Questioning Society discussion
More Enlightment
>
What Happens When You Die?
message 101:
by
Lauren
(new)
Apr 28, 2009 11:49AM
Why?
reply
|
flag
Mod
It's what the Bible says. I believe the Bible.
The Bible is historically accurate, and it has proof.
the concept of God is different to different people. My mama does not seem to believe in a personal God. She's up for the creator being or force but not the dude that answers your prayers or the bad mutha that gets you when you've been bad. There is no set definiton for God.
Me, I'm not sure I'm up for the mutha that gets you when you're bad concept either. Although, I think if a god can be big enough to create the universe, it can also be small enough to look at me.
Ninja wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Why? "It's what the Bible says. I believe the Bible.
The Bible is historically accurate, and it has proof."
Really where in any history book does it say that Jesus walked on water?
"The Bible is historically accurate, and it has proof. "The Bible is actually full of contradictions and outright lies.
Mod
Archeological evidence.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delph...
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arc...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr...
http://www.christiananswers.net/archa...
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/out...
http://www.carm.org/christianity/bibl...
Mod
I guess we can't historically prove that, but much of the Bible can be proven through historic evidence. There are outside sources that have some of the same people and stories and stuff to back up what the Bible says.
Mod
The Bible is actually full of contradictions and outright lies. "
Show me ONE contradiction!
Mod
http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html
Mod
Third is large but still a minority. Number three is bronze not gold.I understand Bees have a wider range of colors they can see than humans. I can't really remember where I heard that. But, I've also heard dogs only see in black and white- that's be easier to prove, you just look inside a dog's eyeball and count the rods and cones.
So dogs don't see blue. Does blue exist?
You can't see a unicorn, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means just that, you can't see it. Infrared and all that.
It's easier to prove something is, than to prove something isn't.
The world looks flat to me. When I look up in the sky, it looks to me like the sun, moon and other celestial bodies are moving around me.
There are no unicorns because you have not observed it to be so. The earth is flat because that is what is observable. But you know, about that flat earth thing, well it all depends on what you use to look at it.
What is percievable?
Because you do not percieve it so, does that really mean it isn't?
Perhaps the technology for detecting unicorns just hasn't been developed yet. Since I'm not aware of any research grants pertaining to unicorns, chances are we won't be developing such technology anytime soon.
We don't see because we're not looking.
And like dogs, maybe we can't see because we're just not built that way. So does that mean unicorns don't exist?
For some reason, we're not given a lot of information about what happens when we die. A lot of us do our best to fill in the blanks as we go along. But not knowing, and maybe not being able to know doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
But then, why call the Universe God at all. The word God brings so much baggage from History, it'll get confusing. Like Einstein's "God" confuses people.I agree. If God is everything, God is nothing. Or, as someone on here once said, there's nothing that can be said about God that can't also be said about the universe, so God is superfluous. But rgb likes to call the universe "God," and we let him get away with it. ;)
No, I mean outside in that he doesn't have to follow the rules of time. Time doesn't exist for Him. That's how he can be everywhere, with everyone, watching over everything.If I can paraphrase what I think rgb is getting at, God judges our actions, and actions only exist in the context of time, so how can our actions exist for or matter to God if he exists outside of time and isn't bound by it. Please try to answer with something more than "Because he's God."
The Bible is historically accurate, and it has proof.
The Bible isn't even biblically accurate, let alone historically accurate. Jesus dies on different days in Mark and John. The bible says rabbits chew their cud. There is no geological evidence for and strong geological and archaeological evidence against the flood. Jesus is supposedly born during Herod's reign, who died 4 B.C., and during Quirinius's census, which was 6 A.D.. Either Mary was in labor for over ten years, or the bible is historically inaccurate. Nazareth didn't exist when Jesus was alive. All the Jews in Egypt wandered in the desert for forty years and left no evidence, but there are reports from that time of two escaped slaves wandering in the desert?
Third is large but still a minority. Number three is bronze not gold. Fortunately, might does not make right, and all the believers in the world can't bring God into existence through sheer will. There was a time when a majority of Americans believed that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks; doesn't make it so. The point is that we are neither a Christian nor an atheist society; we are a secular society predominated by Christians but with a growing number of atheists.
