Direct Contradictions

[IDK]

Does anyone have any directly conflicting passages that they can quote from the Bible?

[mugawump]

Does anyone have any directly conflicting passages that they can quote from the Bible?

How about the two "Lord's Prayers"???

[::Major_Baker::]

PLEASe end these threads, it has been proven without a doubt that there are many contradictions in the bible!

[IDK]

PLEASe end these threads, it has been proven without a doubt that there are many contradictions in the bible!
Yeah but I just want direct quotes, side by side, with an apparent contradiction. I need them for a friend and cause I'm curious as to what will come up....

[Dangerrmouse]

Try Google, it's faster. Zero may pass on a list..

[sub_zer0]

Yeah but I just want direct quotes, side by side, with an apparent contradiction. I need them for a friend and cause I'm curious as to what will come up....

http://www.todayshistory.info/articles_references/contradictions/index.html

Check my site... it isn't nearly done, but it has a few.

[Churlant]

http://www.todayshistory.info/articles_references/contradictions/index.html

Check my site... it isn't nearly done, but it has a few.

Re-interpretation to avoid contradiction... brilliant. :)

Still, I think it's funny when even an answer has a contradiction:



Of course the Lord is good to all, and is not capable of sin


One cannot be all powerful and yet have limits. You should change the wording.

-JC

[sub_zer0]

Re-interpretation to avoid contradiction... brilliant. :)

None of it is re-interpretation... it is logical with an understanding of it all... My opinions on such things are formed from many sources than just me reading the Bible.

[Dangerrmouse]

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Carl Sagan

[Dangerrmouse]

Religious faith depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities, evidence and logic.
Michael Shermer

[sub_zer0]

Religious faith depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities, evidence and logic.
Michael Shermer

Ahhh, yes the materialistic philosophy...

[heel31ok]

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Carl Sagan
I am quite sure he has changed his mind by now!

[Scaryclouds]

One cannot be all powerful and yet have limits. You should change the wording.


Sin is a limitation so not being able to sin isn't a limitation. Is not being able to break a bone considered a limitation (given this does not cause other negative side effects)? Do not focus on the practicality of the issue but the actual question.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Carl Sagan

Religious faith depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities, evidence and logic.
Michael Shermer


So these two quotes alone compeletly invalidate the bible? What if I found two or maybe I get crazy and find three quotes that support chritianity will that utterly refute the big bang theory?

[Dangerrmouse]

I am quite sure he has changed his mind by now!

As he has ceased to exist, I doubt it very much. Do you have any evidence for your assertion? :p

[mataj]

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/, see "Contradictions".

[Churlant]

Sin is a limitation so not being able to sin isn't a limitation. Is not being able to break a bone considered a limitation (given this does not cause other negative side effects)? Do not focus on the practicality of the issue but the actual question.


Not being able to do something - breaking a bone or sinning - is by definition a limitation. If I can't break my arm, I AM limited in my ability to do just that.

If God is all powerful, by definition HE is capable of sinning, breaking his own arm, etc.


-JC

[sub_zer0]

Not being able to do something - breaking a bone or sinning - is by definition a limitation. If I can't break my arm, I AM limited in my ability to do just that.

If God is all powerful, by definition HE is capable of sinning, breaking his own arm, etc.


-JC

Not being able to do something such as sinning is not a limitation. It is a strength.

[Churlant]

Not being able to do something such as sinning is not a limitation. It is a strength.

You need to ask Santa for a dictionary. Being unable to sin may be a strength, but it is also a limitation - again, by definition. :shrug:

-JC

[sub_zer0]

You need to ask Santa for a dictionary. Being unable to sin may be a strength, but it is also a limitation - again, by definition. :shrug:

-JC

The act of sinning is a limitation to anybody and anything. Not being able to sin is rising above it and not doing it... that is, like you said more of a strength.

[Churlant]

The act of sinning is a limitation to anybody and anything. Not being able to sin is rising above it and not doing it... that is, like you said more of a strength.

Not be able to do something is also a limitation. If I were incapable of lying, that would be a limitation... it may also be a strength (though not in this world).

-JC

[Dangerrmouse]

1 Kings 7:23
" And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
Here's a simple math question.. This verse claims that Pi is 3. It is not.

[sub_zer0]

1 Kings 7:23
" And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
Here's a simple math question.. This verse claims that Pi is 3. It is not.

Where does it claim that Pi is 3?

[Dangerrmouse]

Pi is the ratio of the circumference (30 cubits) to the diameter (10 cubits) of a circle. It is not 3.
The Babylonians knew it was more than 3 but had not calculated it exactly.

