Name Any "Inconsistency" Of The Bible, And I'll Explain How It's NOT Inconsistent

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Well, I think Truth's point is (and I do believe he read the thread) that hand gestures in paintings done 1500 years after Christ doesn't have a darned thing to do with:

1. Christ
2. the Bible

and, therefore, this topic.

I find your question interesting about European painters incorporating hand gestures of other religions into Judeo-Christian religious icons, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the Bible.

[Edited on 7-3-2004 by Valhall]




posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ktprktpr
BUT ... who the heck is God addressing when he says "let us make man in our image." Because, the trinty is "within" God. It is internal and there is no one else to address.


The first scripture referencing making man comes right after making all the beasts of the land...so there's a sense of plurality of creation at that point...

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.

But then God goofs after making man, and forget he already made the beasts... AND MAKES THEM AGAIN!


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.

These sort of continuity errors can't be explained. It's a MISTAKE pure and simple. A big fat "whoops" in the "irrefutable dogma" of the Holy Word. Does it mean the entire Bible is BS? Certainly not. And I'm not one of those that uses scripture to refute scripture...BUT:

The Bible is still as holey as it is Holy.



[Edited on 7-3-2004 by RANT]



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
1. Christ
2. the Bible

and, therefore, this topic.

I find your question interesting about European painters incorporating hand gestures of other religions into Judeo-Christian religious icons, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the Bible.

[Edited on 7-3-2004 by Valhall]


But see that was my point, and it does have to do with the Bible, because a lot of these pictures are in the Bible and none were done by Hindus.
and since common acceptance is that
"Hinduism is most likely the world's oldest living religion. The most ancient Hindu religious texts are the Vedas, and they were written around 1,500 B.C.E. (before the common era). "

What are the "hand signs" for a better word, of an "older" and "different" religion doing in the Bible?
Would you not consider that an inconsistency?
Did an Italian painter see a Hindu book, and say "Oh cool lets paint Christ doing that with his hands?"



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ktprktpr
Let me follow up on my Gensis question. It has been told to me that the "us" is in reference to the trinity of God. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. An analogy is that I can be a son, uncle and father all at once. So can God.

Now Jesus was more of a potential, back then. But that still leavs us with God and the Holy Spirit, which gives us a plurality. This is all fine and good.

BUT ... who the heck is God addressing when he says "let us make man in our image." Because, the trinty is "within" God. It is internal and there is no one else to address.


Okay, a couple things. God and the spirit were present as He was creating, but SO was Jesus. To understand this, realize that God is outside of, and not subject to time. Time is simply a property of our universe that He created. I say that because time is linked with matter. It is affected by mass, gravity and acceleration. That's why Einstein refers to it as space-time. So because of this, there is no past, or future when talking about God as He resides outside the domain of time. The Son is God, so this applies to Him too. So to say that the Son, during the time of creation wasn't there yet is wrong. God isn't has been, or will be, but just IS, encompassing all of time at once, and this includes all three parts of Himself. In other words, we live in linear time, but God doesn't. It's hard for us to think non-linearly, because that's how we live. To back this up with scripture, look in Colossians 1:15-17

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

If you read this, you'll know that this is referring to Jesus. So the new testament helps to back up the verse where God speaks about man being made in OUR image.
We are made in His image, because God made us like the Son, and gave us a spirit (not just a body). God the father is a bit more vague, but He gave us intelligence and knowledge and discernment of right and wrong and wisdom. So in this way we are made in THEIR image. I hope this clears that up.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   
simpletruth: how did mankind form from Adam and Eve if there was only one man, one woman who made 2 sons??



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sugeshotcha
simpletruth: how did mankind form from Adam and Eve if there was only one man, one woman who made 2 sons??


You beat me to it suge....
I was going to ask who Cain and Abel married. I know it says they took their wives from the land of Nod...but who created the people who lived there?



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I think this has already been answered once in this thread, but here goes again:

Just because the Bible does not record the creation of others beside Adam and Eve, does not mean that God did not create others.

