are proportionate in nature.] Third, Clarke noted that even the Septuagint has four thousand in 2 Chronicles 9:25 (2:399). [NOTE : The Septuagint does not contain 1 Kings 4:26.]

The four thousand figure appears to be the more probable of the two renderings. Moreover, a simple scribal error (of adding a mere three letters to the Hebrew word for “four”) is the most likely reason for the difficulty. Zerr, in writing of this difficulty, observed: “ When Jesus was here he condemned the scribes for many sins. But not one instance is recorded where he even intimated they were unfaithful in their work as scribes…. We therefore understand that such omissions as we are considering were incidental, and did not discount the truthfulness of the Inspired Book” (1948, 2:94).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr21.html