[sub_zer0]

Pi is the ratio of the circumference (30 cubits) to the diameter (10 cubits) of a circle. It is not 3.
The Babylonians knew it was more than 3 but had not calculated it exactly.

I don't see the significance of this.

[Dangerrmouse]

The verse describes something that is impossible. The "molten sea" cannot be 10 cubits across, AND 30 cubits around.

[Strel]

The verse describes something that is impossible. The "molten sea" cannot be 10 cubits across, AND 30 cubits around.

Zing!

Pi 1
God 0

:)

[sub_zer0]

The verse describes something that is impossible. The "molten sea" cannot be 10 cubits across, AND 30 cubits around.

why not?

[Strel]

why not?


Pi.

10 cubits across = diameter

To compute the circumference from the diameter, compute 2 * Pi * r, where r is the radius (half the diameter). Or you could just say it is Pi times the diameter.

If the diameter is 30, the circumference should be Pi (3.1415...) * 30, or about 94.25 cubits.

So the Bible is not even close.

[sub_zer0]

Pi.

10 cubits across = diameter

To compute the circumference from the diameter, compute 2 * Pi * r, where r is the radius (half the diameter). Or you could just say it is Pi times the diameter.

If the diameter is 30, the circumference should be Pi (3.1415...) * 30, or about 94.25 cubits.

So the Bible is not even close.

Perhaps copyist error? I think so.

[Strel]

Perhaps copyist error? I think so.


I'm more concerned that you didn't see the problem in the first place, but as you have said, science isn't your thing.

Nevertheless, if copyist errors are possible, then the Bible is fallible. If the Bible is fallible, then there is no logical reason to continue in a literal interpretation of Genesis when direct observation of the planet shows that it cannot possibly be true.

No logical reason...but I suspect your reasons have little to do with logic.

[sub_zer0]

I'm more concerned that you didn't see the problem in the first place, but as you have said, science isn't your thing.

Nevertheless, if copyist errors are possible, then the Bible is fallible. If the Bible is fallible, then there is no logical reason to continue in a literal interpretation of Genesis when direct observation of the planet shows that it cannot possibly be true.

No logical reason...but I suspect your reasons have little to do with logic.

I saw the problem the moment you posted. So the Bible is fallible because a human copied it down wrong?

Pi.

10 cubits across = diameter

To compute the circumference from the diameter, compute 2 * Pi * r, where r is the radius (half the diameter). Or you could just say it is Pi times the diameter.

If the diameter is 30, the circumference should be Pi (3.1415...) * 30, or about 94.25 cubits.

So the Bible is not even close.

So first you say the diameter is 10, then you say it is 30. Well the length across it, says that it is 10 cubits. Not 30.

• Circumference = Diameter * pi
• Circumference = Radius * 2 * pi

So, if the diameter is 10 like it specifies, not 30 as that is the circumfrence, the problem would be Pi(3.1415) * 10 = 31.415 or about “a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”

[Dangerrmouse]

I see you finally discovered what Pi is. Pi says that if the diameter is 10 cubits then the "measurement round about" is more than the 30 cubits erroneously stated.

[sub_zer0]

I see you finally discovered what Pi is. Pi says that if the diameter is 10 cubits then the "measurement round about" is more than the 30 cubits erroneously stated.

Quite trivial... and of no consequence.

[Dangerrmouse]

Quite trivial... and of no consequence.

You admit that the Bible makes a basic error over a simple mathematical rule, and do not see that in doing so you admit the possibility that all other claims in the book could also be wrong, and the whole house of cards collapses.

[sub_zer0]

You admit that the Bible makes a basic error over a simple mathematical rule, and do not see that in doing so you admit the possibility that all other claims in the book could also be wrong, and the whole house of cards collapses.

Like I said, most likely copyist error. Either way the fact that it is off 1 is of no consequence and quite trivial.

[Dangerrmouse]

Like I said, most likely copyist error. Either way the fact that it is off 1 is of no consequence and quite trivial.

Since it jars with your belief, you ASSUME that it is PROBABLY a copying error. That still allows room for it to be an ACTUAL error, which you still dismiss offhand.
The fact remains that the Bible is not inerrant as you claim it to be.

[sub_zer0]

Since it jars with your belief, you ASSUME that it is PROBABLY a copying error. That still allows room for it to be an ACTUAL error, which you still dismiss offhand.
The fact remains that the Bible is not inerrant as you claim it to be.

It jars nothing. My faith is steadfast. And to be honest the fact that it is 1.whatever off of the answer is again of no consequence and trivial. It does not matter to the overall message of the book. It does not contradict the overall message of the book.

