These So-Called "Contradictions" In The Bible.

[AsksWhy]

On 7/17/2017 at 6:33 AM, betsy said:

The heavenly bodies were already created before the first day!

You have said this more than once in this thread ... with no supporting evidence; yet, you expect us to accept it as truth.

Addressing this, your statement is not likely to be true at all.

Q: Since when do we analyze the meaning of every sentence we read?
A: Never.

Q: So why would we do this when reading the Bible?
A: We wouldn't.

Take a simple paragraph for example. A well written paragraph will evolve from four elements:

• Unity - whereby a paragraph is unified around a main idea, with supporting sentences providing detail and discussion.
• Order - the way in which the supporting sentences are organized.
• Coherence - the quality that makes the writing understandable.
• Completeness - all supporting sentences clearly and sufficiently support the main idea.
  www.time4writing.com

Applying this knowledge to Genesis > Chapter 1 (The Beginning), the first line is likely the main idea, and each subsequent line a supporting sentence.

On 7/17/2017 at 6:33 AM, betsy said:

24-hour day (time),  was created on the third  God's day. 

Genesis 1

¹³ And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Actually, "and there was evening, and there was morning" precedes every "day". - New International Version (NIV).

On 7/17/2017 at 6:33 AM, betsy said:

We don't know exactly how many human years is in God's day.  A couple of verses refers to it as "a thousand years," but we don't know if that's a figure of speech that simply means God's day isn't like a 24-hour day.

Why would you feel I needed this tidbit of information? - Instead, I would have preferred an answer to my original question.

So let's try this again ...

Given that a unit is an equally divisible element of a whole, and the author uses "day" as a representation of "time".

Would you say that "day" is an equally divisible element of "time" as a whole, or does each "day" vary in length?

Edited July 18, 2017 by AsksWhy

[The_Squid]

A "day" is the time it takes the earth to spin on its axis completely around one time.

Was god using a different planet to measure the days?  

Where does it say in the bible that a day is not actually a day?

Edited July 18, 2017 by The_Squid

[betsy]

3 hours ago, AsksWhy said:

You have said this more than once in this thread ... with no supporting evidence; yet, you expect us to accept it as truth.

 

EHHHH?  

 

What.... "with no supporting evidence"?  I said that?  About my arguments???  CITE!

 

I won't bother with the rest of your post until you clear this up!  I want to know if you can understand what you read. 

Edited July 18, 2017 by betsy

[hot enough]

On what day did dog create emoticons, betsy?

[betsy]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

A "day" is the time it takes the earth to spin on its axis completely around one time.

Was god using a different planet to measure the days?  

Where does it say in the bible that a day is not actually a day?

 

God started creation using His day.  It wasn't until Genesis 1:14 that 24-hour days was created.

 

If we follow scientific theories and findings, God couldn't have switched from God's day to 24-hour day in continuing on with His creation.  He has to still be using God's day....unless you're talking about instantaneous creation (they all miraculously popped up).

 

Genesis 1

²⁰ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

²¹ And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

All that couldn't have happened in a 24-hour day......if based on scientific hypotheses.

 

Quote

Life on Earth first bloomed around 3.7 billion years ago, when chemical compounds in a "primordial soup" somehow sparked into life, scientists suspect. But what turned sterile molecules into living, changing organisms? That's the ultimate mystery.

https://www.livescience.com/18565-life-building-blocks-chemical-evolution.html

 

Since science reaffirms the correct order of creation in the Bible, then it has to be God's day.

 

The Bible Describes The Correct Order of Creation (post #599)

 

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by betsy

[The_Squid]

19 minutes ago, betsy said:

God started creation using His day

How long was his day?  Why would he have said day then and not year, or millenia?  A day is 24 hours.  A day is not 24 years, or whatever.   You people are just pulling this stuff right out of your butts to justify your beliefs.

[betsy]

8 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

How long was his day?  Why would he have said day then and not year, or millenia?  A day is 24 hours.  A day is not 24 years, or whatever.   You people are just pulling this stuff right out of your butts to justify your beliefs.

 

.......and there goes Squid. 

