Evolution? How?

What part of the bible contridicts itself?

0 Replies

All I had to do was type "contradictions in the bible," and got 630,000 hits. Try this, and it wasn't even Google. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=contradictions+in+the+bible&sp=1&ei=UTF-8&SpellState=n-3163213125_q-wagaoBBT.Y3TkDGGTrotawABAA%40%40

0 Replies

Here's one sample from the link. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

0 Replies

head,

I assume you don't eat shellfish then. I assume you make animal sacrifices as well. The list is rather long in Leviticus and I am sure have you stoned several people to death as required by the Bible.

"An eye for an eye" is hardly the same thing as "turn the other cheek". The bible is filled with things you don't accept as fact. I guarantee it.

0 Replies

For the last time when you take things out of context without studying the bible you merely prove the point. The very first "contridiction" is easily wrong. God loves his creations but when they do evil and turn away from him they will be punished. Like a father to his unrulely son.

0 Replies

"Take things out of context" in your case is an oxymoron. You just can't see it. English words are usually very easy to understand. It takes the mind of a religious person like you to interpret them differently than what is written.

0 Replies

head,

Your protestations to defend the bible belie your argument about evolution. You demand we have a standard of allowance for error when it comes to the bible but science has to be absolute. Then you claim there are NO ERRORS in the bible.

You can't have it both ways. Find a standard and stick to it.

0 Replies

Good point, parado. Inconsistency is their bane.

0 Replies

The one list has a list of arguments that will be made against the contradictions.

Quote:

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.

Looks like you have already done 1 and 3 head. Care to do more from the list?

0 Replies

Aye CI. You are very right.

By the way HotF:

Quote:

For the last time when you take things out of context without studying the bible you merely prove the point. The very first "contridiction" is easily wrong. God loves his creations but when they do evil and turn away from him they will be punished. Like a father to his unrulely son.

So you mean to say that if your child misbehaves you'll stone him to death, after doing the same to your wife for cooking those delicious lobsters?

There are many ways to say that god will punish his creation if they don't do as he says. Why go through all the hoops? Theists today assume that the stories in the bible are metaphors, but is plain the see that whoever wrote those books thought that what they were writing was just as they were saying it. (The whole creation myth and all)

0 Replies

head,

The bible has contradictions. It has statements that make no sense literally. The theory of evolution has some failings as well. Either both have some truth or both have no truth. You can't decide that one is true and the other is false without going against all logic.

And it is you head that made the claim that there are no factual errors in creationism. Yet the bible at one point says that man was created before the beasts and at another point says the beasts were created after Adam was. Since there are no factual errors in the theory of creationism, how can the beasts be created before AND after Adam?

0 Replies

A few points to ponder... I know I'll have to put on my flack jacket for this one.
The big bang theory... Where did the bang come from? Who was there to see it? Where did all the material that created the planets etc. come from when the bang happened?
Most of the scientists in the early days of science such as Newton, Copernicus, DiVinci etc. were Christians and relied on the Bible for their ideas and theories. For example the discovery of the ocean currents. Here is a link to a very interesting article on this subject. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i3/maury.asp
As for evolution, there are too many holes in the theory, too many missing links, and way too many suppositions in trying to create an ancient man from a bone fragment, a tooth (from a pig), or seeing a whole bone and declaring it to be the femur from an ancient man then finding out later it was a bone from another mammal.
What about the interesting animals like the Platypus. A mammal that lays eggs, has a duck bill, uses electric pulses to locate food, and has poisionus spines in it's hind legs for protection. Or the Chameleon that has a tongue like no other (as yet discovered) animal on earth. It's tongue is a highly efficient catapult with a suction cup on the end, any other lizard has a tongue that unfolds and has a sticky end that adheres to their prey. The chameleon's eyes are created so they can react and judge distance in order to catch their prey. They HAD to be created as a whole working unit or else the Chameleon would not have survived. Check out this link http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/chameleon.asp
As far as the accuracy of the Bible.. if this subject is important to YOU, then why should you let someone (a google hit list) tell you that the bible is not accurate. Do the reading yourself. If you haven't read the Bible, then are you qualified to say that it isn't accurate? If you have read it and done your research then tell us where the inaccuracies are and let's see.
A personal note to RKfan. I can't PM you as I haven't been approved but go to the links I provided above and stay strong in your Faith. Question what you are being told and do the research.

0 Replies

Parados said: And it is you head that made the claim that there are no factual errors in creationism. Yet the bible at one point says that man was created before the beasts and at another point says the beasts were created after Adam was. Since there are no factual errors in the theory of creationism, how can the beasts be created before AND after Adam?

Please tell me where this is so I can check it out. Thanks, Jack

0 Replies

The story of Noah's ark is ridiculous if taken literally.

There are how many tens of thousands of species?... and at least 2 of each on a ark of a known size that is far too small....

Seeing as none of the modern species could have evolved from the species on the ark given the current religious train of thought, this is one clear contradiction.

0 Replies

When was this world flood supposed to have occured? After creation about 6,000 years ago?

0 Replies

Jack---
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 with relevant verses..

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.
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.

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.
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.

0 Replies

Gee, Adam actually named all the living creatures? Even those that were discovered after 2000 years ago? That's just amazing!

0 Replies

CI,
Adam didn't give the beasts their English names obviously. I think he named them all in Latin.. ;-)

0 Replies

For a well researched article on Noah's ark and how all the animals fit on the ark see this link http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
It explains it alot better than I could. If you look around on this site you will find more answers to the questions on the ark, number of animals etc. I will look up the Genesis question and do some more research on it as to when God really did create the animals. (BTW Bob Dyllan recorded a great song about man giving names to all the animals)

0 Replies

Jack's link wrote:

For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.

I think the math is way off, even with the 2 of every "genus" fudge the author tries. But I don't feel like arguing about it.

This argument breaks the "macro-evolution doesn't happen" argument that creationists keep saying.

A lion and a tiger descended from the same original kind??? That sounds like significant evolution however you look at it.

Come on! Either evolution happens, or it doesn't. If you keep stretching the definition the argument gets awfuilly thin.

0 Replies

Evolution? How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know