cicerone imposter wrote:The word of god discredits itself. No need to use anything but the bible for that! LOL
No need to laugh out load on every post. A quiet giggle would suffice.
C.I.,
Again, making a statement and nothing to back it up. And why are you laughing? Believe me, you have said nothing humorous whatsoever. You do yourself a great disservice, C.I. I wish you could see that.
Oops! Don't want anyone correcting my English. Should have been loud instead of load. ;-)
The following is a good list of Contradictions in the bible. It uses the bible to contradict the bible. It's rather funny like a comic book, but unfortunately it also explains how christian' use of various methods to explain it all away. That's also funny!
Bible Contradictions:
The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...
2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b". But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians". This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.
3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context". How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?
4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error", as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.
5. "That is a miracle". Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.
6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.
C.I.
Now you are making yourself look totally foolish. This is at least the third time today that I have seen this posting. At least two on this thread alone.
Two pages back, you received a reply to this. You ignore everything that is written and continue to post this nonsense. What are you trying to achieve? I am getting concerned for your state of mind. Are you O.K.?
I like to ignore. But it seems you guys are reading most of my posts. How fun!
farmerman wrote:Quote: I have tried and tried to understand you, C.I. I have gone to lengths you don't even know about because I don't wish any ill will on you.
Imagine what those on the other side of the fence think of your beliefs in myths and miracles.
Actually, farmer, you I can understand with the help of a dictionary - and encyclopedia - and Google - and Yahoo - and MSN search - and who knows what else. I appreciate your input. You have valuable information, albeit, IMHO, a skewed conclusion.
CI, on the other hand, has skewed premises.
C.I.,
Look, I know you are not stupid! I know you know what we are saying to you. Do you have the foggiest idea of what any of that stuff says or means? Did you read it and come to any conclusions of your own? Can you point out some particular passages? Did you look up and read the Book of Genesis and find what seems to be a contradiction?
Have you no mind of your own? Can't you understand that not even those on 'your' side are jumping in there to defend you? Can't you see that I am not trying to harm you, but help you?
I don't get it, C.I. WHY do you refuse to answer questions with your own words? Why do you throw out a statement that needs explaining and when we ask for the explanation, we are then laughed at because we do not understand what you meant?
Are you sure you really are as old as you have intimated you are?
neo, You know damn well your last statement is meaningless without showing why its "skewed premises." You should know better by now. LOL
CI;
Perhaps I could take just one point that you seem to be making about Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Did you notice that chapter 1 ends with the creation of man and the end of the sixth day? And did you notice that chapter 2 begins with a recount of man's creation and an account of the beginning of the seventh day? Are you stumbled by the mention of 'vegetation of the field' or will you accept the fact that, without Adam, there could have been no farming? Did you take note of the fact that, unlike days 1 through 6, day number 7 has not yet ended? Don't believe it? Read verse 3 of chapter 2 which uses the present perfect continuous sense when talking about God (. . .he has been resting. . .)
Read carefully and have fun. :wink:
cicerone imposter wrote:I like to ignore. But it seems you guys are reading most of my posts. How fun!
Just looking, hoping and praying for some semblance of coherent thought. We will keep looking.
Cicerone Imposter Wrote:
Quote:I like to ignore. But it seems you guys are reading most of my posts. How fun!
How fun? You get a kick out of poking fun at people? Do you throw stones at dogs? Tie firecrackers to the tails of cats too?
Making statements such as you did here leaves you open for attack. You are just asking for it. And then what, once one of us loses our temper you will then turn around and say oh how unChristian of you? Let me tell you something C.I., Christian does not mean stupid. Christian does not mean spineless. Christian does not mean doormat. I feel sorry for anyone in the world that would get their fun at making fun of anyone for anything. Do you think you are a wonderful role model for children of today? Perhaps this is why so many have problems in school because of others having fun at their expense.
The only difference here is that we are adults and can stand up for themselves.
Cicerone Imposter Wrote:
Quote:neo, You know damn well your last statement is meaningless without showing why its "skewed premises." You should know better by now. LOL
You expect Neo to listen to you? You won't listen to anyone else. You expect us to answer your questions?
Cool smilies, MA. BTW, I did give a halfway decent answer to CI in my last post. So, I don't expect he will say he read it.
neo, Now, you're talking. Verse 3: And 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.
Simple physics: Any light source shining on a globe will have a dark side. But then, god already knew that. LOL
Verse 5: And god called the light day, and the darkness night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Verse 15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to gicve light upon the earth; and it was so.
Another light source? hmmm.... Please explain this one.
Verse 18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and god saw that it was good. 19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
According to my reading god made day and night twice; on the first day and on the fourth day. However, I don't see two suns shining on this earth. Please explain.
neo, Now, you're talking. Verse 3: And 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.
Simple physics: Any light source shining on a globe will have a dark side. But then, god already knew that. LOL
Verse 5: And god called the light day, and the darkness night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Verse 15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to gicve light upon the earth; and it was so.
Another light source? hmmm.... Please explain this one.
Verse 18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and god saw that it was good. 19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
According to my reading god made day and night twice; on the first day and on the fourth day. However, I don't see two suns shining on this earth. A bummer. Please explain.
cicerone imposter wrote:neo, Now, you're talking. Verse 3: And 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.
Simple physics: Any light source shining on a globe will have a dark side. But then, god already knew that. LOL
Verse 5: And god called the light day, and the darkness night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Verse 15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to gicve light upon the earth; and it was so.
Another light source? hmmm.... Please explain this one.
Verse 18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and god saw that it was good. 19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
According to my reading god made day and night twice; on the first day and on the fourth day. However, I don't see two suns shining on this earth. Please explain.
All this was written by one man, Moses, and copied beaucoup times by scribes throughout the ages; so did Moses have multiple personality disorder or was he simply referring to the fact that, at some time in the earth's past, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere obscured the sun and the moon, allowing enough light only for photosynthesis? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Didn't read anywhere in the bible about "water vapor in the atmosphere obscured the sun and moon." Can you tell us where in the bible you found that? I know even christians would appreciate that!
C.I.,
Perhaps that is the way of explaining one day and then the next day? Couldn't it mean that one day passed and then the next day passed?
And those firmaments? Uh, stars maybe?
Neo,
You like my smileys? A friend told me about them!
cicerone imposter wrote:Didn't read anywhere in the bible about "water vapor in the atmosphere obscured the sun and moon." Can you tell us where in the bible you found that? I know even christians would appreciate that!
Some of us, CI, understand what is meant by inference. If your stance is that absolutely every word that is mentioned has to be written in the bible, you will be very disappointed.
cicerone imposter wrote:Didn't read anywhere in the bible about "water vapor in the atmosphere obscured the sun and moon." Can you tell us where in the bible you found that? I know even christians would appreciate that!
The bible was not written as a scientific treatise. Don't expect to get an education in meteorology or thermodynamics or string theory. Neither you nor I nor Joe Sixpack could understand and we would never know the simple answers God has supplied for us.
Is it or is it not a conclusion of the earth scientists that the earth was once covered by a water canopy?