Bye, Squid. 

Edited July 18, 2017 by betsy

[Omni]

29 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

How long was his day?  Why would he have said day then and not year, or millenia?  A day is 24 hours.  A day is not 24 years, or whatever.   You people are just pulling this stuff right out of your butts to justify your beliefs.

Yes but it seems if you use enough oversize bright colored fonts, and throw in a few emoticons, it makes it all true. 

[The_Squid]

28 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

.......and there goes Squid. 

Bye, Squid.  

You have no answers to any of this stuff.  Keeping listening to those evangelists and regurgitating what they say.

[JamesHackerMP]

The footnotes in my copy said that, to the Jews, a "day"begins at sundown, and ends at the next sundown.  That is why many Jewish holidays begin at sundown the previous night; it's the beginning of their actual day.  That could be the reason for "and evening came, and norning came: the next day."

[JamesHackerMP]

8 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Even though they got wiped out by the flood - they didn't get wiped out as descendants.

As an analogy, if only one person survived the Holocaust (Nazi), and all his family were wiped out by the Nazis......... and this lone survivor moved on in life to marry, and beget children and grandchildren......do you think the family tree chart that his future grandchildren will create to trace back their descendants, will end with this lone survivor, since everyone's been wiped out except him?

 

Well, fair enough on that score.  Still, one wonders why that was written in Genesis in the first place.  It just seems like the descendants of Noah (Ham, Shem, Japeth, etc.) are more relevant.  And even they are probably in there as part of some sort of Hebrew traditions, not meant to be a literal family tree.

The Torah itself (Gen, Ex, Lev, Num, Deut) has different sources, and it's not agreed upon by all biblical scholars as to when it was written down.  But we at least now know that it is not written by Moses himself even if some bibles say "THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES, CALLED GENESIS" for example.  That's basically a tradition to ascribe it to his authorship instead of trying to figure out exactly when it was really written.  

My point, therefore, is that the names of these ancestors are possibly--as the intro to the Pentateuch/Torah in my copy---a retrojection from the 400s or 300s B.C.  (It also gives another theory from scholars that it was written much earlier, but still combines several different threads or authors.)  After all, the Jews were in captivity for a while, the Babylonian captivity as it is known.  If they had anything written down before the invasion of Israel, it likely would have been destroyed.

This is why there are some of these contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible: the Torah didn't have a single author, nor was the whole of the OT written at the same time (as some ascribe the Pslams to king David and the "wisdom" books to Solomon).  When that is the case, things do get a little muddled, even Christian/Jewish sacred writings.

As an aside: to Christians, the "word" of God is not the bible, but Jesus Christ himself.  It is the muslims who believe the Qur'an is the direct word of God.  In Christianity, Jesus is "the Word" incarnate.  (If I'm not mistaken that is covered in the Gospel acc. to John.)

Edited July 18, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[AsksWhy]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

EHHHH?  

What.... "with no supporting evidence"?  I said that?  About my arguments???  CITE!

I won't bother with the rest of your post until you clear this up!  I want to know if you can understand what you read. 

Okay, referring to the first line in post 176, I claimed that you said "the heavenly bodies were created before the first day!", which I can confirm in post 163 for sure. - Whereby, you don't follow it up with any supporting evidence. NOTE: I believe there was another post somewhere, where you repeated the same (or similar) comment, but I cannot find it within this chaotic mess of posts.

Now please, if you could answer the question I asked in post 157 (first), and then again in post 176. - Thanks.

[betsy]

12 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Well, fair enough on that score.  Still, one wonders why that was written in Genesis in the first place.  It just seems like the descendants of Noah (Ham, Shem, Japeth, etc.) are more relevant.  And even they are probably in there as part of some sort of Hebrew traditions, not meant to be a literal family tree.

The Torah itself (Gen, Ex, Lev, Num, Deut) has different sources, and it's not agreed upon by all biblical scholars as to when it was written down.  But we at least now know that it is not written by Moses himself even if some bibles say "THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES, CALLED GENESIS" for example.  That's basically a tradition to ascribe it to his authorship instead of trying to figure out exactly when it was really written.  

