These So-Called "Contradictions" In The Bible.

[GostHacked]

8 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

How old is the Earth, betsy? In your opinion...or are you afraid to claim it's only 10,000 or so years old?

Don't even need to go that far with her. Seems like God broke most of the commandments and/or incited others to break those same commandments he presented via Moses.

[betsy]

40 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Kill , murder, ... what is the difference Betsy?

You don't know?  I rest my case with you.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, betsy said:

I suppose the key phrase would be " according to its KIND."  That specification is repeated 10 times in Genesis.

What does God mean when He said, "according to its kind?"  We don't know exactly.  The designation of "kind" might even be broader than species (there are about 400 dog breeds belonging to one species).  Maybe, "kind" refers to genus.

The Bible referred to "sea serpent", "behemoth," and "leviathan."  Were they dinosaurs?  We don't know for sure.  If they were.......could it be that God had sent infant animals in pairs? 

 

We don't know if the 7 creation days are to be taken literally, or not.  

Genesis' emphasis is not on how old earth or the universe is.  We don't even know when the beginning began.  There was no space or time prior to that.   Genesis' emphasis is on creation by God.  God did not say when in time exactly  did He create earth. 

My view:  God does not tell us to believe that everything was created in 7 human days, or that earth is this old or that.  He tells us to believe that He is the Creator.

Further to Hydraboss's question, I remember asking this question at Elementary School when I was a little Catholic.  I couldn't figure out how a picture of Adam and Eve had Lions and Tigers in it when Dinosaurs came millions of years before Lions and Tigers.  I was told Dinosaurs didn't exist.  It might have been that that planted the seed of Atheism in me.

Anyway, not withstanding Mrs Donnely's fantasy world, how does one reconcile the vast time differences between the beginnings of life on Earth, and the first appearance of humanoid creatures, with what is written in Genesis?

 

[Omni]

34 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Further to Hydraboss's question, I remember asking this question at Elementary School when I was a little Catholic.  I couldn't figure out how a picture of Adam and Eve had Lions and Tigers in it when Dinosaurs came millions of years before Lions and Tigers.  I was told Dinosaurs didn't exist.  It might have been that that planted the seed of Atheism in me.

Anyway, not withstanding Mrs Donnely's fantasy world, how does one reconcile the vast time differences between the beginnings of life on Earth, and the first appearance of humanoid creatures, with what is written in Genesis?

 

Good point. I suspect it was actually god's own private stock of lions and tigers that he let Adam and Eve play with a little bit, but for the most part kept for himself for a few million years. I guess if you create these things you can do what you like with them.

[betsy]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Further to Hydraboss's question, I remember asking this question at Elementary School when I was a little Catholic.  I couldn't figure out how a picture of Adam and Eve had Lions and Tigers in it when Dinosaurs came millions of years before Lions and Tigers.  I was told Dinosaurs didn't exist.  It might have been that that planted the seed of Atheism in me.

Anyway, not withstanding Mrs Donnely's fantasy world, how does one reconcile the vast time differences between the beginnings of life on Earth, and the first appearance of humanoid creatures, with what is written in Genesis?

 

 

I suppose this question will be asked over and over again, so let me just re-post my previous responses:

 

I suppose the key phrase would be " according to its KIND."  That specification is repeated 10 times in Genesis.

What does God mean when He said, "according to its kind?"  We don't know exactly.  The designation of "kind" might even be broader than species (there are about 400 dog breeds belonging to one species).  Maybe, "kind" refers to genus.

The Bible referred to "sea serpent", "behemoth," and "leviathan."  Were they dinosaurs?  We don't know for sure.  If they were.......could it be that God had sent infant animals in pairs? 

 

We don't know if the 7 creation days are to be taken literally, or not.  

Genesis' emphasis is not on how old earth or the universe is.  We don't even know when the beginning began.  There was no space or time prior to that.   Genesis' emphasis is on creation by God.  God did not say when in time exactly  did He create earth. 

 

My view:  God does not tell us to believe that everything was created in 7 human days, or that earth is this old or that.  He tells us to believe that He is the Creator.

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

 

There's a reason why I say the age of the earth is not a real issue. 

 

2 Peter 3

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

Psalm 90

⁴ For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

 

 

Now, that "thousand years" could also be a figure of speech and not to be taken literally.  It could mean that God's day is not the same as a 24-hour human day.