You can't see a unicorn, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means just that, you can't see it. Infrared and all that.
Well, we have a lot of equipment capable of detecting infrared, but I don't think that's your point. The fact that it could exist despite a lack of proof is a stupid reason to believe that it does exist. Otherwise, we'd be bound to believe in every fantastical thing someone could dream up. And we don't. Most people believe in a very few things like this, so the argument that "it could" is reason to believe that "it does" is really just a rationalization for being able to decide, sans evidence, what does and does not exist. We would like to be able to decide what the world is like, or we really wish the world was the way we hope it is, so we come up with rationalizations like this. But either you believe in every unproven hypothetical, or you believe in no unproven hypothetical. Otherwise, it's just wishful thinking.
Mod
http://apologiachristos.wordpress.com...
War or Peace?
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/warringgo...
Who is the father of Joseph?
http://www.bumby.org/faq/contradictio...
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fa...
http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr...
Mod
I think at least some of those are included in the list Lauren gave me. I'm going down the list, debunking all the supposed contradictions. The Bible has no contradictions.
Mod
If you want an answer to your contradictions, please can you list them one by one, so I can keep track?
Mod
I'm working on this list, 3 down so far, check comment above.
The Bible has no contradictions.If you begin with that as your premise, and then you engage in a lot of gymnastics, you will be able to explain away all the bible's contradictions, with itself, history and common sense. But if you hold the bible to the standard to which you hold any other supposed history book, it crumbles.
Ninja wrote: "Lauren wrote: ""The Bible is historically accurate, and it has proof. "The Bible is actually full of contradictions and outright lies. "
Show me ONE contradiction!"
Lauren, honey, the polite thing to call them is "myths", or "legends", not "lies". Stories.
Regarding contradictions, Ninja, have you actually read the Bible? Nobody ever does, is why I ask. If you have, then why stop at one?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Why stop at one contradiction with known facts about history or science, either?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Of course you'll simply deny that these are contradictions. So let's pick one and get very concrete with it. My favorite is the open conflict between the nativity story in Matthew and Luke, in part because they cannot be reconciled with each other AND with history.
Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, who died around 4 BCE. Herod was supposedly informed by Magi of Jesus's birth (Magi absent from Luke) and became concerned about a nonexistent prediction of his being deposed by the baby (implausible since he was rather old and people didn't live that long at the time anyway) and murdered hundreds of babies (and sure enough, died at most a year or two later). To avoid being murdered, you will recall, Jesus supposedly fled to Egypt (well, his parents did) and remained there for years, just so he could fulfill another nonexistent prophecy and come "out of Egypt" and return).
Luke, on the other hand, has Jesus born in the reign of Herod Antipas, in about 6 CE (ten years later than Matthew). His birth was attended by shepherds, not magi/kings, and there weren't any gifts or prophecies or stars leading the way. This is at least plausible, since it supposedly took place during a Roman census, and 6 BCE is the first Roman census that had ever taken place in Judea and was indeed during the reign of Herod Antipas, but this Herod certainly didn't murder any children -- his Roman masters wouldn't have let him. Luke has Jesus going home right after being born, never going to Egypt at all, and indeed returning to Jerusalem every year and wowing all the rabbis and priests of the temple (standard myth/legend fare).
Ten years of separation in place, two different Herods, two different "what Jesus did after he was born" stories, and Matthew at least is wildly implausible. If Herod had actually gone around killing hundreds of newborn babies he could not possibly have escaped the notice of contemporary Roman residents and historians, not to mention the fact that this would have precipitated a bloody war that would REALLY have attracted notice. Josephus hated both Herods and would certainly have mentioned a little think like mass infanticide.
This doesn't require "interpretation" to see as contradictory -- you can just read the text. They are contradictory, and Matthew contradicts known history up front as well.
If you want to read a well-written article that goes through all of the source material from that period one item at a time to clearly demonstrate that Matthew and Luke cannot be made consistent with each other or history, visit here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/moder...
