9
   

Contradictions in the Bible...

 
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 10:49 am
Setanta wrote:
Quote:
Did take two pairs of every beast, clean and unclean, or did he take seven pairs of the clean beasts and two pairs of the clean?


7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

This is saying they went in two and two, meaning by pairs, it's only implying how they entered the ark. Not how many entered the ark.

Setanta wrote:
Quote:
Was he 600 years old, or was he 599 going on 600 ("in his six hundredth year")?


I fail to see the relevance of this, however, I don't see anywhere that it refers to him being 599 going on six hundred... am I missing it?

7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


Setanta wrote:
Quote:
Did he enter the "Ark" because there were flood waters, or did he enter the boat seven days before hand?


7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

He entered seven days before...

7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

Seven days later it started raining...

7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Specifics as to exactly what day month and year this happened...

7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

And it happened just as the Lord had said.

I'm not seeing a contradiction here. Sorry...

Setanta wrote
Quote:
Were the flood waters upon the earth forty days, or one hundred fifty days?


7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

The "rain" was upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. In other words it rained that long...

7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.


It "rained" for forty days and nights, causing 15 cubits of "waters", and those "waters" prevailed for 150 days.

Setanta wrote
Quote:
You may say that this is quibbling, but it is important because biblical literalists claim that Genesis was written by a single author, while reputable scholars point to these contradictions, and say there were several authors over a period of time, and that the Pentateuch was edited in the 5th Century BCE, to attempt (not very successfully) to remove contradictions. You're going to need to do some fancy dancing here, Boss.


Naaa... it's not quibbling. It's exactly what I'm looking for here. It is important. That's why I want to discuss it.

Setanta wrote
Quote:
(I've chosen the flood story because i've been working with that for a while now, and have recently re-read the relevant passages several times.)


Good deal. It's time appropriate then.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 10:55 am
yitwail wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Answering one item by using other items that have no connection is of little value.


that's fine, but you won't have much discussion if no one is allowed to object to any of hephzibah's answers. her answer to material girl's question was (after first answering the question with another question),

Quote:
The law came after the incident.


which echoed your explanation that

Quote:
That was before the laws were told.


so i brought up the Genesis flood, where all humanity, except Noah and kin, were punished for misdeeds not prohibited by any laws. why is that not connected to the original question & answer about incest?


No no yitwal I'm not trying to say people can't disagree. I'm saying lets disagree on one thing at a time, otherwise we can draw no conclusions because it's just one big argument about a whole bunch of little piddly things...

You left out part of my answer too, which no one has commented on yet that I have seen... regarding the Jews cultural beliefs...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:03 am
Intrepid wrote:
Do you know the boundaries of what was the known world at that time? Nowhere in the bible does it claim anything about the Grand Canyon.


Cool, so God didn't know about anything that his co-authors didn't know about. Word of God, and all that good stuff.

Interesting spin.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:09 am
God conveniently didn't communicate that there was a world outside their little microcosm, that there were Chinese and Indians on the other side of the world. It was just the Hebrews that were interesting to him at that time with the Egyptians as great villains. However, the Egyptians certainly didn't subscribe to the endorsement of slavery as they did not keep slaves. They made citizens of their enemies and put them to work with wages. The more I read here, the more I realize how much of the Bible-heads patter is crazy talk, stupid talk.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:09 am
ehBeth wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Do you know the boundaries of what was the known world at that time? Nowhere in the bible does it claim anything about the Grand Canyon.


Cool, so God didn't know about anything that his co-authors didn't know about. Word of God, and all that good stuff.

Interesting spin.


OK, let's look at this through the eyes of the known world at that time. Are you suggesting that God gave the people geography lessons? If the only place you ever saw, or heard about, was Ontario....would you know about the rest of the world? Would England, Asia, Australia etc. exist in your mind?

Personally, I never claimed that the bible was written by God. I only concede that it was inspired by God.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:12 am
Lightwizard wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
The flood which supposedly was "world wide" apparantly would have included the North American continent (even though those who wrote the Bible weren't informed) and carved out the Grand Canyon in that 150 days. Laughing


Do you know the boundaries of what was the known world at that time? Nowhere in the bible does it claim anything about the Grand Canyon.


Laughing

You really need to get a clue. The Creationists are famous now for stating that very nonsensical notion. The fact that there was no New World and the extent of their world was confined to not even an eighth of the world's surface is enough to make one choke on the Old Testament.
I realize there is evidence of a flooding at the Black Sea in ancient times -- they've found remnants of buildings beneath and around the perimeter dating somewhat around the time the flood might have occurred. The more these Bible-heads write, the sillier it gets.


