lpetrich

Magus55:
Why is it ridiculous? Because you don't agree with it? Your contradictions are pathetic attempts at convincing a Christian the Bible is errant. I've heard all your dumb arguments before, and I'm not even a tad bit closer to trusting man over God.

Magus55, you are not trusting some alleged great unified entity called "man", you are trusting this or that subset of members of our species. And when you trust the Bible, you are selecting out one subset to trust -- those who composed that book.

And you know whats completely ridiculous? Apes turning into humans!! OMG it is so stupid. Like out of a science fiction book!

But why in the world do they look almost human? And sometimes act almost human? Look long upon a monkey, O Magus55. I think that this debate is better-suited for E/C, however.

lpetrich

blindwatchmaker:
How can anyone take the Bible seriously when it is so full of contradictions and errors?

I doubt that the Bible is especially bad in that regard, but I agree that it is rather far from being Absolute Truth.

Are there any arguments put forward by christians to explain how the word of god is so full of mistakes and nonsense?

Never underestimate their ingenuity in thinking of ways to explain away the Bible's numerous embarrassments for them. How many of them sell everything they have and give the money to the poor? Or give robbers more than they asked for? Or consider making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven?

variant 13

Oh deary me - apes didn't turn into humans, we evolved from common ancestors. And we're still apes too.

Not all the time and it's not needed for people to be good people.

We can reject religions as true and keep them as nice stories (well ok not nice, but entertaining), best of both worlds (well for me).

Dargo

Don't expect too much from Magus. He's been dodging questions since he got here. The few Christian fundies who visit this site and are actually willing to tackle the tough question don't seem to hang around very long. Many of the infidels on this site used to be Christian fundies, but lost our faith when we could no longer rationalize the errors of the Bible. Muslim apologists can be just as devoid of logic. These are examples of common excuses given by members of both religion.

Deity gave Holy Book to us. Deity is not a man and does not lie or make mistakes. Therefore, Holy Book is perfect.

You quoted Holy Book out of context.

You’re twisting scriptures to fit your own skewed interpretation.

If you read it in the original language, it makes sense.

That passage was allegorical. It should not be taken literally.

You have to consider the historical context of the time it was written.

That apparent mistake was a common literary practice at the time it was written.

That’s just a minor scribal error which in no way alters the truth of Holy Book.

That verse or passage does not mean what you think it means. It means something completely different which sounds a lot less embarrassing.

You know nothing about Holy Book. If you carefully studied Holy Book, you would be overwhelmed by its brilliance.

Our religious leaders know far more about Holy Book than you do. They don’t find any errors in it. How can someone who has barely glanced at Holy Book question the wisdom of those who dedicate their lives to studying it?

Believers are given divine guidance which allows them to understand difficult passages in Holy Book. If you were a believer, you would realize this is not an error.

Man’s intellect is far inferior to Deity’s and is sometimes unable to comprehend Deity’s perfect word.

If you search hard enough for mistakes, you can find them in anything. You are looking for trivial details in a pathetic attempt to discredit Holy Book.

Many people have attempted to find errors in Holy Book. They have all had to eventually admit failure.

Spout some excessively complicated nonsense in response to an "alleged" error and hope the audience is too confused to question your logic. "How it could have been" scenarios often fall into this category.

Speculate on the motives of those disagreeing with Holy Book rather than dealing with the substance of their arguments.

Angrillori

Dargo:

Love it! That list certainly covers what I've heard. I wonder if that could be its own thread in Humor? "COmmon Apologist Apologies"

Wayne Delia

They're both in chronological order, and irreconcilable.

Genesis 1:11-13 reads "Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day."

Later, Genesis 1:26-31 reads "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day."

Genesis 1 indicates man was created after plants were.

However, Genesis 2:4-7 contradicts this order, as follows: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens - and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground - the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Genesis 2 indicates that man was created when there were no plants on the earth.

Even from "man's perspective" in Genesis 2, as you characterized it, if man was created at a time when "no plant of the field had yet sprung up," then unless Adam was hallucinating, there would be no plants to become part of his perspective. But Genesis 1 says that plants were already there. That's at least one of the contradictions you're missing.

I have, frequently. Perhaps you can open your Bible to the referenced verses and explain why Genesis 2, which says man was created when no plants were created, apparently doesn't mean what it actually says?

WMD

Wayne Delia

Imagine what would happen if He threw up!

Quote:

Do you really think its a challenge for Him to create light without a natural source?

Of course not; in fact, it is assumed He did, referencing Genesis 1:3-5. Since I'll refer to this at least twice more, I will post the verses: "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day."

Quote:

What do you think Heaven will be lit with? Its own sun?

Since we're not talking about heaven, it really doesn't matter, does it?

Quote:

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.

Wonderful! Glorious! But, sorely lacking in one aspect. Genesis 1:3-5, above, speaks not only of light, but also of darkness, separated from light, which makes "days". The verse you pulled out of your ars... er, out of thin air from Revelation does not address darkness, or whether "night" and "day" exist in heaven - if they don't, your reference is totally irrelevant. Apparently, unless God and Jesus (the Lamb) in heaven agree to extinguish their glory for a while, it'll be nothing but constant light in heaven all the time - similar to the banks of 500-watt Klieg lights which the BATF shined into the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, to deprive the cult members of sleep.

But all that aside (since your Revelation excerpt IS irrelevant, after all) the question that is begged is exactly what happened to this light that was created on Day 1 in Genesis 1:3-5? If God was going to create a greater light (the Sun), a lesser light (the Moon, which is not actually a light, but rather a reflection of the Sun's light) and stars for small amounts of light on Day 4, then why bother creating light on Day 1, and whatever happened to it? If it's somehow loosely tied into your idea that the Day 1 light God created was just God's Glory lighting up the scoreboard as in Revelation 21:23, then why did it go out? Looking around the daytime or nighttime sky, we see no light that is unaccounted for. So what happened to the light created in Genesis 1:3-5, and why was it created in the first place?

Quote:

If you seriously consider those valid contradictions, you really have never bothered to open the Bible let alone study it.

I'm sure you've opened and studied the Bible; it's just that you cannot explain your understanding of it in any way that makes coherent sense.

WMD

NearNihil Experience

"Originally posted by Magus55
Um, God can throw a universe into existence just by speaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Imagine what would happen if He threw up!"


I don't have to...I can just read Apologetics. :banghead:

Scorpion

Originally posted by blindwatchmaker

Umm, did you think this through properly? If you start a thread about the coherency of the Bible and ask someone to defend it, you are specifically invoking the die-hard apologist types. What, then, is the point of asking them to stay out of the thread as soon as they emerge?

-S-

Mageth

blindwatchmaker wasn't asking Magus to stay out of the thread; he was suggesting Magus stay in the thread only if he were willing to participate in reasonable discussion. Both blindwatchmaker and Magus in previous posts were descending into, well, unconstructive sniping, which was properly pointed out by the moderator. blindwatchmaker's post was an olive branch to Magus to continue the discussion civilly, in response to the mod's post. blindwatchmaker indeed encouraged magus to continue the discussion. Note the rest of the post that you selected the quote from (the parts you left out in bold):