In fact it is most likely a copyist error.

[Dangerrmouse]

It jars nothing. My faith is steadfast. And to be honest the fact that it is 1.whatever off of the answer is again of no consequence and trivial. It does not matter to the overall message of the book. It does not contradict the overall message of the book.
In fact it is most likely a copyist error.

This is like nailing jello on a wall.
If it's any kind of error, God allowed it to happen. He seems to have let an awful lot of errors creep in over the centuries. On the other hand, if it is not a copyist error ("most likely" does not deny the possibility that it could be God's error) then God's supposed word is wrong and that is not trivial.

[sub_zer0]

This is like nailing jello on a wall.
If it's any kind of error, God allowed it to happen. He seems to have let an awful lot of errors creep in over the centuries. On the other hand, if it is not a copyist error ("most likely" does not deny the possibility that it could be God's error) then God's supposed word is wrong and that is not trivial.

It is Gods error if you take your position. If you take mine that God is perfect than it is a copyist error most likely. And in the long-run is trivial. I am sorry but until you give me some evidence otherwise I will keep my belief.

[Dangerrmouse]

The fact that the bible contains any error means it is asserting something which is not true.

[sub_zer0]

The fact that the bible contains any error means it is asserting something which is not true.

"In 1 Kings 7:26, you will read that its “brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom.” So it was not shaped as a regular cylinder but had an outward curving rim.

So are you saying, that you aren't going to accept a chance of a copyis error?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/621

http://www.carm.org/diff/1Kings7_26.htm

[Dangerrmouse]

Are you confirming that the Word of God has errors in it?

[sub_zer0]

Are you confirming that the Word of God has errors in it?

No, I am saying there are clear explanations as to why it is mentioned like that in the Bible. Copyist error, the actual measurement, etc, etc...

"However, the recorded dimensions are still no problem if we consider the shape of the vessel. In 1 Kings 7:26, we read that its “brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom.” Hence, the sea was not a regular cylinder, but had an outward curving rim. Although we do not know the exact points on the vessel where the measurements were taken, the main part of the sea always will be somewhat smaller than the 10 cubits measured “from brim to brim.” Indeed, if we divide the recorded circumference by the accepted value of pi, we arrive at a main diameter of 9.554 cubits (see figure below). It is easy to imagine some ancient inspector simply measuring across the top of the basin, then measuring its girth, and not giving one thought to the false accusations of unbelievers 3,000 years away."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/621

The article satisfies all doubts in my head (like I had any)... It is either a simple copyist error, or that the measurment was shorthanded... any number of reasons can apply as to why the number is like that.

[sub_zer0]

15. Did Solomon build a facility containing 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26), or over 3,000 baths (2 Chronicles 4:5)?

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent, or copyist error)

The Hebrew verb rendered "contained" and "held" is different from that translated "received"; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of water that would make the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. This informs us that 3,000 gallons of water were required to completely fill the sea which usually held 2,000 gallons.

Another solution follows a theme mentioned earlier, that the number in Hebrew lettering for 2000 has been confounded by the scribe with a similar alphabetical number for the number 3,000.

It should be noted that Shabbir (in his debate on 25th February 1998 against Jay Smith in Birmingham, UK) quoted this "contradiction" and added to it saying that if the bath had a diameter of 10 cubits it cannot possibly have had a circumference of 30 cubits as the text says (since 'pi' dictates that it would have a circumference of 31.416 or a 9.549 diameter).

Shabbir made the humorous comment "Find me a bath like that and I will get baptized in it!" But Shabbir did not read the text properly or was just going for a cheap, displaced laugh. Why? Because the text says that it was about 8cm thick and had a rim shaped like a lily. Therefore it depends on where you measure from. The top or bottom of the rim or the inside or outside for the vessel would all give a different diameter; and depending on whether you measure at the top of the rim or at the narrower point, you would get a different circumference.

In other words, Shabbir may well be getting baptized if someone can be bothered to make a replica!

(Haley pg. 382; Light of Life II 1992:192)

http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/101contradictions.html

[Dangerrmouse]

No, I am saying there are clear explanations as to why it is mentioned like that in the Bible. Copyist error, the actual measurement, etc, etc...