It's a nice piece of scholarship. There are a number of other issues with Matthew in particular -- the silliest of the gospels, with dead dancing in the streets of Jerusalem and invented prophecies and so much more -- here:
http://www.goatstar.org/the-author-of...
(and of course this site has so much more, many many horrible impossible to miss in your face contradictions, failed prophecies, historical inaccuracies and more in the Bible, but let's focus on one at a time -- Matthew vs Luke, just when and under what circumstances was he born.)
Or did you not expect anyone to take you up on it when you asserted the Bible as perfect truth? When we finish with the New Testament, we can do Genesis. That's even more fun!
rgb
Oops, sorry Lauren. Didn't realize I was double posting the infidels site(s).You might like the skeptics annotated bible, though, if you haven't found it yet. It has the annotated Quran and Book of Mormon, as well. I'll grant Christians this -- Christianity is scary enough, but the Quran and BoM are downright nutso. One day I'm going to count the verses in the Quran that threaten unbelievers with being cast into the fire. The BoM is also such a laughable forgery, with steel swords appearing in the Bronze Age, with a mockery of Biblespeak (And it came to pass... that mankind was proven once again to be easy to con.)
rgb
Mod
Alright, I don't even need a website for this one. I can refute it myself. God made animals first and then humans.
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Alright, so so good so far, right?
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Still good. This verse came after the animals.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
In this part he's talking about making the first woman.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Alright, well I'll start with the first part And out of the ground the Lord God FORMED …..
Formed is past tense, meaning that it was already done. They were already created at this point.
.....and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
So God brought the animals to Adam so that he could name them. No problem. Animals first, Adam next, Eve third. And of course the rest of the world in the other 4 days of creation.
Mod
Yes I have read most of the Bible myself. Not the whole thing, mind you, but the entire New Testament and a good portion of the Old Testament.
So God brought the animals to Adam so that he could name them. No problem. Animals first, Adam next, Eve third. And of course the rest of the world in the other 4 days of creation.Not to drift off topic, but this is one of my favorite bits of nonsense from the bible. Adam gets lonely (you'd think God would've anticipated that), so God has Adam go through all the animals looking for a mate, but he doesn't find one (you'd think God would've anticipated that), so then, after God's first attempt to find Adam a companion has failed, God creates Eve, out of a rib, because for some reason ribs are now necessary to create a person, even though it wasn't necessary for Adam's creation. Yeah, this story makes perfect sense.
Mod
I'll have you know that I'm perfectly fine with having my faith challenged! I don't mind in the least! It's only strengthening what I believe by having it questioned. I'm strong in my faith and my belief, and I dare you to rock it. Rock my belief in Jesus Christ. I dare you.
Ninja wrote: "rgb wrote: "Regarding contradictions, Ninja, have you actually read the Bible? Nobody ever does, is why I ask. If you have, then why stop at one?"Yes I have read most of the Bible myself. Not the..."
Okay well from what I'm hearing you forgot A LOT of what you read
Mod
Aren’t there discrepancies between Luke’s and Matthew’s Nativity accounts?
An ill-informed skeptic might view these discrepancies as contradictions. However, a historian would note that these apparent inconsistencies are all in the secondary details. Despite the differences in secondary details, there is a historically reliable core that is common to both Gospels. The virgin Mary is told by an angel that she will conceive by the Holy Spirit. She is told to name the boy Jesus. The baby Jesus is born in Bethlehem, and after a short time, they return to Nazareth.
The two historical accounts of Hannibal crossing the Alps are completely inconsistent in their secondary details.10 However, no classical historian doubts that Hannibal crossed the Alps to attack Rome. There is still a historical core to a historical story that is considered very credible.
Ironically, the differences in the secondary details between the two Nativity narratives can be viewed as positive evidence for the story’s authenticity. They reveal that we have two independent narrators recording different aspects of the same great event (see also The gospel accounts of the birth of Christ are harmonizable and historically reliable).
http://creation.com/the-nativity-fact...
