The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

Originally posted by harryhaller
I did click on the link.

And the more you talk the more you seem to believe your own delusions. When clearly to one else does.

You are certainly a prolific writer, lots of energy.

You seen an exorcist about your problem yet?

Don't pay much attention to his ramblings and appeals to authority fallacies. he's a Gnostic, he's parroting ideas that have been thouroughly debunked for centuries. he refers to heretical books of the Bible that weren't even written by apostles. these "lost" books of the Bible have been proven to have been written in the 2nd century therefore are not the works of the apostles they claim to have been written by.

Gnosticism started before Christ and gained momentum in Egypt after the death of the apostles. This guy claims that Paul's teachings are satanic and against the teachings of the historical Jesus, yet he doesn't grasp the significance that Paul's teachings mirror those of the apostles such as Peter, James, John. And he care not that the disciples of the apostles don't refute the teachings of Paul. One would think that if Paul was teaching something contrary to Jesus's teachings then those who learned directly from Christ (Peter, James, John etc) would denounce Paul's teachings.

Don't dignify his ramblings. Don't cast your pearls before swine.

www.youtube.com...

To any fervent supporters of the information in the bible, watch that video. Just so you can't say "nu-uhhh" - he cites the passages that contradict each other.

Plus the video is funny when you listen to it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
First of all, don't talk down to me, I'm not your spouse nor your child. I'm not required to dignify ANYTHING you say, so remember that next time you get the idea to approach me with a condescending tone. If you want respect, then offer it.

Secondly, you're the one that claimed there were 'VAST' numbers of posts I was refusing to respond to. I don't see them, but on the same hand there are virtually 30+ threads I'm involved with, not to mention U2Us and such. Sometimes things get overlooked, I've apologized for that. You stated you wanted me to address the 18,000 kinds statement of yours, but you fail to do what you've asked me to do, you don't want to re-read the entire thread and look for the answer. I've answered that a couple times already. If you still want to address it, perhaps I can answer in a different manner? But I feel I've already discussed it.

Thirdly, i was focusing my response on your main point addressed in the onset of your post, not the minor sentence at the end of it. if the 18,000 kids statement was the focus of your post, then I'm sorry, perhaps you should have started your reply with it instead of asking me about these 'vast' number of posts that I'm refusing to acknowledge. So let's try this again; What do you want me to discuss??

OK, let me try this ONE MORE TIME.

HOW MANY OF THE 1 MILLION NAMED SPECIES OF INSECT FIT INTO YOUR 18,000 SPECIES TOTAL LAND ANIMAL NUMBER??????????????? If it sounds like I am talking down to you because I am being forced to ask the same question a dozen times, U2U me and I will explain why it is hard to sound like a kiss-ass the 9th time you ask the same question.

Quoting you, it is SPECIES, not kind.

If you ever show that you can answer one question, I will feel justified in taking the time to post the rest. THE VAST POSTS you have ignored are IN THIS THREAD HERE. So, asking them again just to be ignored sounds rather stupid to me. Considering I am asking just this one question for the 100th time, I felt I was making it easy just giving one question at a time.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
First of all, don't talk down to me, I'm not your spouse nor your child. I'm not required to dignify ANYTHING you say, so remember that next time you get the idea to approach me with a condescending tone. If you want respect, then offer it.

Secondly, you're the one that claimed there were 'VAST' numbers of posts I was refusing to respond to. I don't see them, but on the same hand there are virtually 30+ threads I'm involved with, not to mention U2Us and such. Sometimes things get overlooked, I've apologized for that. You stated you wanted me to address the 18,000 kinds statement of yours, but you fail to do what you've asked me to do, you don't want to re-read the entire thread and look for the answer. I've answered that a couple times already. If you still want to address it, perhaps I can answer in a different manner? But I feel I've already discussed it.

Thirdly, i was focusing my response on your main point addressed in the onset of your post, not the minor sentence at the end of it. if the 18,000 kids statement was the focus of your post, then I'm sorry, perhaps you should have started your reply with it instead of asking me about these 'vast' number of posts that I'm refusing to acknowledge. So let's try this again; What do you want me to discuss??

OK, let me try this ONE MORE TIME.