"However, the recorded dimensions are still no problem if we consider the shape of the vessel. In 1 Kings 7:26, we read that its “brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom.” Hence, the sea was not a regular cylinder, but had an outward curving rim. Although we do not know the exact points on the vessel where the measurements were taken, the main part of the sea always will be somewhat smaller than the 10 cubits measured “from brim to brim.” Indeed, if we divide the recorded circumference by the accepted value of pi, we arrive at a main diameter of 9.554 cubits (see figure below). It is easy to imagine some ancient inspector simply measuring across the top of the basin, then measuring its girth, and not giving one thought to the false accusations of unbelievers 3,000 years away."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/621

The article satisfies all doubts in my head (like I had any)... It is either a simple copyist error, or that the measurment was shorthanded... any number of reasons can apply as to why the number is like that.

Interesting. In my bible, I Kings verse 7:26 does not state that the "sea" was made "as a lily blossom" as they claim, rather that it was "wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies." That suggests to me that your apologists are less than honest, and that the round "sea" was decorated with lily patterns like the brim of a cup might be. Look at a lily then try to imagine drinking from a lily-shaped cup.

[sub_zer0]

Interesting. In my bible, I Kings verse 7:26 does not state that the "sea" was made "as a lily blossom" as they claim, rather that it was "wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies." That suggests to me that your apologists are less than honest, and that the round "sea" was decorated with lily patterns like the brim of a cup might be. Look at a lily then try to imagine drinking from a lily-shaped cup.

Depends on the translation - KJV or NIV. The point is that the part that is measured - meaning the brim - is shaped like a lily. So we don't know how the measurment was measured. The inside of the curve or the outside...

[Dangerrmouse]

15. Did Solomon build a facility containing 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26), or over 3,000 baths (2 Chronicles 4:5)?

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent, or copyist error)

The Hebrew verb rendered "contained" and "held" is different from that translated "received"; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of water that would make the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. This informs us that 3,000 gallons of water were required to completely fill the sea which usually held 2,000 gallons.

Another solution follows a theme mentioned earlier, that the number in Hebrew lettering for 2000 has been confounded by the scribe with a similar alphabetical number for the number 3,000.

It should be noted that Shabbir (in his debate on 25th February 1998 against Jay Smith in Birmingham, UK) quoted this "contradiction" and added to it saying that if the bath had a diameter of 10 cubits it cannot possibly have had a circumference of 30 cubits as the text says (since 'pi' dictates that it would have a circumference of 31.416 or a 9.549 diameter).

Shabbir made the humorous comment "Find me a bath like that and I will get baptized in it!" But Shabbir did not read the text properly or was just going for a cheap, displaced laugh. Why? Because the text says that it was about 8cm thick and had a rim shaped like a lily. Therefore it depends on where you measure from. The top or bottom of the rim or the inside or outside for the vessel would all give a different diameter; and depending on whether you measure at the top of the rim or at the narrower point, you would get a different circumference.

In other words, Shabbir may well be getting baptized if someone can be bothered to make a replica!

(Haley pg. 382; Light of Life II 1992:192)

http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/101contradictions.html


Taking the sea as 5 cubits deep by 5 cubits in diameter, and ignoring the thickness of the wall gives a volume of 392.699 cubits. Using the onlineconversion.com website, this gives a volume of 14938.5 US gallons. (in smaller egyptian cubits) Dividing by 3000 gives a minimum size of 4.97 US gallons per bath, not one.

[myownman]

I am quite sure he has changed his mind by now!
Why, did he tell Bush to invade Iraq too?

[Strel]

It jars nothing. My faith is steadfast. And to be honest the fact that it is 1.whatever off of the answer is again of no consequence and trivial. It does not matter to the overall message of the book. It does not contradict the overall message of the book.

In fact it is most likely a copyist error.


What good is faith when it blinds you to reality?

We have shown the Bible is fallible, but your "conditioning" will not permit you to accept it.

[sub_zer0]

What good is faith when it blinds you to reality?

We have shown the Bible is fallible, but your "conditioning" will not permit you to accept it.

How am I blind. How is that a contradiction, if it is simply a copyist error? Are you saying there is no possible way for it to be a copyist error? Or perhaps it being the actual number?

[sub_zer0]

Taking the sea as 5 cubits deep by 5 cubits in diameter, and ignoring the thickness of the wall gives a volume of 392.699 cubits. Using the onlineconversion.com website, this gives a volume of 14938.5 US gallons. (in smaller egyptian cubits) Dividing by 3000 gives a minimum size of 4.97 US gallons per bath, not one.

So what's that mean?

[Dangerrmouse]

Show me a cup shaped like a lily flower, as your apologist asserts.

[sub_zer0]

Show me a cup shaped like a lily flower, as your apologist asserts.

1 Kings 7:26 NIV: "It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths."

[Dangerrmouse]

1 Kings 7:26 KJV "And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths."

[sub_zer0]

Apparently the Bible doesn't speak with the scientific accuracy as we do. Not much of a difference between 3 and 3.14. It is simply a rounded number - nothing wrong with that.