Mod
Mod
Many critics assert that there is no evidence of the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. However, there is evidence for three different censuses around the time of Christ. First, Josephus (c. 37 – c. 100 AD), the famous Jewish historian, records a census around AD 6.11 Second, a papyrus dated from AD 48 indicates that the entire family was involved in a census.12 Third, an official government order in AD 104 records how the Roman Prefect of Egypt ordered all people to return to their own homes to carry out the census.12 Therefore, there is historical precedent for the type of census that is described in the Gospel of Luke.
Luke also writes that the census was conducted when Quirinius was governing Syria, during the reign of Herod the Great. The problem is that Herod died in 4 BC and Quirinius didn’t begin ruling Syria until AD 6. However, renowned archaeologist Sir William Ramsay concluded from various coin inscriptions that Quirinius ruled Syria on two separate occasions.12 Also, some Greek language scholars have declared that Luke’s text should actually be translated, ‘This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria.’ (See this discussion on the census for documentation.) Either way, credible explanations exist.
"I think at least some of those are included in the list Lauren gave me. I'm going down the list, debunking all the supposed contradictions. The Bible has no contradictions."The Bible says insects have 4 legs.
"Lauren, honey, the polite thing to call them is "myths", or "legends", not "lies". Stories."
I meant actual lies. Like rabbits chewing cud. Those sort of things.
Mod
Luke was a Greek physician and historian. He was the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, together accounting for 25% of the entire New Testament.1 In addition, he was a close companion of Paul, the Jewish Pharisee who converted to Christianity after initially beating, imprisoning, and executing early Christians.
Luke’s gospel opens with an explicit declaration of intent to establish an accurate historical record of the life of Christ. And his historical investigation is based on direct and indirect eyewitness accounts from Paul, Peter, James, Mark, Mary (Jesus’ mother), and other early Christians.2
Luke’s historical scholarship is held in the highest esteem. Consider the words of Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939), the archaeologist and professor from Oxford and Cambridge Universities:
Luke is a historian of the first rank … This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.2
Renowned archaeologist, John McRay, states:
He’s erudite, he’s eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.1
When did Luke write the Nativity story?
Many scholars date Luke’s Gospel around AD 80. However, they tend to ignore the cogent arguments of the liberal New Testament scholar J.A.T. Robinson for dating all the Gospels from AD 40–65 (see a summary of the reasons, and more information). Thus Luke should be dated around AD 60, since it is the first of Luke’s two-volume work.3 But even if the older were true, then Luke’s Gospel was written about fifty years after Christ.
Why is this important? Temporal proximity is a crucial factor in establishing historical reliability. In other words, the closer the writings are to the actual events, the more likely they are to be accurate and free from legendary contamination.
A.N. Sherwin-White (1911–1993), the eminent classical historian from Oxford University, conducted a careful study of Greek and Roman history to determine the rate at which legend accumulates. The evidence revealed that not even two full generations would be enough for legendary development to wipe out the historical core of a historical story, as he says:
The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time ... . Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, [showing that:] even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core.4
Ironically, adding at least two generations to Jesus’ death lands you in the second century AD, the exact time when the apocryphal gospels begin to appear. Therefore, Luke’s nativity narrative, even if written about fifty years after Christ, is well within two generations. Thus Sherwin-White had good reason to say:
For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming … any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.5
How does Luke’s Gospel compare to other famous historical texts?
There are two generally reliable accounts of Hannibal (247–183 BC ) crossing the Alps in 218 BC to attack Rome. Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek historian, chronicled Hannibal’s invasion at least 50 years after the actual event.6 Livy (c. 59 BC – AD 17), a Roman historian, wrote of Hannibal’s invasion about 190 years after the actual event.7
Another famous event in history was Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC without disbanding his army.8 Suetonius (c. 69/75 – after 130), a Roman historian, wrote his historical account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon at least 110 years after the event,9 and it is considered to be generally reliable. In addition, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, written by Arrian and Plutarch, were written over 400 years after his death.2 And these biographies are considered to be generally trustworthy. See also the comparison in The Bible's Manuscript Evidence.