Edited May 4, 2017 by betsy

[Guest]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

 

I suppose this question will be asked over and over again, so let me just re-post my previous responses:

 

I suppose the key phrase would be " according to its KIND."  That specification is repeated 10 times in Genesis.

What does God mean when He said, "according to its kind?"  We don't know exactly.  The designation of "kind" might even be broader than species (there are about 400 dog breeds belonging to one species).  Maybe, "kind" refers to genus.

The Bible referred to "sea serpent", "behemoth," and "leviathan."  Were they dinosaurs?  We don't know for sure.  If they were.......could it be that God had sent infant animals in pairs? 

 

We don't know if the 7 creation days are to be taken literally, or not.  

Genesis' emphasis is not on how old earth or the universe is.  We don't even know when the beginning began.  There was no space or time prior to that.   Genesis' emphasis is on creation by God.  God did not say when in time exactly  did He create earth. 

 

My view:  God does not tell us to believe that everything was created in 7 human days, or that earth is this old or that.  He tells us to believe that He is the Creator.

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

 

There's a reason why I say the age of the earth is not a real issue. 

 

2 Peter 3

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

Psalm 90

⁴ For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

 

 

Now, that "thousand years" could also be a figure of speech and not to be taken literally.  It could mean that God's day is not the same as a 24-hour human day.

So basically, the argument against contradictions in the Bible (which I freely admit to not having read since childhood and being fairly ignorant of) are based on your assumptions of what figures of speech might mean?  That doesn't constitute a strong argument, IMO. 

One thing I don't understand.  Given its provenance, why is contradiction not acceptable?  It's a work of men, after all, not God.

[betsy]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So basically, the argument against contradictions in the Bible (which I freely admit to not having read since childhood and being fairly ignorant of) are based on your assumptions of what figures of speech might mean?  That doesn't constitute a strong argument, IMO. 

 

 

It's not simply my opinion since I'd given you supporting verses!

 

 

Quote

One thing I don't understand.  Given its provenance, why is contradiction not acceptable?  It's a work of men, after all, not God.

 

It's not that contradiction is not acceptable.  I'm saying there are no contradictions!

 

What folks say are contradiction, are actually misconceptions and/or ignorance of the Scriptures.

Edited May 4, 2017 by betsy

[Guest]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

 

It's not simply my opinion since I'd given you supporting verses!

But it is still interpretation, though?  You, or anyone else, has to intepret the verses to mean what they are required to mean to avoid contradiction.

[betsy]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

But it is still interpretation, though?  You, or anyone else, has to intepret the verses to mean what they are required to mean to avoid contradiction.

 

With SUPPORTING verses!

 

 

Quote

So basically, the argument against contradictions in the Bible (which I freely admit to not having read since childhood and being fairly ignorant of)

 

You, yourself, had admitted of being ignorant of the Bible - what authority do you think you have to question an interpretation WITH SUPPORTING verses?  

You're in a laughable position trying to debate something you freely admit to be ignorant about!

 

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by betsy

[Guest]

Just now, betsy said:

 

With SUPPORTING verses!

 

 

Panto now... 

Intepreted by you.  " "thousand years" could also be a figure of speech and not to be taken literally"

[DogOnPorch]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Panto now... 

Intepreted by you.  " "thousand years" could also be a figure of speech and not to be taken literally"

 

Seeing it's also the rewritten King James version or the like. Not sure the King's English was being used in the pre-Roman Levant.

[Hydraboss]

On 5/3/2017 at 8:54 AM, betsy said:

Now, that thousand years could also be a figure of speech - meaning that God's day is not the same as human day.

Or it could figuratively mean half a billion.  I get that.  What I can't put to rest (hence my question about dinosaurs) is the timing written in the book (allowing for the representative lengths).  I've read Genesis and "the beasts" were made before man - okay cool.  But then Noah puts everything that is to survive on a boat and the big guy floods the planet.

1) There is no scientific evidence that the planet was completely flooded AFTER the existence of mankind.

2) How the frick do you explain the evidence of huge land based mammals showing up after Noah when there is absolutely no way he could have fit them on a boat?