My point, therefore, is that the names of these ancestors are possibly--as the intro to the Pentateuch/Torah in my copy---a retrojection from the 400s or 300s B.C.  (It also gives another theory from scholars that it was written much earlier, but still combines several different threads or authors.)  After all, the Jews were in captivity for a while, the Babylonian captivity as it is known.  If they had anything written down before the invasion of Israel, it likely would have been destroyed.

This is why there are some of these contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible: the Torah didn't have a single author, nor was the whole of the OT written at the same time (as some ascribe the Pslams to king David and the "wisdom" books to Solomon).  When that is the case, things do get a little muddled, even Christian/Jewish sacred writings.

As an aside: to Christians, the "word" of God is not the bible, but Jesus Christ himself.  It is the muslims who believe the Qur'an is the direct word of God.  In Christianity, Jesus is "the Word" incarnate.  (If I'm not mistaken that is covered in the Gospel acc. to John.)

 

Despite the numerous authors, from various time-lines, the Bible is not "muddled."   In fact, the consistency of its message has been sustained.

 

Quote

It is apparent that many of the writers did not know of the other writers of Scripture and were unfamiliar with the other writings, inasmuch as the writers wrote over a period of more than fifteen hundred years, yet the Bible is a marvelous, unified whole. There are no contradictions or inconsistencies within its pages. The Holy Spirit is the unifier of the sixty-six books, determining its harmonious consistency. In unity these books teach the triunity of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the fall and depravity of man, as well as salvation by grace. It quickly becomes apparent that no human being(s) could have orchestrated the harmony of the teachings of the Scripture. The divine authorship of the Bible is the only answer.²¹

https://bible.org/seriespage/4-bible-written-word-god

 

 

 

 

Quote

As an aside: to Christians, the "word" of God is not the bible, but Jesus Christ himself.   It is the muslims who believe the Qur'an is the direct word of God.  In Christianity, Jesus is "the Word" incarnate.  (If I'm not mistaken that is covered in the Gospel acc. to John.)

 

You're confusing the "Word of God" with "The Word."  

 

Quote

In hundreds of passages, the Bible declares or takes the position explicitly or implicitly that it is nothing less than the very Word of God.

https://bible.org/seriespage/4-bible-written-word-god

 

The Bible is called the Word of God because it is the written message of God.

 

Quote

The phrase “word of God” appears often in the Bible and can have a slightly different meaning depending on context and the Hebrew or Greek word used. John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” Here, Word is a title of the Lord Jesus. The term translated “Word” is logos, which basically means “the expression of a thought.” Logos can be thought of as the total message of God to man (Acts 11:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). Jesus embodied that total message, and that is why He is called the “Logos,” or “Word,” of God (Colossians 1:19; 2:9).

Logos is also used many times when referring to the written message of God (John 17:17; 1 Timothy 4:5; Revelation 1:2; Colossians 1:25).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Bible-Word-God.html

 

 

Edited July 19, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

13 hours ago, AsksWhy said:

Okay, referring to the first line in post 176, I claimed that you said "the heavenly bodies were created before the first day!", which I can confirm in post 163 for sure. - Whereby, you don't follow it up with any supporting evidence. NOTE: I believe there was another post somewhere, where you repeated the same (or similar) comment, but I cannot find it within this chaotic mess of posts.

 

 

Well, yes they would be created before the first day. 

Genesis 1:1 has been the evidence that the earth was already created before the first day!  How many times have I given Genesis 1:1? 

 

Read the first few verses of Genesis.

Genesis 1

History of Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

² The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was^[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

 

Earth was already covered with water at this time, and it was dark due to the gases in atmosphere.

 

³ Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. ⁴ And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

Bringing in the light and dividing the light from darkness was the thing that was done on the first day!  That means, creation of earth and the heavens were done BEFORE the first day! GOD'S DAY!

 

Here's the scientific compatibility:

Quote

 

Most people read the Genesis creation account without using the scientific method and, therefore, make assumptions that are not supported by the text. For example, the first rule of the scientific method is to establish the initial conditions, or the frame of reference.