[whatever]

Apparently the Bible doesn't speak with the scientific accuracy as we do. Not much of a difference between 3 and 3.14. It is simply a rounded number - nothing wrong with that.

translation: the bible is not accurate in details

How am I blind. How is that a contradiction, if it is simply a copyist error? Are you saying there is no possible way for it to be a copyist error? Or perhaps it being the actual number?

translation: the bible has many errors.

how then can you say "Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant.

if the bible is infallible and inerrant, is has no mistake, by whoever's making.
since you yourself have admitted it has errors, it is then by definition not infallible.

if you still believe in god, you have two alternatives:
1. god is there, and the bible is not his exact, infallible words to human, and is just a abook written by dead guys from two thousands yrs ago.
2. every single word in the bible is inspired by god, but how do you explain the above contradictions? The lord God don't know his own mind when he recited to his holy ghosts?

[sub_zer0]

translation: the bible is not accurate in details

[COLOR=Red]translation: the bible has many errors.

how then can you say

if the bible is infallible and inerrant, is has no mistake, by whoever's making.
since you yourself have admitted it has errors, it is then by definition not infallible.

if you still believe in god, you have two alternatives:
1. god is there, and the bible is not his exact, infallible words to human, and is just a abook written by dead guys from two thousands yrs ago.
2. every single word in the bible is inspired by god, but how do you explain the above contradictions? The lord God don't know his own mind when he recited to his holy ghosts?

The Bible isn't as scientificly accurate in details that are not needed. As in 3 or 3.14... that is trivial. You can still build exactly what they are talking about using 3 instead of 3.14.

Apparently whoever copied it down didn't think that a hard-headed skeptic would quarrel over .14. Again, like I said, all it is, is a rounding of the number most likely.

"1. The first concerns the meaning of the word ‘cubit’, and how it would have been used in measuring the vessel. A cubit was the length of a man’s forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimetres (18 inches). It is obvious that a man’s forearm does not readily lend itself to the measurement of fractions of a forearm. In the Bible half a cubit is mentioned several times, but there is no mention of a third part of a cubit or a fourth part of a cubit, even though these fractions of ‘a third part’ and ‘a fourth part’ were used in volume and weight measurements.2 It therefore seems highly probable that any measurement of more than half a cubit would have been counted as a full cubit, and any measurement of less than half a cubit would have been rounded down to the nearest full cubit."

[sub_zer0]

Any others? Anybody, anybody at all?

[Dangerrmouse]

The Bible isn't as scientificly accurate in details that are not needed. As in 3 or 3.14... that is trivial. You can still build exactly what they are talking about using 3 instead of 3.14.

Apparently whoever copied it down didn't think that a hard-headed skeptic would quarrel over .14. Again, like I said, all it is, is a rounding of the number most likely.

"1. The first concerns the meaning of the word ‘cubit’, and how it would have been used in measuring the vessel. A cubit was the length of a man’s forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimetres (18 inches). It is obvious that a man’s forearm does not readily lend itself to the measurement of fractions of a forearm. In the Bible half a cubit is mentioned several times, but there is no mention of a third part of a cubit or a fourth part of a cubit, even though these fractions of ‘a third part’ and ‘a fourth part’ were used in volume and weight measurements.2 It therefore seems highly probable that any measurement of more than half a cubit would have been counted as a full cubit, and any measurement of less than half a cubit would have been rounded down to the nearest full cubit."

I can guess, but you forgot the link again...

[sub_zer0]

Forget a guess, why not read? The sites are posted.

Here again is the quote being referred to:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

The bowl is said to have had a circumference of thirty cubits and a diameter of ten cubits. The diameter is said to be "from one rim to the other", so this would be the outer diameter; that is, the diameter of the outer mold used to make the bowl.

The circumference is not specified as being the inner or outer circumference, but, since using the outer circumference would give us the "ideal" bowl (with no width or thickness), let's instead use the inner circumference, which also, reasonably, would have been the circumference of the mold used to form the inside of the bowl. That is, we will use the two measurements which were necessary for the making of the bowl.

So, using eighteen inches for one cubit, we have the following:

outer diameter: 10 cubits, or 180 inches
outer radius: 5 cubits, or 90 inches
inner circumference: 30 cubits, or 540 inches

To find the "Jewish" or "Bible" value for pi, we need to have the inner radius, in order to be able to plug this into the formula for the circumference and compare with the given circumference value of 540 inches.