3) In order to populate the earth to known levels, the small handful of people that were apparently on the ark would have needed thousands and thousands of years of inbreeding to reach the population levels that were recorded soon after "the flood".  This re population is genetically impossible...not improbable...impossible.

I have no idea how even the loosest of translations of the book can address these issues but I'm curious as to your take on it.  And please actually answer the questions - don't respond like hot enough in a 9/11 thread.

 

Thanks,

[betsy]

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Panto now... 

Intepreted by you.  " "thousand years" could also be a figure of speech and not to be taken literally"

It could be. 

 

 

[betsy]

Quote

2) How the frick do you explain the evidence of huge land based mammals showing up after Noah when there is absolutely no way he could have fit them on a boat?

You must be thinking of children's books that show giraffes and elephants, with big smiles,  sticking their heads out from the boat.

 

The Biblical cubit in our own standard of measurement is estimated to be 18 inches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit

 

Based on that measurement, that would make the ark 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

 

Quote

 

Using the most conservative estimate available for the length of the cubit (17.5 inches), Whitcomb and Morris have shown that the ark would have been 437.5 feet long, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75 feet high. In its three decks (Genesis 6:16), it had a total area of approximately 95,700 square feet—the equivalent of slightly more than twenty standard basketball courts. Its total volume would have been about 1,396,000 cubic feet. The gross tonnage (a measurement of cubic space rather than weight, one ton being equivalent to 100 cubic feet of usable storage space) was about 13,960 tons (p. 10).

 

The ark, just like the S.S. Jeremiah O’Brien, was not built for speed (it had nowhere to go!). But it did need to be reliable—since it would have to withstand pounding waves and whipping winds on the open seas for approximately a year.

For the sake of realism, imagine waiting at a railroad crossing while ten freight trains, each pulling 52 boxcars, move slowly by, one after another. That is how much space was available in the Ark, for its capacity was equivalent to 520 modern railroad stock cars. A barge of such gigantic size, with its thousands of built-in compartments (Gen. 6:14) would have been sufficiently large to carry two of every species of air-breathing animal in the world today (and doubtless the tendency toward taxonomic splitting has produced more “species” than can be justified in terms of Genesis “kinds”) on only half of its available deck space.

 

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1413

 

 

Where does it say in the Bible that the animals were full-grown?

 

 

Quote

3) In order to populate the earth to known levels, the small handful of people that were apparently on the ark would have needed thousands and thousands of years of inbreeding to reach the population levels that were recorded soon after "the flood".  This re population is genetically impossible...not improbable...impossible.

 

On the same note I ask:  assuming the flood didn't occur, and evolution is true.....

........................if we use the evolutionary time scale, we'd say that most of the human population is missing!

 

No, it's not impossible! 

 

Quote

 

Is it possible for Noah’s family to grow to 7 billion in only 4500 years? Yes, easily! Populations grow exponentially, just like money in a savings account. Population growth is compound growth like compound interest.

Population Growth Since Noah’s Flood

Reliable world population data prior to 1800 does not exist. All we have are estimates and guesses which could be wildly inaccurate. Therefore we will start with 1804 when the post-Flood world population first reached 1 billion according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2012 it reached 7 billion. Thus over that 208-year period the average population doubling time was about 74 years. This corresponds to an average annual growth rate of 0.00940 or a percentage growth rate of 0.940%. This means that each year a net of 940 people were added for every 100,000 people. In other words, for every 100,000 people that existed at the beginning of each year, 100,940 people existed at the end of the year.

To calculate the earth’s population growth since Noah’s Flood, let’s be extremely conservative and say average population growth is only half this rapid. That is, let’s assume it takes 150 years for the population to double on average. This corresponds to an average annual percentage growth rate of 0.463% (for every 100,000 people, a net of 463 are added yearly). For comparison, this is the same thing as saying $6 invested at 0.463% annual interest for 4500 years would grow to $6,400,000,000.

Then in 6,000 years since Creation, there would be 40 doublings (6,000/150 = 40). Two people (Adam and Eve) would grow to 2.2 trillion in 6,000 years. This is far, far greater than today’s population. In fact it’s over 300 times today’s population.

 

https://biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/1-population-growth-could-noah-fill-the-earth/

 

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

5 hours ago, Hydraboss said:

 

1) There is no scientific evidence that the planet was completely flooded AFTER the existence of mankind.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say there's no evidence to support the great flood.  One is the polystrate fossils.  Another is clastic dikes.  Then there's also "extensive strata and pancake layering."