Wow! Speed postings!Well, I'm hoping that you're typing out how Matthew and Luke are actually talking about the same Herod and how Jesus managed to both flee to Egypt for years and accompany his parents every year going to Jerusalem and the Passover, and how returning to his home is the same as fleeing to Egypt. Or you'll be trying to convince us that Herod Antipas died before Jesus (so Jesus could return "after Herod died") when he didn't. Or you'll be trying to assert that Rome conducted a taxation census of Judea during the reign of Herod the Great (they didn't, because Judea was not yet a Roman province and had no governor at all, let alone the specific governor mentioned by Luke).
Luke makes at least a limited amount of sense. Matthew is inconsistent with Luke and inconsistent with history.
But in the meantime, shall we have a go at radiometric dating, the amount of time that has elapsed from the Big Bang, the size of the visible Universe, the fossil record, the truly absurd flood? Genesis is of course the most obviously incorrect book in the Bible, since it doesn't get one single thing right concerning the actual natural history of the world as written not by Bronze Age men (and rewritten dozens of times since) but as written by God into the very light of the stars, the rocks in the ground, the genes of your body.
I personally think that people are often mistaken and are frequently "storytellers" (a.k.a. liars) who make things up when they can't otherwise explain them. But I have a hard time with God as a liar, planting evidence of his own nonexistence in every piece of radioactives, the light of every star. Kind of Manichean, don't you think? Heretical?
rgb
Mod
God DIDN'T have Adam go through all the animals looking for a mate! He was naming all of them, and then he saw that they all had mates and he realized he didn't.
Mod
Well, he created Adam out of the dust of the earth. I mean, I don't know why he couldn't have made Eve the same way, but he didn't. It's God, he knows a whole lot more than I do. I mean, sure, I've never really thought about it before, that's an interesting question why he needed the rib.
Mod
Since you all seem so concerned about those rabbits:
Those Wascally Wabbits!
Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (See also Deut. 14:7)
This is one of the most popular objections in the skeptical book, and it's basically this: Hares (or some say rabbits, but "hare" is what is in mind here) are not ruminants; they practice refection. Refection is a process in which animals like hares eat their own dung mixed with undigested material. The Hebrew does not use the word for "dung". Therefore this passage is wrong. (The objection is also registered against the verses mentioning the coney, or hyrax; however, the identification of this animal is uncertain -- we will assume it to be an animal that refects as well.)
Two issues are at hand: the definition of "cud" and that of "chewing." Let's take a close look at the Hebrew version of both. Here is the word for "cud" according to Strong's:
gerah, the cud (as scraping the throat):--cud.
There are a few factors we need to keep in mind here. First, this word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.
Second, refection is a process whereby these animals pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. It is not just "dung" that the hares are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for "dung" was not used here.
Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call "chewing the cud." They regurgiate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while mixing it with saliva.
So then: partially digested food is a common element here. We therefore suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object.
"Yeah, right, Holding! So are you more of an expert in Hebrew than all those Bible scholars like Strong who decided that 'cud' was the best word to use here? Get real!!!"
More of an expert in Hebrew, no -- the problem is that those Hebrew experts aren't experts in animal biology. It's commonly noted, in a weaker defense of this verse, that hares look like they chew cud, such that even Linneaus was fooled by them and classified them as ruminants -- and even many modern books on rabbits and hares have no reference to it. Everyone sees rabbits and hares chewing and might come to the same conclusion, but few know about refection -- least of all experts in Hebrew who spend most of their days indoors out of the sight of hares.
"Just shot yourself in the foot, Holding! You admitted that few people know about refection. Tell us why! It's because rabbits do it at night and underground. Isn't it more likely that Moses made a big fat mistake like Linneaus, based on appearances?"
Rabbits (and hares) actually do this mostly at night and underground -- not always; and the reason for this is that the behavior usually takes place 3-8 hours after eating. Now catch this: One reason so few people know about this behavior today is because we spend so much time indoors -- and because when we are outdoors, we tend to stomp around and scare the jeebers out of timid creatures like hares. So little wonder we don't see it much! And even rabbit owners don't see it because they of course feed their bunnies on their schedules -- so that refection happens while they are asleep!
