|
Important Information (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Well, I must say that the additional explanation of the story of creation was reallly hilarious. Now, I do agree that some arguments in the SAB are nitpicking, but some of the counterarguments here are really totally weak, like these few examples. However, some of the key points are conviniently ignored or modified, as the author obviously didn't find an answer to them.
| quote: | Science problem The Genesis 1 account also conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In this account the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know the true order of events was just the opposite.
If you had read Genesis study for chapter 1 and 2, you know this is not true. The earth existed in another galaxy and was moved to this galaxy which already existed. So the earth is not said to be older or younger then all the stars. For some stars might be older, and some younger, for stars are even being formed as you read this. And light before stars is a fact of science. As I pointed out birds and whales are in the same day as anything with wings. The very next day animals without wings are created. Science is always changing, so how do they know what is taught now, will be taught years from now? The fact is they do not. So God can easily cause the earth to revive very quickly. If you still have not read the Genesis study 1 and 2, then DO NOT keep reading. Stop right now, do not read any more until you go read those you lazy person. Hehe. |
Yes, very good explanation. So the earth was formed in another galaxy...riiiight...
| quote: |
Gen.1:29
"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."
Dt.14:7-8
"Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel and the hare, and the coney; for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore, they are unclean unto you. And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass."
Gen.9:3
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you."
In time the rules God had for man changed. Before the flood they were vegetarians, after the flood they were able to eat meat. But to miss quote the scripture and say they could eat anything they want is not right. It is clear Noah understood what was clean and not clean for sacrifices, for God tells him take clean and unclean. But this does not mean at this time they could not eat certain animals, matter of fact Rabbis teach at that time they could eat pig, it was not until God gave a perfect Torah to Moshe, did God expect man to follow the food laws as given to Moshe. So from Awdom to Moshe, the rules went through lots of evolution. This is clearly not a contradiction. That is like saying if USA makes a law in 1967 saying it is illegal to be a homo, but in 1999 USA makes a law and says it is okay to be a homo. That the USA contradicted them selves. No they change with time, so God changed the rules with time.
|
Oh, well, this pretty much admits there's a contradiction and tries to dodge it.
| quote: |
Against Logic 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days." And they (or the sons of God) had sex with "the daughters of men." Well, I suppose it's good to know that. But why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants?
I guess someone claims to have found giants bones, but I have seen no real proof of this. Men that were about 16 feet tall or so. Because no one has found any of these giants does not mean they did not exist. We do however see the degenerate gene still around, the tallest man in the records is 9 feet something.
|
Riight...the giant genes are among us!
| quote: |
12:13 Abram makes his wife lie for him, by telling the Egyptians that she is his sister. But at least it was half-true, since she was his half-sister. Such incestuous marriages are condemned elsewhere in the Bible, but god makes an exception for Abram and Sarai. (See Gen.17:15-16 where God blesses their marriage.)
Torah calls half sisters, sisters.
Gen 20:12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
As far as the commandment of not being with your sister, that is not until Moshe brings the Torah down from the Eternal, which was more pure and perfect ways of life. At the time of Avraham it was not wrong.
|
So again god changes his perfect stance into a more perfect one.
| quote: | 15:16 "In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Issac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20).
Generation is not used often to mean how many sons between so and so. Like these are the generations of the heaven and earth. But a generation was a good 100 years at this time. It is saying what it said earlier, that around 400 years later they would come back to the land.
|
Interesting definition of the word generation.
| quote: |
Gen.22:14
And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
Ex.6:3
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Avraham knew the name, but did not KNOW the name, meaning the understanding of the name. Say out loud Michael, do you understand what you just said? In Hebrew you said, who is like God.
|
Really? He knew the name, but he didn't know it?
| quote: |
1:5,7 The Israelite population went from 70 (or 75) to several million (Ex.12:37, 38:26) in a few hundred years.