No one has the answer to this question, but jumping to conclusions that Adam and Eve were the only ones created by God doesn't really have any foundation in scripture as far as I am aware.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by darklanser

You beat me to it suge....
I was going to ask who Cain and Abel married. I know it says they took their wives from the land of Nod...but who created the people who lived there?


ok, i know yall are going to hate me for pointing this out...but could the possibility be either
a. the sons and eve had children

OR

(ok im not bringing this up maliciously, its just a possibility)

b. the children of lillith and samuel? or lillith herself? *if she existed, this could be an explanation

i know yall odnt want to get off track with that discussion again, its just a possibility im throwin out there to generate some more realistic ideas



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by darklanser
You beat me to it suge....
I was going to ask who Cain and Abel married. I know it says they took their wives from the land of Nod...but who created the people who lived there?


Maybe they married monkeys.
I think the best a Biblical scholar can do here is say women weren't important enough then to have a lineage.

After all, the OT is one big mysogonistic bash isn't it?

Did you know Abraham was an adulterer? Apparently men could commit that sin without punishment as long as it was with a slave.

I better stop reading this thread. The Bible makes me angry and hatefilled. I think it's supposed to.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Scat,

Read my lips. IF you would produce one scriptural reference that supports your claims we would be glad to discuss it.

As it stands, you just keep beating a dead horse.

I believe if you do a search there are threads about Lillith...go find one and start this discussion there.

But not here.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by ktprktpr
BUT ... who the heck is God addressing when he says "let us make man in our image." Because, the trinty is "within" God. It is internal and there is no one else to address.


The first scripture referencing making man comes right after making all the beasts of the land...so there's a sense of plurality of creation at that point...

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.

But then God goofs after making man, and forget he already made the beasts... AND MAKES THEM AGAIN!


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.

These sort of continuity errors can't be explained. It's a MISTAKE pure and simple. A big fat "whoops" in the "irrefutable dogma" of the Holy Word. Does it mean the entire Bible is BS? Certainly not. And I'm not one of those that uses scripture to refute scripture...BUT:

The Bible is still as holey as it is Holy.



[Edited on 7-3-2004 by RANT]


Rant, you bring up a good one. I understand how you see this, but this is not inconsistent. And I'm NOT just trying to invent or create reasons to deny inconsistencies. So let's go through these 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.

Okay, as you note, these two verses clearly say that man came after beasts and birds and all that. No problem so far. But then you are seeing that God seems to create the beasts AGAIN after Adam. So which is it, beast before man, or man before beast?

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.

This is really simply just stating again that God made the beasts, like a flashback. 2:19 isn't saying that He formed them AGAIN or NOW, in reference of time after Adam. It's just referring back to the earlier verses. It's reminding us that He created the beasts and is bringing them to Adam. It also helps if you understand how Hebrew works, which it the original language the first books of the bible were written in.

If you look at GEN 1, the whole chapter gives an overview of the seven days of creation, and ends after God rests on the seventh. Then, in chapter 2, it jumps back a little in verse 4 and describes it in more detail. It would help to look at 2:4 and read that section. This goes from 2:4-17 and then we come back to 18 and 19 which you question. So actually, it's reiteration and saying that "and the beasts that God formed out of the ground, He brought to Adam." My bible has cleared it up. This is how the verses read in NIV:

Genesis 2:18-19
The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.


So I hope this clears all of that up. Let me know what you think.(probably more refuting right?:@@



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by darklanser
You beat me to it suge....
I was going to ask who Cain and Abel married. I know it says they took their wives from the land of Nod...but who created the people who lived there?


Maybe they married monkeys.
I think the best a Biblical scholar can do here is say women weren't important enough then to have a lineage.

After all, the OT is one big mysogonistic bash isn't it?

Did you know Abraham was an adulterer? Apparently men could commit that sin without punishment as long as it was with a slave.

I better stop reading this thread. The Bible makes me angry and hatefilled. I think it's supposed to.


RANT, PLEASE read the rest of the thread! I already for one thing talked about Abraham's adultery. And YES, there were consequences. But Genesis is NARRATION, simple describing what happened, nothing more. ANY TIME there is adultery in the bible, there are negative consequences for those who are involved. REFER to earlier in the thread.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Scat,

Read my lips. IF you would produce one scriptural reference that supports your claims we would be glad to discuss it.

As it stands, you just keep beating a dead horse.

I believe if you do a search there are threads about Lillith...go find one and start this discussion there.

But not here.


dude, i said that already. jeeeez man. it was an idea to spark more ideas because the question seemed to have come to a standstill, it was simply a firestarter. sheesh man.

and i cant read your lips- your on the internet.


those weren't my "claims" it was a simple possibility. chill out.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by sugeshotcha
simpletruth: how did mankind form from Adam and Eve if there was only one man, one woman who made 2 sons??