Since the thickness of the bowl is given as one handsbreadth, then the inner radius must be 90 – 4 = 86 inches:

Let's do the calculations:
inner radius: 86 inches
inner circumference: 540 inches

The circumference formula is:
C = 2(pi)r

...which gives us:
540 = 2(pi)(86)
540 = 172(pi)

Then pi = 540/172 = 135/4"3 = 3.1395348837..., or about 3.14.

if you still believe in god, you have two alternatives:
1. god is there, and the bible is not his exact, infallible words to human, and is just a abook written by dead guys from two thousands yrs ago.
2. every single word in the bible is inspired by god.

I'll choose number 2 please.

[heel31ok]

Forget a guess, why not read? The sites are posted.





I'll choose number 2 please.
Ding ,Ding,Ding we have a winner!

[Void Image]

You know, you guys just keep at it with the contradictions, when you still haven't given a single reasonable response to the Noah's Ark problem. In fact, the only response I got from the first time I brought it up was, "with God, all things are possible". Funny how you can abandon logic one day, then the next day, attempt to twist the bible until you force it to be logical.

[sub_zer0]

You know, you guys just keep at it with the contradictions, when you still haven't given a single reasonable response to the Noah's Ark problem. In fact, the only response I got from the first time I brought it up was, "with God, all things are possible". Funny how you can abandon logic one day, then the next day, attempt to twist the bible until you force it to be logical.

Here is some evidence, besides the fact that, yes with God all things are possible.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=view&ID=48
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=842
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative21-May-2001.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/hughross01.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/sisters.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v1/i1/noah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/feedback26-feb-2001.asp

[Dangerrmouse]

I'm still guessing who and where you are quoting from because you did not provide a link, as you must with each post. The content essentially supposes that the inaccuracy arises out of the lach of a unit of measurement smaller than a cubit. This is nonsense. A handspan is even mentioned in the text under discussion. Clue! the width of a hand is less than the distance between fingertip and elbow. there is also a "digit" or fingerwidth to be considered. This too is obviously smaller than a cubit. Another rationalisation rejected. Next?

Editing a sentence to mean the opposite is hardly debate.

[sub_zer0]

I'm still guessing who and where you are quoting from because you did not provide a link, as you must with each post. The content essentially supposes that the inaccuracy arises out of the lach of a unit of measurement smaller than a cubit. This is nonsense. A handspan is even mentioned in the text under discussion. Clue! the width of a hand is less than the distance between fingertip and elbow. there is also a "digit" or fingerwidth to be considered. This too is obviously smaller than a cubit. Another rationalisation rejected. Next?

Editing a sentence to mean the opposite is hardly debate.

The links are provided look again.

[Void Image]

Here is some evidence, besides the fact that, yes with God all things are possible.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=view&ID=48
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=842
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative21-May-2001.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/hughross01.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/sisters.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v1/i1/noah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/feedback26-feb-2001.asp

I've heard them all sub. There is a reason these views are not the mainstream scientific views. Because they are either a) outright lies b) fellatious (no, I didn't mean fallacious, and yes, I know it's not really a word) or c) Stupid.

From here on, I am going to use the Sub_zero 'rules of engagement'. I will ignore every link you posted. I will ignore nearly every word you posted. My argument is this. I read this book that said you were wrong. I trust only in the Most Holy Spirit that lives in my broom closet. I know it's there because I really, really want it to be, and since I believe this so strongly, I must be correct.

Here are some BS links with some BS information
BS
BS
BS

[sub_zer0]

I've heard them all sub. There is a reason these views are not the mainstream scientific views. Because they are either a) outright lies b) fellatious (no, I didn't mean fallacious, and yes, I know it's not really a word) or c) Stupid.

From here on, I am going to use the Sub_zero 'rules of engagement'. I will ignore every link you posted. I will ignore nearly every word you posted. My argument is this. I read this book that said you were wrong. I trust only in the Most Holy Spirit that lives in my broom closet. I know it's there because I really, really want it to be, and since I believe this so strongly, I must be correct.

Again you have failed to show a contradiction beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Void Image]

Again you have failed to show a contradiction beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Since I only brought up Noah's Ark, I will only focus on Noah's Ark for the time being.

I hit the first link relating to the Ark.. http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

As I do with every article before I really get down into it, I just quickly scanned through the first few paragraphs, and WHAM.


As for polar bears, the article Bears across the world … (Creation 20(4):28–3) points out that polar bears are descendants of an original bear kind. This is not evolution, since polar bears contain no new information—rather, they have lost pigmentation information, resulting in white hair, good for camouflage. Another mutation prevented the toes from dividing properly during its embryonic development, resulting in webbed feet — one of many examples of a defect that is useful in certain environments. See also Beetle Bloopers.