HOW MANY OF THE 1 MILLION NAMED SPECIES OF INSECT FIT INTO YOUR 18,000 SPECIES TOTAL LAND ANIMAL NUMBER??????????????? If it sounds like I am talking down to you because I am being forced to ask the same question a dozen times, U2U me and I will explain why it is hard to sound like a kiss-ass the 9th time you ask the same question.

Quoting you, it is SPECIES, not kind.

If you ever show that you can answer one question, I will feel justified in taking the time to post the rest. THE VAST POSTS you have ignored are IN THIS THREAD HERE. So, asking them again just to be ignored sounds rather stupid to me. Considering I am asking just this one question for the 100th time, I felt I was making it easy just giving one question at a time.

No insects were taken on the ark, Genesis states this as well. Why are you asking about insects?


"Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

Noah's Ark. Copyrighted, Eden Communications. But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space."

HERE

[edit on 15-7-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No insects were taken on the ark, Genesis states this as well. Why are you asking about insects?

OK, no insects.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Authorities on taxonomy estimate that there are less than 18,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in the world today.

I asked where you got a source for that number. You have never provided one. So, no insects? OK lets toss out insects then. That still leaves us with 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals. That is a total of 31,000 named species of reptile, bird, amphibian, and mammal. So, how do you fit 31 into 18 then?




[edit on 15-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Back to your kind, that just takes us back to more questions you did not answer. Trust me, they are here. You said that coyotes, wolves, fox, and domestic dogs are all dog kind. You said only 2 of each kind needed to be on the boat.

OK, so how does a pair of Coyotes turn into a golden retriever in a few thousand years again?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No insects were taken on the ark, Genesis states this as well. Why are you asking about insects?

OK, no insects.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Authorities on taxonomy estimate that there are less than 18,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in the world today.

I asked where you got a source for that number. You have never provided one. So, no insects? OK lets toss out insects then. That still leaves us with 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals. That is a total of 31,000 named species of reptile, bird, amphibian, and mammal. So, how do you fit 31 into 18 then?

Perhaps the author of that statement meant to say "kinds" of species, who knows, perhaps it's a simple typo. The meat and potatoes is that when you look at the feasibility studies done that there was more than enough cubic feet of space to bring the animals God required of Noah into the ark. To claim that 'there wasn't room on the ark for 2 or every animal on Earth' is a straw man argument. That's not what it says in Genesis 6 and 7.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
"Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

Noah's Ark. Copyrighted, Eden Communications. But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space."

HERE

[edit on 15-7-2010 by NOTurTypical]

This is not in any way scientific. This book is just what some folks think. I can just think things up for myself. I want to see the cold hard facts that make them think such things. So...Where in this calculation does it take into account the animals needed to feed the carnivores for over one year?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Back to your kind, that just takes us back to more questions you did not answer. Trust me, they are here. You said that coyotes, wolves, fox, and domestic dogs are all dog kind. You said only 2 of each kind needed to be on the boat.

OK, so how does a pair of Coyotes turn into a golden retriever in a few thousand years again?

I don't think that's a relevant question. Today's coyotes and dogs are descendants of whatever dog kind that Noah took on the ark.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson



This is not in any way scientific. This book is just what some folks think. I can just think things up for myself. I want to see the cold hard facts that make them think such things. So...Where in this calculation does it take into account the animals needed to feed the carnivores for over one year?

It would be difficult for me to speculate on that since the information isn't given. The best i could do if offer possible scenarios. Perhaps since it was an act of God to draw the animals to the ark then perhaps another act of God to cause them to hibernate? We know bears can hibernate today, perhaps God did this to them. It's all speculative since the details are not given. But to me it seems feasible. Also, perhaps smaller animals were fed to them as food? Rabbits breed very quickly, chickens do as well. Who knows. All I know is that information isn't given.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by NOTurTypical]

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The Ark is a lie. Everything about it is a lie. Just like how Moses explains how Lord God formed man from dust on the ground. If you understand chapter 1. chapter 2 is a joke.

The story about Noah's ark is just as fictional as genesis chapter 2.

Moses and Noah both had faith in Lord God. That's why the Bible also have a lot of stupid imaginary stories that dont make sense.

If you want to see the crap in the Bible you have to read about what Lord God wants. Lord God is Moses and Noah's imaginary friend.