Good question. First of all, Adam and Eve had MANY other sons and daughters after Cain and Abel, so that helps a little. It also doesn't specify WHEN all these other children were born. Now, the bible throughout its entirety refers to the one man Adam and woman Eve as the first and only people. In Genesis 2:20, we are told that when Adam looked at the animals, he could not find a mate -- there was no one of his kind, so this says that there weren't any others or groups already created, which also means NO LILITH SCAT!
In 1 Corinthians 15:45, it says that Adam was "the first man." God did not start by making a whole group of men. So Cain's wife would have been a sister of his. And brothers and sisters would have to have, yes, marry.

Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve's sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don't marry your relation, you don't marry a human! A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve, all are of "one blood." The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18-20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God's law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.
Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.


Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed.

There is a very sound genetic reason for such laws that is easy to understand. Every person has two sets of genes, there being some 130,000 pairs that specify how a person is put together and functions. Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other -- or perhaps someone's nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone's jaw is a little out of shape -- and so on. Let's face it, the main reason we call each other normal is because of our common agreement to do so!

The more distantly related parents are, the more likely it is that they will have different mistakes in their genes. Children, inheriting one set of genes from each parent, are likely to end up with pairs of genes containing a maximum of one bad gene in each pair. The good gene tends to override the bad so that a deformity (a serious one, anyway) does not occur. Instead of having totally deformed ears, for instance, a person may only have crooked ones! (Overall, though, the human race is slowly degenerating as mistakes accumulate, generation after generation.)

However, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that they will have similar mistakes in their genes, since these have been inherited from the same parents. Therefore, a brother and a sister are more likely to have similar mistakes in their genes. A child of a union between such siblings could inherit the same bad gene on the same gene pair from both, resulting in two bad copies of the gene and serious defects.

Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was "very good" (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect -- no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam -- Genesis 3:6, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

Does that all make sense to everybody? LEMME KNOW!



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scat

Originally posted by Valhall
Scat,

Read my lips. IF you would produce one scriptural reference that supports your claims we would be glad to discuss it.

As it stands, you just keep beating a dead horse.

I believe if you do a search there are threads about Lillith...go find one and start this discussion there.

But not here.


dude, i said that already. jeeeez man. it was an idea to spark more ideas because the question seemed to have come to a standstill, it was simply a firestarter. sheesh man.

and i cant read your lips- your on the internet.


those weren't my "claims" it was a simple possibility. chill out.


LOL Scat. I got what you were trying to do.
No big deal. But, I AM a little worried about you fixation on Lilith.
Is she some kind of fantasy woman for you?
Do you dream of her?



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   
There are two places the human gene pool narrows: Adam and Eve, and Noah's line.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Simpletruth: ok that answers my question well. Are you saying that because Adam and eve were made physically perfect, their sons and daughters could interbreed and have 0% chance of having deformities? And that the happening of incestuous breeding deformities only began later when sin was introduced?



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sugeshotcha
Simpletruth: ok that answers my question well. Are you saying that because Adam and eve were made physically perfect, their sons and daughters could interbreed and have 0% chance of having deformities? And that the happening of incestuous breeding deformities only began later when sin was introduced?


Boy, I sure hope he doesn't answer yes to this, because there really isn't anything to hang this on.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sugeshotcha
Simpletruth: ok that answers my question well. Are you saying that because Adam and eve were made physically perfect, their sons and daughters could interbreed and have 0% chance of having deformities? And that the happening of incestuous breeding deformities only began later when sin was introduced?


That's what I'm saying. Now, during Moses time, the decay of gene deformity had been happening awhile and by that time, it was necessary to make law to forbid it because of the deformity factor. God commanded it because He knew the offspring would be sick or handicapped. In today's society, it is thought of as wrong because the idea is SO strange to us and gross even. That's because that's the way it's been for millenia now, and yes, to us it's weird. But originally, that's the way people multiplied, there just weren't any others to procreate with. Maybe for them, it wasn't strange. And so, because the laws against incest came much later out of more necessety, the bible doesn't really contradict here. I mean, when a new law is made, it's for that time and forward, not backwards.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
That's a pretty radical interpretation there SimpleTruth.

And might I add ew, ew, EW, ew, ew...

EWWWWWWWW!



  exclusive video


top topics
 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join