Jinto

No, but if a particular "science" textbook consistently makes galring erros, then I throw out that textbook. The thing is though, science is true regardless of what the textbooks say. Why? Because science is based on observations of the outside world. If I don't believe my astronomy textbook, then I can haul out my telescope on a clear night and check the observations for myself. If I don't believe my biology textbook, then I can can grab my microscope and petri dish and do the experiments myself. If I don't believe my geology textbook, then I can hike over to the nearest fault line, grab some rock samples, and analyze them myself. That's the thing - science is independently verifiable. But if I don't trust the bible, then what do I appeal to? God? Sorry, but he hasn't spoken to me. Your religion depends on the assumption that the bible is true. And here's the thing Magus55 - the hypocrisy of many Christians is tremendous. They claim when faced with overwhelming evidence that "well, okay, there are some parts in the bible that are not literal truth, but Genesis still is." You are willing to concede that maybe the disciples were mistaken in their observations, while parts of the bible like Genesis - which none of the disciples or prophets COULD have observed - must be inerrant, as opposed to simply fabricated. And they can't point to anything outside the bible that will independently verify it in the areas that are contested. Sorry Magus, but if you're going to claim divine inspiration for any part of the bible, you really have to show something divine there, and there is nothing - nothing - in the bible that could not have been divised by men.

Clutch

Rick, well-spotted. I was so busy pointing out the complete lack of principle in Magus's interpretations that I overlooked his use of one of the most basic fallacies. It's called denying the antecedent; it's on the 1st year Critical Thinking exam I'm giving in a couple of days.

Magus: F.

Kosh

Actually Magus, the Bible is a reverse IQ/entry test! When you die and get to the pearly gates, they look you up a book and say "Oh man, I can't believe you fell for that crap! Satan, here's another one for you!"

davidH

'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

In thinking about the above verse, I've realised that the meaning of the verse actually depends on where you take a pause when reading it - or where you put the comma (,).

Let me explain: The KJV doesn't insert a comma anywhere.

If you take a pause after the 'thereof' then translated it reads like this:

In the day that thou eatest of the fruit that was mentioned before, you will surely die.

The thereof in this case refers to the verse before where God is talking about the fruit on the tree.

However consider this:

In the day that thou eatest, of the eating you shalt surely die.

In this case the word 'thereof' refers to the eating and not to the fruit.
The word thereof, means, 'of which' or 'because of this'.

Dictionary results:

1. Of or concerning this, that, or it.
2. of or about the thing just mentioned:

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict

Thereof \There*of"\, adv.
Of that or this.

In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely
die. --Gen. ii. 17.

Found the above definition - interesting to see where they have put the comma - when infact the KJV doesnt have one.

However that doesn't afffect my first question to you:

The term 'in the day' is it wrongly translated 'when' in the NIV?

In answer to my last post, I got the reply:

In the day = On the day

Are you sure? I maintain that 'in the day' was an expression for 'when' - just as it is translated in the NIV.

Let me put it another way - can 'in the day' mean 'when'?

However, going to the Hebrew is the place to go - to see exactly what it does say - test if the KJV is correct.

The term for day, Yowm, can mean a day but also a period of time - the context determines the meaning.
Interesting also about the phrase, ' thou shalt die'. Literally translated in the Hebrew it reads dying thou shalt die.

I suppose that is the verse that the alternative meaning is shown through. ie, the bodies began physically dying and their spiritual relationship with God die - as their sin separated him from them.

However true though this may be, unless you can should me that the term 'For in the day that thou eatest' doesn't mean 'when you eat the fruit' I will stick with it.

Tabula_rasa

Question, davidH.

What is the interpretation you have of "in the day ye eat thereof" in the reading of Gen.3 4-5?

Gen.3 4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Does that mean today, tomorrow or some unspecified time in the future? IIRC, it meant today.

Tabula_rasa

Goliath

Magus55,

No, this does NOT follow. If an implication P==>Q is true (where P and Q are propositions), then it need not follow that ~P==>~Q (where ~P is the negation of P). Or, in other words, (P==>Q)==>(~P==>~Q) is not a tautology.

So, let P be the proposition "You will eat this fruit," and let Q be the proposition "You will die." Assuming P==>Q ("If you eat this fruit, then you will die") is true, it does not follow that ~P==>~Q ("If you do not eat this fruit, then you won't die") is true.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Edited to say: Oops, Dr. Rick beat me to this! That's what I get for reading a post in the middle of a 3-page thread and then responding without reading the rest of it.

Sauron

Why does the nonexistence matter to the question of contradictions?

The fact that something doesn't exist does not prevent a person from spotting contradictions in claims made about that something.

Can you figure it out yourself, or do we have to draw you a picture?

Sauron

Um, no. It does not.

Mentioning a bunch of place names and foreign rulers is not proof that any of the specific events in the bible ever occurred.

The Illiad and the Oddysey both mention real place names and rulers. By your logic, we also have to accept their stories of gods, demons and monsters, since the author got a few place names correct.

Asha'man

This explanation fails utterly, in my opinion. It claims that the genealogy in Luke was that of Mary, not Joseph. However, if you actually read the genealogy in Luke, you will find that Mary isn’t named. The text is therefore incorrect, no matter how you read it.

Since the plain reading of the text is invalid, is it possible that an alternate interpretation is justified? Again, I don’t think so.

Jewish genealogies never mentioned the female line, because the ancient Jews were not even aware that such a thing existed. It was well known that men provided the “seed,” but the existence of the human female egg was unknown until modern times. Women provided nothing but a place to plant the seed and let it grow, according to the best knowledge of the time. You cannot invoke one ancient cultural tradition for not naming a woman unless introduced properly, and then utterly ignore the other tradition that says genealogies don’t include women.

This explanation also fails for another reason: we know that Mary was a Levite, because of a reference to one of her relatives. The genealogy in Luke therefore cannot refer to Mary, unless there is yet another error in the gospels.

gilly54

A very polite poster, TsengTsu, offers this explanation of the contradictions in question 5 of the Easter quiz:

Quote:

As far as the men being angels, I doubt this is much of a stretch. In the first instance in Mark the young man is wearing white and upon seeing him the women 'were amazed'. The Greek for the garmet he is wearing clearly indicates the clothing of angels, dazzling and brilliant from whiteness. The instance in Luke uses a different term but also denotes this 'dazzling apparel'. Also the women 'were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground'. Not something most women would do for two ordinary men.

Glowing god and dazzling angels. Maybe we were visited by aliens that had bioluminescent properties. That's my explanation for Magus' and Tseng's explanation. It makes just as much sense, doesn't it? No?, well, try to prove my explanation wrong! There are lots of books written by people who have interviewed people who have SEEN these aliens and they say they are telling the TRUTH, no metaphorical or apological (is that a word?) explanations either! These are REAL EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS, unlike the Gospels. These people saw these aliens IN OUR LIFETIME! No telling and re-telling and re-re-telling of a story that gets embellished each time it is told. Maybe the Raelians are on to something. They dress in white flowing robes, just like the angels do! I don't think they glow though. That only happens after they've been cloned a few times...

Sorry for sidestepping the thread a bit