Their faith in Lord God shapes history and events in their time. Their faith in Lord God demands sacrifice. Moses killed half of his own tribe just to prove his faith in Lord God.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The Ark is a lie. Everything about it is a lie. Just like how Moses explains how Lord God formed man from dust on the ground. If you understand chapter 1. chapter 2 is a joke.

The story about Noah's ark is just as fictional as genesis chapter 2.

Moses and Noah both had faith in Lord God. That's why the Bible also have a lot of stupid imaginary stories that dont make sense.

If you want to see the crap in the Bible you have to read about what Lord God wants. Lord God is Moses and Noah's imaginary friend.

And you're most certainly entitled to your opinions. Thank you for sharing, God bless.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I sure am. I figured this out a long time ago.

Lord God is not God. The most recognizable is when Jesus stopped the sacrifice of blood. Which was one of Lord Gods most profound demands. Lord God demanded sacrifice and worship. Something God never did.

Moses and Noah both worshiped and sacrificed on a alter to Lord God. Moses went even further. Moses was told by Lord God to kill half of his tribe to prove his faith. Moses challenged Lord God on this demand, because it was pure evil and pointless. But non the less Moses still went on and did as Lord God had demanded.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


There are some interesting gospels that of course are not of the Bible that talk about how Jesus was so upset at the Temple due to the selling of animals there for sacrifices. He went on to talk about the wrongful way of killing animals for their sins.

It took me a while to twist out of the knot that then also Jesus would of not been a 'blood sacrifice' and to see that his life and death still held just as much worth for he taught us how to live a life for Spirit instead of for this life of flesh.

I think when I finally in my time of quietness with the Spirit stood sure footed in that I didnt accept another mans death for my sins....I took my first few steps towards 'God' and away from 'man'.

reply to post by Myollinir

The Lord didn't bring any bad upon Job

WRONG.

Re-read your Bible. In Job 2:3 God admits that Satan "incited" him against Job for "no good reason". Oh sure Satan is directly responsible but he wouldn't have had permission to harm Job without God's permission. Look at it this way, God is Job's Father and Job is an obedient child who has been spoiled by his Father (God blessed him), some guy (Satan) comes along and asks the Father if he can take away everything the obedient child ever had and torment the obedient child. GOD AGREES and hands over permission to Satan to torture his child.

You might also want to read Job 42:11

All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver [a] and a gold ring.

Job 42

These stories of God killing children or anyone were from the Old Testament, when Jesus was not yet born...

Oh please, the old Get out of the Old Testament free card? Guess what, this thread is about, if you'd read the OP, the belief by fundamentalists that the ENTIRE Bible is the Word of God. This thread is not about how much nicer everyone gets after Jesus shows up.

These children were all being raised into utter sin anyways

It doesn't matter, a God cannot condone the breaking of his own commandments without contradicting himself. How would you like it if you were living an ordinary life and all of a sudden some religious extremists stormed in and slaughtered your children and you and all over the excuse that: "You were raising your children into utter sin anyways"... I imagine the the terrorists that blow themselves up think the same things...

If they wanted they could adopt the children, teach them how to repent and teach them right from wrong. Or are these children too stuck in their ways already by age nine to ever be saved? Yeah, best to just kill em... Do you even think before you type? You're defending child murder.

We all have a chance for salvation now, and God is much more forgiving than these times you are addressing.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever. That's in the Bible. You fail.

What you really need to look at is your own lives, and what you are living for.

Okay, one of the things I'm living for and hoping for is a world without people who believe in the Bible as the Word of God. Sure it will be a nigh impossible battle but at least I'll be able to say I tried.

take a read through the New Testament with an open mind, and get back to me

Been there, done that. I'll admit God sure does get a whole lot nicer in the New Testament but then again its typically Paul speaking for him. He's more merciful, until you get to that Revelations thing. Revelations, if taken literally, is even worse than the Old Testament. According to Revelations 21:8 people who lie, magicians, and the cowardly will all be thrown into the lake of fire FOREVER, so that's about 99% of humanity right there.

it is much more fulfilling living a life believing in God.