Perhaps you could find it in your heart to discuss without the name calling. Also, just because you deem something to be nonsensical does not make it nonsensical. It is your opinion, not a fact.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:28 am
Shoot... Now that I think about it, I'm not even saying "let's not argue". Just "let's not argue about so many things all at the same time." LOL Sorry guys... I just want to get something out of this. If there are valid contradictions here I want to see them. Honest. I'm not out to "win anyone to Christ", to prove myself, to prove the bible even. I just want to understand and see things from someone elses perspective and understand where it is that I have come up with my own.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:28 am
I did anticipate that dodge about "how they entered the ark," but given that that is the verse upon which literalists insist that the beasts came to Noah, you still have a numbering problem. But i'm willing to give you that one.

As for his age, if he were in his six hundredth year, he was 599 and had not yet reached the age of 600. But the other verse says he was 600. Neo has already provided the example. He is 64; he is in his sixty-fifth year; after he turns 65, he will be in his sixty-sixth year. I'm sorry if you don't understand that, but that's a problem of your comprehension--the contradiction is still unambiguously there.

You haven't disposed of the contradiction about precisely when he entered the "Ark"--dates don't matter. 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. That says that he entered the "Ark" when the flood waters were already present, not seven days later. So you still have a contradiction there.

You've just opened another can of worms by dragging in the fifteen cubits nonsense. Fifteen cubit are not going to cover a two story house, nevermind the mountains of the earth. As i pointed out, you have to "interpret" to dismiss these contradictions, and making a distinction between the forty days of rain and the water being on the earth for 150 days is a sterling example of that. You have interpreted that meaning, it is not the patent content of the text. The best you can do is assert that the two verses are ambiguous with regard to the duration of the flood.

As i pointed out earlier, you have to "interpret," and introduce ambiguity to deny the contradictions, and you have utterly failed to account for the contradiction regarding his age and whether he entered the ark when the flood was present, or entered and awaited the flood for seven days.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:31 am
Intrepid wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Do you know the boundaries of what was the known world at that time? Nowhere in the bible does it claim anything about the Grand Canyon.


Cool, so God didn't know about anything that his co-authors didn't know about. Word of God, and all that good stuff.

Interesting spin.


OK, let's look at this through the eyes of the known world at that time. Are you suggesting that God gave the people geography lessons? If the only place you ever saw, or heard about, was Ontario....would you know about the rest of the world? Would England, Asia, Australia etc. exist in your mind?

Personally, I never claimed that the bible was written by God. I only concede that it was inspired by God.


Divine inspiration is a very feeble thing, then, as one can only regretably conclude. Do you assert then, that the flood only took place in the middle east, and not anywhere else?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:33 am
Intrepid wrote:
Also, just because you deem something to be nonsensical does not make it nonsensical. It is your opinion, not a fact.


Whereas it is logically true that saying a thing does not make it so, if someone states why a contention does not make sense, it is appropriate to describe it as nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:41 am
Setanta wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Also, just because you deem something to be nonsensical does not make it nonsensical. It is your opinion, not a fact.


Whereas it is logically true that saying a thing does not make it so, if someone states why a contention does not make sense, it is appropriate to describe it as nonsense.


Fair enough. However, it is still just an opinion.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:42 am
Setanta wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Do you know the boundaries of what was the known world at that time? Nowhere in the bible does it claim anything about the Grand Canyon.


Cool, so God didn't know about anything that his co-authors didn't know about. Word of God, and all that good stuff.

Interesting spin.


OK, let's look at this through the eyes of the known world at that time. Are you suggesting that God gave the people geography lessons? If the only place you ever saw, or heard about, was Ontario....would you know about the rest of the world? Would England, Asia, Australia etc. exist in your mind?

Personally, I never claimed that the bible was written by God. I only concede that it was inspired by God.


Divine inspiration is a very feeble thing, then, as one can only regretably conclude. Do you assert then, that the flood only took place in the middle east, and not anywhere else?


I would have to conclude that it is possible. Do I know that for sure? No.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:44 am
It is that lack of certitude which rankles those who are not biblical literalists. They object to the claim that the bible is the inerrant truth. I don't know, of course, why Miss Eppie started this thread--but that is why i responded.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:50 am
Setanta wrote:
It is that lack of certitude which rankles those who are not biblical literalists. They object to the claim that the bible is the inerrant truth. I don't know, of course, why Miss Eppie started this thread--but that is why i responded.


Ah, but you have me confused with one who claims that the bible is the inerrant truth. I don't know what has been left out.