In contrast, the ancients lived mainly outdoors and many of them were pastoral sorts who spent hours in the field. So -- don't think for a moment that this wasn't something the average ancient wouldn't have known about. They were a lot more observant than we are (because they needed to be to survive!) and spent a lot more time in places where they could see this behavior. (At the same time, it would be rather foolish -- and an argument from silence -- to make the point that refection is not mentioned in any other ancient documents. For this objection to have merit, one must produce a surviving ancient documentation that should have mentioned it, but didn't -- and that's rather a hard row to hoe!)
"That's only half the problem, Holding! You forgot the other half -- the verse says 'bring up' the cud -- sounds like regurgitation to me!"
Our other key word here is 'alah, and it is found in some grammatical form on literally every page of the OT. This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than "bring up." It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (The literal rendering here is, "maketh the gerah to 'alah.")
Now in the verses in question, 'alah is used as a participle. Let's look at the other verses where it is used this way (NIV only implies some of these phrases; where in parentheses, the phrase is in the original, sometimes in the KJV):
Josh. 24:17 It was the Lord our God himself who brought us and our fathers up out of Egypt....
1 Sam. 7:10 While Samuel was sacrificing (offering) the burnt offering...
Nahum 3:3 Charging cavalry, flashing swords (lifted), and glittering spears!
Isaiah 8:7 ...therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River...
2 Chron. 24:14 When they had finished, they brought the rest of the money...
Ps. 135:7 He makes clouds rise (up) from the ends of the earth...
2 Sam. 6:15 ...while he and the entire house of Israel brought the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. (Similar quote, 1 Chr. 15:28)
So: the Hebrew word is question is NOT specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter does chew "predigested material"! The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewer...
Mod
Relevant Scripture: Leviticus 11:3–6
Short answer: This assertion commits an anachronistic fallacy. An ancient concept should not be redefined using a contemporary definition. The Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day.
http://creation.com/refutation-of-new...
Mod
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-t...
one person used rabbits and now you are flipping out!
Mod
No, I think there were actually three. I know at least two. I'll check and tell you, hold on a minute please.
Mod
Mod
I just want to make sure I've got plenty of evidence to support it.
only sons are mention from adam and eve in the old testamentbut the sons got married
where did the girls come from?
so how did Mary get pregnant again? Let's see she was a virgin. Probably pretty young. Some angel apprears to propositions her on behalf of the big guy? Well nobody really says how old the angel is. But God in this story- he's pretty old. In today's world, we'd throw those two Mary impregnators in jail. So he knocks her up and I hear a "be not afraid" but I don't hear one "I love you" and he doesn't even bother marrying her. Please. Hello. Not only would people have a problem with that today- they had a problem with that back then. But the angel steps in and does the big guy's dirty work again- he must have some incredible powers of persuasion- he convinces some other guy to marry her and raise a baby that isn't his... Why is this such a great story? I'm seeing pedophilia and statutory rape here. And the whole born in a barn thing- God doesn't seem to be interested in child support here. In Texas- it's 20% of the father's pay- People have been giving money to god for ages- lots of goat, sheep and calf meat too- not to mention prime real estate. I bet we could get a pretty penny of the temple of the rock land... if someone didn't try to kill us for it first- mmm complications.
Ninja wrote: "GreenDaisy BlackStem wrote: " one person used rabbits and now you are flipping out! "I just want to make sure I've got plenty of evidence to support it."
but there are lots of other contradictions that you can't justify making you saying that the bible has no contradictions false
Ninja wrote: "Alright, Dan did, and Lauren did twice. It was in the list she gave me and she also said it herself. So it was two, I thought it was three, that's why."
Okay well two people isn't really all that many
Ninja wrote: "In response to rgbAren’t there discrepancies between Luke’s and Matthew’s Nativity accounts?
An ill-informed skeptic might view these discrepancies as contradictions. However, a historian would..."