There were 600,000 men, so there had to be about 700,000 woman, and about that many children, this does not make several million. That is shy of 2 million, several million would be at least 3. It is not against logic that this kind of population could amount from so little, if they had more then one wife, and several kids, some men had hundreds of kids.
|
Hehe, this game of words is really funny. 2 is not several million. Besides, the author makes a faulty assumption that a family has 1 single child and then in the next sentence he mentions that some families have hundreds of kids. |
|
|
| albertoR |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
To be honest I don't know, quite frankly I don't think anyone knows. Unless someone can present evidence of the existence of a historical Jebus to me, then I don't think it really matters. Probably someone/people who wanted control over people. I hold the view that religion is mind control, but that's another topic altogether. Alternativley, it could have been someone who wanted money, a lot of religions have no qualms about taking money to 'further their doctrine', who knows if the people or person who started Christianity did so with cash in mind. On the other hand, it could have been a complete whacko, and when one critically examines the beliefs of the major mono (and poly) theistic religions, it's hard not to come to that conclusion.
As for how it spread, ignorance. Before modern science was around, how else would one explain all the amazing things that are found on the earth. It would have seemed entirely plausible to credit anything you couldn't explain or understand to a greater power or supreme deity. One could ask exactly the same question about Islam, Hinduism or Judaism. |
The planets were aligned the day that Jesus was born, called the star of bethleham that is proven by astronomical charts which dated jesus's birthday 6 years before the gregorian calendar. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by albertoR
The planets were aligned the day that Jesus was born, called the star of bethleham that is proven by astronomical charts which dated jesus's birthday 6 years before the gregorian calendar. |
Oh so an allignment of planets which happened near the time of Jesus's supposed birth is evidence enough to confirm his existance? |
|
|
| albertoR |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Oh so an allignment of planets which happened near the time of Jesus's supposed birth is evidence enough to confirm his existance? |
yes |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by albertoR
yes |
HOw does that prove anything????? |
|
|
| albertoR |
| It proves that he is the one that marked time. Thats why we use B.C,A.D. U do see those in the history books. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by albertoR
It proves that he is the one that marked time. |
Oh, so an allignement of planets is a divine time marker which happens exclusively when god's son is born (although with a 6 year margin of error)? What about the alignment that happened a few years ago? Is that supposed to be an announcement of the coming of antichrist?
| quote: | | Thats why we use B.C,A.D. U do see those in the history books. |
We use those terms because of the christian doctrine. Let us, however, not mix up christianity with factual happenings. The fact that christianity believes Jesus was really born and that it based it's time counting on that supposed birth is really not a direct proof of Jesus's existance. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by albertoR
The planets were aligned the day that Jesus was born, called the star of bethleham that is proven by astronomical charts which dated jesus's birthday 6 years before the gregorian calendar. |
I feel like a broken record here, but if you want to prove his existence, then kindly go back to my first post and discuss the historical records from from the time when Jesus supposedly existed. Unless you're willing to talk about them, then you really have basis whatsoever for claiming he existed. The bible can easily be discounted as a factual record of, well, anything, and without that, what do you have? |
|
|
| trewqy |
Theres a solution to all this rambling and that will stop this silly thread forever.
Convert to Islam.Join the fastest growing religion in the world!:toocool:
At least here, you can prove that Muhammad ACTUALLY existed. |
|
|
| dj_ilan_yosef |
| quote: | Originally posted by trewqy
Theres a solution to all this rambling and that will stop this silly thread forever.
Convert to Islam.Join the fastest growing religion in the world!:toocool:
At least here, you can prove that Muhammad ACTUALLY existed. |
HA, great post, however, most people choose to stay away from a religion that the deeper you dive into, the more hate you find it sends as its message! I rather be... Baha'i - they do afterall have a beautiful garden! ;) |
|
|
| nic01445 |
| quote: | Originally posted by trewqy
Theres a solution to all this rambling and that will stop this silly thread forever.
Convert to Islam.Join the fastest growing religion in the world!:toocool:
At least here, you can prove that Muhammad ACTUALLY existed. |
more like "abandon your religion and turn to science!" am i right? ;)
[/offensive jest] |
|
|
| Palestinian |
| i also learned about Jesus in my history class in school. But I consider the Bible to be a historical record as much as it is a religious record. I don't differentiate between the Bible and other history books. The Gospels were written by 70 different historians if I'm not mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