But it's like the debate on climate change, or macroevolution.....

 

Speaking of macroevolution - there is no scientific evidence to support it and yet, look how Darwinists are so willing to accept it.

 

 

 

 

 

[GostHacked]

23 hours ago, betsy said:

You don't know?  I rest my case with you.

So is it ok if God murders and kills people? This contradiction negates any other argument you have or would put forth.

 

NEXT!!

[Guest]

3 hours ago, betsy said:

It could be. 

 

 

It certainly could be.  The phrase "There are no contradictions in the Bible."  does tend to imply that there is no "could" about it, though.

[betsy]

12 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It certainly could be.  The phrase "There are no contradictions in the Bible."  does tend to imply that there is no "could" about it, though.

 

Though your statement doesn't make any sense since you're mis-using the term contradiction.....I do understand what you're trying to say.  You're still wrong, though.

 

There's no contradiction since God was using His day.  Night and day weren't God's first creation, therefore He couldn't be referring to human 24-hour day.  For consistency, His seventh day would have to be the same as the days He'd used in creating His creations.

 

That is also compounded by logical reasoning:

The Bible is full of figures of speech.  God/Jesus had used numerous figures of speech.  Therefore, that number, "a thousand," could also be simply a figure of speech that means God's days are not similar to human 24-hour days.

In this case, "SIMILE" (figure of speech),  is used.

 

God's days are not similar to human 24-hour days.  That's the message with Psalm and Peter verses.

 

Thus I say, the age of the earth is not an issue at all, however a Christian would want to take it (whether literally or not).  The point being given is that the world had a beginning, and it was created.  God is giving us a historical statement (a generalized statement of His creation - He didn't get into details about thermo dynamics, etc.,). 

To believe that God is the Creator.....that's the full import of Genesis.

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by betsy

[Guest]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Though your statement doesn't make any sense since you're mis-using the term contradiction.....I do understand what you're trying to say.  You're still wrong, though.

 

It makes sense to me.  A contradiction occurs when ideas or statements oppose each other, according to the dictionary.  There cannot be a contradiction if ideas or statements are open to interpretation.  One simply interprets them such as to eliminate the contradiction.

Edited May 5, 2017 by bcsapper

[betsy]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

It makes sense to me.  A contradiction occurs when ideas or statements oppose each other, according to the dictionary.  There cannot be a contradiction if ideas or statements are open to interpretation.  One simply interprets them such as to eliminate the contradiction.

There is no contradiction, bcsapper.  The message is consistent:  the world had a beginning, and it was created.

 

You can't even follow the logic above???

 

I suppose you and I are done here since being ignorant of the Bible (which you freely admitted),  you don't really have anything substantial to discuss.

Edited May 5, 2017 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

What verse of the Bible details the four allotropic states of iron as relating to the Big Bang?

[DogOnPorch]

15 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It certainly could be.  The phrase "There are no contradictions in the Bible."  does tend to imply that there is no "could" about it, though.

 

The Bible is one big contradiction. Adam and Eve had sons, eh?

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, betsy said:

There is no contradiction, bcsapper.  The message is consistent:  the world had a beginning, and it was created.

 

You can't even follow the logic above???

 

I suppose you and I are done here since being ignorant of the Bible (which you freely admitted),  you don't really have anything substantial to discuss.

My knowledge of the Bible isn't really relevant to the discussion.  You freely admit that there are contradictions, but you claim to be able to interpret them out of existence.  I'm not arguing the Bible.  I don't have to, as you yourself quote the contradictions.  Then you go on to say they didn't mean it. 

 

[betsy]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

My knowledge of the Bible isn't really relevant to the discussion.

 

Oh yes it is.   You're arguing about what you admitted to be ignorant about. 

Not only that...... you can't get the logic that I gave you.

 

 

 

Quote

You freely admit that there are contradictions

I did no such thing! 

Now you're showing you also don't comprehend what you read.    You should discuss with Gosthacked.

 

Bye-bye.....I'll ignore you until you've got something worth responding to.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

Bye-bye.....I'll ignore you until you've got something worth responding to.

Well, that's one way to eliminate contradictions.