Genesis 1:2 clearly states that the frame of reference is "the surface of the waters" of the earth. Most people have made the mistake of assuming the frame of reference of Genesis 1 is heaven or somewhere above the earth.

What does the text specifically say? The heavens (universe, solar system, sun, earth, etc.) were already created before the first "day" (Genesis 1:1, ~14 x 10⁹ years ago).

 

Both science and the Bible (8) have told us that at the earth's creation, it was covered with a dense layer of clouds and gases which would have made it dark at its surface. Genesis 1:2 says, "darkness was over the surface of the deep."

Next, God removed much of the cloud cover, when He stated, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now "separated light from darkness" (Genesis 1:4). It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night) (Genesis 1:5).

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html#n03

 

You're new to the board.  In serious matters such as this, I never make claims that I don't - or can't -  support.

The rest of your post #176,  is rendered moot.

Edited July 19, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

13 hours ago, AsksWhy said:

 

Now please, if you could answer the question I asked in post 157 (first),

 

I DID!

Post #163! 

I also added:

Quote

betsy

We don't know exactly how many human years is in God's day.  A couple of verses refers to it as "a thousand years," but we don't know if that's a figure of speech that simply means God's day isn't like a 24-hour day.

 

What was your response to that?  You dismissed it!

Quote

Askswhy

Why would you feel I needed this tidbit of information?

 

 

And you ask me to answer your post #157?

Quote

Askswhy

I imply no hidden meaning to the word "day". - Can we agree that it simply refers to an interval of time, by which each interval is the same length?

Also, would the following assumption be correct: God created "the heavens and the earth" over a period of six "days", and rested on the seventh?

 

I'll post the same thing:

It's difficult to  establish God's time-line!

We don't know exactly how many human years is in God's day.  A couple of verses refers to it as "a thousand years," but we don't know if that's a figure of speech that simply means God's day isn't like a 24-hour day.

 

The heavenly bodies were already created before the first day of creation. 

For how long had they been already in existence, we don't know!

Furthermore, If the heavenly bodies have varying ages, it means they were not created at the same time.  

 

That's why I cannot agree to your assumption that all those were created over a period of 6 God days.   That can't be correct, since not only do  you have no basis whatsoever for that assumption....but your assumption also defies logic!

 

Now you should know why  I gave you that tidbit of information! That's part of the response to your #157!

Edited July 19, 2017 by betsy

[AsksWhy]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

13 hours ago, AsksWhy said:

Okay, referring to the first line in post 176, I claimed that you said "the heavenly bodies were created before the first day!", which I can confirm in post 163 for sure. - Whereby, you don't follow it up with any supporting evidence. NOTE: I believe there was another post somewhere, where you repeated the same (or similar) comment, but I cannot find it within this chaotic mess of posts.

Well, yes they would be created before the first day. 

Genesis 1:1 has been the evidence that the earth was already created before the first day!  How many times have I given Genesis 1:1? 

Read the first few verses of Genesis.

Genesis 1

History of Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

² The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was^[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Earth was already covered with water at this time, and it was dark due to the gases in atmosphere.

³ Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. ⁴ And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Bringing in the light and dividing the light from darkness was the thing that was done on the first day!  That means, creation of earth and the heavens were done BEFORE the first day!

You're new to the board.  In serious matters such as this, I never make claims that I don't - or can't -  support.

The rest of your post #176,  is rendered moot.

So basically, you and Richard L. Deem (a religious microbiologist) claim that because Line 1 is written before Line 3 it is evidence that the heavens and the earth were created before Day 1?

Wow! I so badly want to jab a fork into my eye right now! - Please don't confuse "beliefs" with "proof".

Additionally, you must not have read (or understood) a single word of what I wrote in comment 176, did you?

As such, I must assume that when you and Mr. Biology read the bible, you do so more like a computer (line by line); whereas, I read it more like a well written story, where paragraphs contain main ideas and supporting sentences.

I was trying to find a common ground with you, by which we could have a civil conversation about the many contradictions in the Bible; but apparently we cannot reach agreement on the third question I had for you: that the word "day" (as written in Genesis > Chapter 1) is an equally divisible element of "time"; thus, each "day" must be the same length?