Frankly, I have only passing interest in the Old Testament. If the story of the flood causes some to question the small things. I do not really care. If some say that a day is 24 hours and others say that it is metaphorical, I do not really care. I can believe without putting every word and sentence under a microscopic examination.

I try, but do not always succeed, in living by the New Testament.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:58 am
hephzibah wrote:

Well, let's talk about culture though. In the Jewish culture "blood line" was everything. You can't make a fair judgement on something looking at it from the perspective of your cultural background or teachings only. IMO anyway. It does say that incest is wrong. And that quite possibly is one of the reasons that law was laid out.


presumably this also applies to Abraham marrying his half-sister? whereas Moab and Ammon, Lot's daughters' sons, were troublemakers, Isaac becomes a great nation. seems rather arbitrary that incest was bad for Lot's daughters, but not for Abraham.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 12:00 pm
I have never confused you with anyone else, except perhaps James Tiberius Kirk.

Miss Eppie wanted to discuss biblical contradictions. I showed up because i find that an interesting topic. If you don't wish to discuss that, fine, but then how to explain the many posts with which you are clogging a thread on a topic which you say doesn't interest you?

For a wonderful NT contradiction, look at the geneologies of your boy Hey-Zeus.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 12:19 pm
I did not say that the topic doesn't interest me. You have misinterpreted my use of the words passing interest.

I am not familiar with this Hey-Zeus of which you speak.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 12:21 pm
Setanta wrote:
I did anticipate that dodge about "how they entered the ark," but given that that is the verse upon which literalists insist that the beasts came to Noah, you still have a numbering problem. But i'm willing to give you that one.


Thank you.

Quote:
As for his age, if he were in his six hundredth year, he was 599 and had not yet reached the age of 600. But the other verse says he was 600. Neo has already provided the example. He is 64; he is in his sixty-fifth year; after he turns 65, he will be in his sixty-sixth year. I'm sorry if you don't understand that, but that's a problem of your comprehension--the contradiction is still unambiguously there.


WHO Setanta said that he was 599 when he went into the ark? This passage of scripture does not.

Quote:
You haven't disposed of the contradiction about precisely when he entered the "Ark"--dates don't matter. 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. That says that he entered the "Ark" when the flood waters were already present, not seven days later. So you still have a contradiction there.


No it doesn't say "when" the flood waters were present, it says "because of", big difference. Now... the hebrew language is a bit different from ours... So take a look at the hebrew definition of the term "because of":

6440 paniym paw-neem' plural (but always as singular) of an unused noun (paneh {paw-neh'}; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.):--+ accept, a-(be- )fore(-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance, edge, + employ, endure, + enquire, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront(-part), form(-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, X him(-self), + honourable, + impudent, + in, it, look(-eth) (- s), X me, + meet, X more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), X on, open, + out of, over against, the partial, person, + please, presence, propect, was purposed, by reason of, + regard, right forth, + serve, X shewbread, sight, state, straight, + street, X thee, X them(-selves), through (+ - out), till, time(-s) past, (un-)to(-ward), + upon, upside (+ down), with(- in, + -stand), X ye, X you.

So really it can be interpreted either way.

Quote:
You've just opened another can of worms by dragging in the fifteen cubits nonsense. Fifteen cubit are not going to cover a two story house, nevermind the mountains of the earth.


Can we come back to this one then?

Quote:
As i pointed out, you have to "interpret" to dismiss these contradictions, and making a distinction between the forty days of rain and the water being on the earth for 150 days is a sterling example of that. You have interpreted that meaning, it is not the patent content of the text. The best you can do is assert that the two verses are ambiguous with regard to the duration of the flood.


Again... the hebrew language is much different than ours and needs to be looked at for what it is, not how "english" interprets things.

Rain vs 4

4305 matar maw-tar' a primitive root; to rain:--(cause to) rain (upon).

rain vs 7

1653 geshem gheh'-shem from 1652; a shower:--rain, shower.

waters in all the verses

4325 mayim mah'-yim dual of a primitive noun (but used in a singular sense); water; figuratively, juice; by euphemism, urine, semen:--+ piss, wasting, water(-ing, (-course, -flood, -spring)).

There is a distinction between the two words when you look at the definitions.

Quote:
As i pointed out earlier, you have to "interpret," and introduce ambiguity to deny the contradictions, and you have utterly failed to account for the contradiction regarding his age and whether he entered the ark when the flood was present, or entered and awaited the flood for seven days.


I'm trying setanta... I'm trying... *sigh*
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 02:59 am
Does anyone have any proof that God or Jesus exists/existed?
And why we should follow/belive what they teach?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 06:59 am
bm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 03:57:49