How? In what way does a magical sky man leave your life more fulfilling? Is it in the same way a belief in Santa Claus made Christmas more fun when you were a kid? Then someone bursts the bubble and oops, not as much fun living in reality.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by LeoVirgo


How the Bible is shaped with facts and fiction starts right from the beginning of Genesis chapter 2. verse 4.

In Genesis you have two different creators. God's and Lord Gods. But first God has to create the earth for Lord God to do his work.

Lord God also fit the character that is cast down from heaven to rule the earth with his religion. Lord God is very active in the Bible.

How do you understand this verse:

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Here i read: Lord God created the serpent and God created the rules.

The serpent is speaking on behalf of Lord God "his creator". And the serpent is challenging Eves faith in God's word.

Why is Lord God and God mentioned differently in the same verse? Why wouldn't the serpent say: Yea, hath Lord God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Why does the serpent say God?





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Perhaps the author of that statement meant to say "kinds" of species, who knows, perhaps it's a simple typo.

You posted it as a fact to back up your story. Why would you do that if you did not even know what it meant? What is the source for that statement so that we can better look at it? According to you, species and kind are two very very very different things. Would this not be an important thing to get right?

If it was kind, I would really like to see the breakdown in that as well.

The meat and potatoes is that when you look at the feasibility studies done that there was more than enough cubic feet of space to bring the animals God required of Noah into the ark.

No, not when you look at FACTS like the number of different species or kinds it would actually require. This is why I am asking for FACTS and not guesses about what may or may not be typos.

To claim that 'there wasn't room on the ark for 2 or every animal on Earth' is a straw man argument. That's not what it says in Genesis 6 and 7.

Then let us determine what the real argument is. How many "kinds" of animals were there and USE A SOURCE PLEASE.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I don't think that's a relevant question. Today's coyotes and dogs are descendants of whatever dog kind that Noah took on the ark.

How is it not relevant? We have so many different "kinds" of dogs today that if you are going to claim there were only two coyotes on the ark, you are going to need to explain where wolves and foxes came from. How do you just skip over that?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
It would be difficult for me to speculate on that since the information isn't given.

But you have no problem just believing it anyway?

The best i could do if offer possible scenarios. Perhaps since it was an act of God to draw the animals to the ark then perhaps another act of God to cause them to hibernate? We know bears can hibernate today, perhaps God did this to them.

Then that same god could have done all kinds of things such as set aside a plot of land just for them, killed off just the people with disease, given all animals the gift of yearlong flight, made them all vegans, etc. If you are only going to speculate on the details, how can you be so sure of the truth of the sum of those details you have to make up?

It's all speculative since the details are not given. But to me it seems feasible. Also, perhaps smaller animals were fed to them as food? Rabbits breed very quickly, chickens do as well. Who knows. All I know is that information isn't given.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Feasible? You are insisting this story is TRUE. You claim it is historical fact. How can you possible know that if you can barely even prove it is feasible? Where are the facts to back it up if it is true? Where are any answers to any questions? The bible is full of this crap and we barely touched on this ark thing and already you are stumped. You have already hid behind guesses and admittedly. So...if the story is true, then proving so should be a little easier than this. I guess you just refuse to admit the truth is that you have no idea but you want to believe it so you claim to.

wow i love when people dont see the depth when words are written, lets go back to times that predate the bible then and see what some fo the sumarians would have thought of what i had stated and also many coincedences of things before the bible and where things in the writings were written Origins origins origins ........

HORUS

born on dec 25
born of a virgin
star in the east
adorned by three kings
teacher at 12
baptized/ministry at 30yrs
12 disciples
performed miracles
lamb of god / the light
crucified
dead for 3 days
ressureccted

ATTIS

born of a virgin
born on dec 25th
crucified
dead for 3 days
resurrected

KRISHNA

born of a virgin
star in the east
performed miracles
resurrected

DIONYSUS

born of a virgin
born on dec 25th
performed miracles
king of kings
the alpha omega
resurrected

Mithra

born of a virgin
born on dec 25th
12 disciples
performed miracles

all these gods exsisted hundreds of years before christ so ask yourself where the bible got it's concepts from...as we learn we shall grow

so learn and you too shall grow

a book commisioned by a king that was failing is that a book i would believe in and also to be be commissioned hundreds of years after the fact i would conclude more as hearsay would you not.

food for thought so think hard and eat.