I'm assuming he means 'arctic'. That's not his only mistake, however, almost everything in this paragraph is wrong. For one, there IS indeed 'new' information in a polar bear, or at least original information. Their fur, for instance, isn't really fur at all, it's made up of the same stuff that makes up your fingernails. Each hair is really a hollow tube, good for insulatation. On top of that, they don't even have white hair, it's a yellow-ish color. They rub snow on themselves, and that gives them the bright white coat.

This is just one paragraph. I went ahead and looked around TrueOrigins and just as I thought, the same old same old. I came across the name Ashby Camp, and it sounded familiar. Then I remembered this..

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/A_reply_to_Ashby_Camp_and_TrueOrigins_on_Avian_Phy logeny

Here some of Camp's 'work' is being completely demolished by someone who knows what he's talking about. You can't trust anything these 'scientists' throw out on the internet.

But enough with discrediting your source. I'll get right down to the basics.

-The added mass would increase the atmosphere's temperature to unsurviveable levels. (You have blatantly ignored this fact several times now)
-Despite what this trueorigins says, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A GLOBAL FLOOD. PERIOD. END OF STATEMENT.
-Had there have been a global flood that violated the laws of physics and left our tempuratures unscathed, we have another problem. The article I read suggests that most plants, fish, and other marine animals would survive. NOT TRUE. Once the surface of the Earth has been saturated in salt warty for fourty days, it's pretty safe to say a majority of land plants would be dead. All freshwater fish would die. Most salt water fish too.

-When the flood waters receded and returned to wherever the hell it was they came from, the land would be devastated. It would be a muddy mixture of dead plants rotting corpses. Release the animals. What happens? They die. Dead plants means everything else will soon be dead as well. I saw somewhere in the article of animals moving to a different food source, fish, for instance. This is just ridiculous. EVERY animal begins to eat fish, along with high competition in ocean, and we could bring what fish remained down to a dangerous level. Whales, sharks, etc, would have nothing to eat. They would die. The rotting carcasses mixed in with the new topsoil would almost certainly spread a disease or two. Dead animals and people would be everywhere..on the land, in the streams, everywhere. Chances for survival? Hmm...

[sub_zer0]

Since I only brought up Noah's Ark, I will only focus on Noah's Ark for the time being.

I hit the first link relating to the Ark.. http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

As I do with every article before I really get down into it, I just quickly scanned through the first few paragraphs, and WHAM.

I'm assuming he means 'arctic'. That's not his only mistake, however, almost everything in this paragraph is wrong. For one, there IS indeed 'new' information in a polar bear, or at least original information. Their fur, for instance, isn't really fur at all, it's made up of the same stuff that makes up your fingernails. Each hair is really a hollow tube, good for insulatation. On top of that, they don't even have white hair, it's a yellow-ish color. They rub snow on themselves, and that gives them the bright white coat.

This is just one paragraph. I went ahead and looked around TrueOrigins and just as I thought, the same old same old. I came across the name Ashby Camp, and it sounded familiar. Then I remembered this..

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/A_reply_to_Ashby_Camp_and_TrueOrigins_on_Avian_Phy logeny

Here some of Camp's 'work' is being completely demolished by someone who knows what he's talking about. You can't trust anything these 'scientists' throw out on the internet.

Again, I am waiting for somebody to prove a contradiction beyond a shadow of a doubt...

Cool you disproved trueorigins... disprove the bible.

[Void Image]

Sorry sub I accidentally submitted it halfway done, got the other half up now

[Void Image]

No response yet sub? As for anything surviving the flood besides those in the Ark..

"7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

[sub_zer0]

No response yet sub? As for anything surviving the flood besides those in the Ark..

"7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

They took 2 of ever animal...

[Dangerrmouse]

Where did the dove find a fresh live vine branch after almost a year under dilute salt water?

[Void Image]

That's great, 2 of every animal. The problem there is that with absolutely nothing to eat, they would have had to feed off themselves. Not to mention the fact they couldn't survive without an ecosystem.

[sub_zer0]

That's great, 2 of every animal. The problem there is that with absolutely nothing to eat, they would have had to feed off themselves. Not to mention the fact they couldn't survive without an ecosystem.

I don't know how many links I have posted answering such questions.

[Void Image]

I don't know how many links I have posted answering such questions.

And still you have failed to give a logical explanation as to how a global flood could take place. As you stated earlier..


Again you have failed to show a contradiction beyond a shadow of a doubt.