Amazing!

Edited July 19, 2017 by AsksWhy

[AsksWhy]

30 minutes ago, betsy said:

* see comment 190

Based on YOUR LOGIC, each DAY (clearly an element of time) may vary in length. Meaning, Day 1 might be a millennium, Day 2 a week, Day 3 several hours, etc.

Imagine if we applied that logic to each element of an hour (for example)... each minute, may not actually be 60 seconds. Minute 1 might be 80 seconds, minute 2 might be 30, and minute 3 might be 16.

I can no longer continue this conversation with you betsy. I tried, but failed ... miserably!

[betsy]

4 hours ago, AsksWhy said:

So basically, you and Richard L. Deem (a religious microbiologist) claim

 

Nope.  It's not what only Deem says.  It's what science claims.  

 

 

Quote

 

Ancient Earth was a barren waterworld

 

By David Shiga

DRY land may be something of a novelty. Until around 2.5 billion years ago our planet was almost completely covered by water, a model of the early Earth suggests.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126882-600-ancient-earth-was-a-barren-waterworld/

 

That's why I asked you to review the evidences from the other thread - they are backed by science! 

Refer to post #606 for a recap of all evidences given from the thread "Why Trust The Bible."

 

 

 

Quote

that because Line 1 is written before Line 3 it is evidence that the heavens and the earth were created before Day 1?

 

No, silly. 

It's what's written on line 1.  God created the heavens and the earth! 

It's also what's written on line 2.  The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was^[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

From line 1 and 2, it is clear that the heavenly bodies were already created.  not only that, water already existed and it covered the earth.  And that's supported by science - check out the source given above. 

And then, there's  line 3.  It specifically said what was created on the first day.

 

That's why I asked you to go and check out those evidences! 

You're bringing up juvenile arguments - and they're based on ignorance.  Review those evidences (and their scientific support).    I don't have the time, or the patience to spoon-feed you with details that were already posted in the other topic.  I made it easy for you to locate them  Go to Post #606 of Why Trust The Bible, and check out the individual evidences.  Their individual post numbers are listed.

 

I'll have to give your posts a pass.......unless I see something worth responding to. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2017 by betsy

[hot enough]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

That's why I asked you to go and check out those evidences! 

You're bringing up juvenile arguments - and they're based on ignorance.  Review those evidences (and their scientific support). 

Speaking of ignorance, Betsy, 'evidence' is an uncountable noun. And what is more juvenile than attempting to massage the crap of the bible making a pretense that it lines up with science. The Scopes Monkey Trial says all that needs to be said about the bible and how it comports with science. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

If there was actually anything to religion, you wouldn't be such a rabid supporter of war criminals, terrorists, baby killers, thieves, rapists, people who poison innocents, ... . 

[JamesHackerMP]

OK wait a second, I'm still not sure I understand that difference, between the Word and the Word of God.  I meant them to be commensurate, or the same thing really.

[betsy]

16 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

OK wait a second, I'm still not sure I understand that difference, between the Word and the Word of God.  I meant them to be commensurate, or the same thing really.

The Word of God (Bible) - is the written message of God.

The Word (Jesus)  - is a title.    The Word of God (Jesus) -  Jesus embodies the total  message of God.

Edited July 20, 2017 by betsy

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

The Word of God (Bible) - is the written message of God.

The Word (Jesus)  - is a title.    The Word of God (Jesus) -  Jesus embodies the total  message of God.

So says a bunch a folks who desperately want to believe the bullshit they are told. They listen to some dumb ass preacher who has been duped as badly as all the rest of the folks. 

[JamesHackerMP]

8 hours ago, hot enough said:

So says a bunch a folks who desperately want to believe the bullshit they are told. They listen to some dumb ass preacher who has been duped as badly as all the rest of the folks. 

So says someone in the mood for trolling.

[hot enough]

On 7/20/2017 at 7:00 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

So says someone in the mood for trolling.

This is a discussion forum, James. What are you doing?

Do you deny that religion is a form of brainwashing? Of the equal of American brainwashing?