The word used in Isaiah didn't mean "virgin", by the way, and the entire passage was in a piece of text describing how Isaiah went deliberately to Ahaz, King of Judah, to soothe him and promise him that God himself said (to Isaiah) that would it would not come to pass that he (Ahaz) would be delivered unto his enemies, the kings of Syria and Israel. Isaiah then gave Ahaz a further sign that this wouldn't happen -- the bit where the young woman (not virgin, which is a different word altogether) would give birth to a child that would be named Emmanuel and how by the time that child was a baby the Kings of Syria and Israel (his enemies) would be dead so that Ahaz would be safe.
Of course what really happened is that Ahaz was "delivered by God's hand" unto the Kings of Syria and Israel, who smote him (Ahaz) with a great slaughter, see 2 Chronicles, 28:5-6.
So here is a perfect example of Biblethink. Anyone who didn't have the secret code ring delivered in a box of Cheerios to decode all of this would note that:
a) Isaiah went out of his way to visit Ahaz to make a prediction about Ahaz, doubtless being fed and clothed and honored all the while. Why piss off a prophet?
b) Isaiah obliged by passing on God's explicit word that Ahaz was safe, and then reinforced it by telling Ahaz a sign that God would send him -- that a woman somewhere in Judah would bear a baby, name him a common name, and that before that baby was two or three all his enemies would be struck down by the Lord and dead!
c) Ahaz took him seriously, God (or Isaiah) lied, Ahaz was captured and slaughtered "exceedingly" (which in those days was not a good thing, believe me) by the very not-dead-yet men God promised to kill, and Isaiah very sensibly absented himself during these proceedings or we can imagine that he would definitely have insured that that false prophet liar Isaiah preceded him, headless and gutless, into the grave (as his sons were killed before his very eyes and his house failed).
d) Nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus ever referred to as "Emmanuel". Nor did the Kings of Israel and Syria die before he was two. Details, details.
But you possess the secret decoder ring! Using it, you will learn that Things are Not What They Seem! Isaiah meant virgin, and that isn't a second millenium mistranslation inserted into the KJV of the Bible, manufactured out of whole cloth, to support Matthew (Luke forgot to mention that Mary was a virgin, hmmm). He was just funning' with old Ahaz, giving Isaiah a chance to prophecy Jesus's birth so future generations could "interpret" it out of a verse that everybody would read as just referring to Ahaz in the meantime. He knew perfectly well that Ahaz was going to get roasted over a slow fire or gutted or whatever "exceeding" death was meted out to him in those days.
And as for the "ill-informed" bit, well, we'll see. I'm not ill-informed about radiometric dating or natural science or mathematics or philosophy or computer science or a whole lot of other things, but I am a skeptic...:-)
Regarding which, there is no evidence that Quirinius ruled twice, on coins or otherwise. Ill informed I may be, show me the actual publication, not hearsay -- I did the same for you above. Show me the coins, in fact. Hard to do, because there aren't any, although there is a really interesting story out there about a hoax where a nut case (literally) saw "writings" in tiny engraving on specific coins that "proved" all sorts of things.
Unfortunately, there were no such engravings. The pictures (hand sketches, of course) of the engravings found the name "Jesus" entertwined with them along with lots of dates and everything!
Unfortunately, that's just how it was spelled in these "reliable" sketches. Jesus. Jay, Ee, Ess, You, Ess.
To advance to the head of your class, just what is wrong with that? Or rather, iust what is wrong with that?
So aside from an obvious forgery conceived in desperation to give True Believers yet another lie to hang their invisible hats on, I assert that you're quoting the quotes of other quoters with similar views as yours, who are ultimately quoting a hoax and lie. If you disagree, produce the coin.
rgb
Mod
You all gave me two lists, I can't debunk them all at once, I need to have some time.
"Or you'll be trying to assert that Rome conducted a taxation census of Judea during the reign of Herod the Great (they didn't, because Judea was not yet a Roman province and had no governor at all, let alone the specific governor mentioned by Luke)."There was a census, but about 50 years later or something.
" First, this word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law."
SO BASICALLY anything could be made up.
Questioning Society
Books mentioned in this topic
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (other topics)Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife (other topics)
The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History (other topics)
The Upanishads (other topics)