The only way to explain this story is to throw away logic and the laws of nature. But in doing so you nullify any argument you've made in these forums because you're saying logic and laws of nature do not apply to the bible.

Again.
"7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

Every living substance. Do an internet search on 'ecosystems'.

[sub_zer0]

And still you have failed to give a logical explanation as to how a global flood could take place. As you stated earlier..



The only way to explain this story is to throw away logic and the laws of nature. But in doing so you nullify any argument you've made in these forums because you're saying logic and laws of nature do not apply to the bible.

Again.
"7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

Every living substance. Do an internet search on 'ecosystems'.

Water and sunshine doesn't produce living substances?

[Void Image]

Water and sunshine doesn't produce living substances?

As usual you read a fraction of my post and responded with absolutely no knowledge of what I was referring to. To simplify things, let's say we have one pair of animals on the ark. Let's say two elephants. Every plant in the world has been killed as stated in the bible and common sense, as any plant would die after spending 150 days submerged in water. The elephants will eat sunshine and water?

[Dangerrmouse]

Water and sunshine doesn't produce living substances?

That's evolution for you! (with a few added chemicals...)

[sub_zer0]

As usual you read a fraction of my post and responded with absolutely no knowledge of what I was referring to. To simplify things, let's say we have one pair of animals on the ark. Let's say two elephants. Every plant in the world has been killed as stated in the bible and common sense, as any plant would die after spending 150 days submerged in water. The elephants will eat sunshine and water?

No they would eat the food that was on the Ark, and by the time all the water was gone and they could get off of the Ark, they started to eat what was growing already.

[Dangerrmouse]

What was growing was killed by the salt from the seas and the pressure of several thousand feet of water for nearly a year. It takes time to grow, even if the land were magically dried out and not poisoned with salt.

[sub_zer0]

What was growing was killed by the salt from the seas and the pressure of several thousand feet of water for nearly a year. It takes time to grow, even if the land were magically dried out and not poisoned with salt.

Again, read the Bible it tells how long it took for it all to dry. Again God had His hand involved from the beginning - so to say He wasn't involved is something I can't do.

[Void Image]

No they would eat the food that was on the Ark, and by the time all the water was gone and they could get off of the Ark, they started to eat what was growing already.

So now you're saying there was even MORE food than enough to feed 2 pairs of every existing animal for 150 days?? Do you realize how long it would take for plants to repopulate the globe in salty, saturated soil? Do you realize how much an elephant, let alone enough animals to repopulate the world would require? They have to reproduce. Feed their young. There would not be enough food to go around, and the chances of every species surviving approaches 0. Simple mathematics make it impossible for 2 pairs of animals to repopulate an entire planet once the ecosystems they evolved to survive in were decimated.

Let's move on to lions instead of elephants. What are they going to eat?

[sub_zer0]

So now you're saying there was even MORE food than enough to feed 2 pairs of every existing animal for 150 days?? Do you realize how long it would take for plants to repopulate the globe in salty, saturated soil? Do you realize how much an elephant, let alone enough animals to repopulate the world would require? They have to reproduce. Feed their young. There would not be enough food to go around, and the chances of every species surviving approaches 0. Simple mathematics make it impossible for 2 pairs of animals to repopulate an entire planet once the ecosystems they evolved to survive in were decimated.

I just said God had His hand in it... with Him anything is possible. I am sorry but if you argue for the opposite view you can't throw out Gods involvment.

Let's move on to lions instead of elephants. What are they going to eat?

What they do now...

[Void Image]

I just said God had His hand in it... with Him anything is possible. I am sorry but if you argue for the opposite view you can't throw out Gods involvment.

Here is what I am reading. "blah blah blah..god...blah blah..god did it.."

Conclusion: Without saying 'god did it', you cannot even provide evidence that this flood took place.

What they do now...

Lions eat other animals. There are now 4 of each prey animal worldwide. Lions will gorge on meat when prey is ready and available. The prey species would be gone before they had a chance to reproduce.

[sub_zer0]

Here is what I am reading. "blah blah blah..god...blah blah..god did it.."

Conclusion: Without saying 'god did it', you cannot even provide evidence that this flood took place.

Thousands of flood legends telling of the same things.

Lions eat other animals. There are now 4 of each prey animal worldwide. Lions will gorge on meat when prey is ready and available. The prey species would be gone before they had a chance to reproduce.

I didn't say right off the bat, it took time...

[Dangerrmouse]

It took time. So how did a vine grow in salty water and mud, with the rotting plantlife and bodies of all the unsaved people, animals etc, not just to a seedling stage, but to having leaves? while the water was still there? And all in the 7 days between dove flights?