It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A serious flaw in the bible...

page: 11
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I used to be a 'fundie' but after I got ripped off by a 'devout Christian' that my church recommended to me, I started my exit from Christianity.

www.swindledforjesus.com...

I don't worry about going to hell or have to get up early on Sunday morning as before. I just wish I had all that money back.




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
we also have the problem of the word "Earth"
the hebrews considered any soil they stood on to be earth. they didn't have upper and lower case words, so identifying proper nouns is a bit trickier. i mean just look at all the possible meanings there are for the word "earth" from genesis, which is 'erets

1) land, earth

a) earth

1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)

2) earth (as opposed to heaven)

3) earth (inhabitants)

b) land

1) country, territory

2) district, region

3) tribal territory

4) piece of ground

5) land of Canaan, Israel

6) inhabitants of land

7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world

8) city (-state)

c) ground, surface of the earth

1) ground

2) soil

d) (in phrases)

1) people of the land

2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)

3) level or plain country

4) land of the living

5) end(s) of the earth

e) (almost wholly late in usage)

1) lands, countries

a) often in contrast to Canaan

source
tiny.cc...



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LAUTERMILCH
 


oh that sucks! it's also common between different denominations, because one thinks the other is wicked and therefore open season to be lied to, ripped off, taken advantage of, picked on, harrassed, maligned, abused, murdered and so on. some are moreso this way than others. personally, i think it's just an excuse, since we're all saved by the same saviour and created by the same creator. all the other stuff is nit pickiness that clearly is more divisive than christ like.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unregistered

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by Unregistered
 



Day is a man-made Earth-time. One day on Earth is not the same as one day in Mars, or Jupiter, or wherever else.
I think since he placed us on Earth, and the bible was made for us to follow...we can safely say he wasn't referring to a day on Uranus...


Not really.

If he's creating the Earth, then do you think that he's actually standing in the place that is in the process of creation?


If god knows everything, he knew exactly how long an earth day would be, and I'm sure when using the word 'day' to describe the creation of earth, he would use an earth day---not a Uranus day, or Jupiter day.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by virraszto

Originally posted by Unregistered

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by Unregistered
 



Day is a man-made Earth-time. One day on Earth is not the same as one day in Mars, or Jupiter, or wherever else.
I think since he placed us on Earth, and the bible was made for us to follow...we can safely say he wasn't referring to a day on Uranus...


Not really.

If he's creating the Earth, then do you think that he's actually standing in the place that is in the process of creation?


If god knows everything, he knew exactly how long an earth day would be, and I'm sure when using the word 'day' to describe the creation of earth, he would use an earth day---not a Uranus day, or Jupiter day.



Which begs the question as to whether an Uranus day is really called a 'day' there or something else entirely (such as, perhaps, 'night' or 'slartibartfast')?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by moniker
 





Which begs the question as to whether an Uranus day is really called a 'day' there or something else entirely (such as, perhaps, 'night' or 'slartibartfast')?


Exactly! If I'm telling a story, especially something as important as the creation of the earth, I'd want to make sure I got the meaning of the words clear and precise, so no question could be made of it's meaning.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by virraszto]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Hi From Above

Are you aware that there are TWO (count'em : 2) Creation Myths in Genesis (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a and 2:4b to 4:25)?

The first myth uses ELOHIM for the deity and the 2nd uses YHWH Elohim for the name of the deity.

The first creates 'male and female together and he called their name ADAM' on the 6th 'day' of creation, with NO reference to Hayyah ('eve'), and the animals created (Heb 'bara' = created from zero) prior to MAN.

The 2nd has man created first, THEN the animals, THEN Hayyah ('eve') from his 'side'

After Gen 4:25, comes Genesis 5:1-2 where the FIRST Myth Writer re-appears:

Notice in Gen 5:1-2 the SAME writer of Gen 1:1 - 2:4a (but not the same writer who knows about Hayyah, aka EVE, in the 2nd myth beginning in 2:4a) re-appears again:

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the Toledoth ('generations') of Adam.

In the day that Elohim created Adam,
in the likeness of Elohim he created him;
2 He made them into Male and female :
and he blessed THEM
and HE CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM
in the day when they were created.


The writer does not know of the existence of Hayyah. In his world view, MALE AND FEMALE WERE CREATED TOGETHER as a SET IN HIS OWN IMAGE:

And HE CREATED THEM IN HIS OWN IMAGE AND HE CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM. THEIR NAME. THEIR NAME. Not HIS Name, THEIR name.

That is another reason why scholars see Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a and 5:1-2 as a SEPARATE creation myth from 2:4b - 4:25. Different Vocabulary. Different Syntax. Different Writing 'style'. Different Sentence Length. Different Weltanschauung. Different Audience. Different CONTENT.

Everyone on this thread should colour their 1st Creation Myth in their English Text with ONE colour highlighter, and colour the 2nd Creation myth in ANOTHER colour of highlighter to be able to see the differences between them (if that is if you are using an ENGLISH translation, as opposed to the unpointed paleoHebrew of the Vorlage to the LXX or the SamPent or the later AD 960 pointed Masoretic version used by rabinnic Jews and Protestants today, all of which are slightly different by the way).

People should avoid using the word GOD in these discussions. The first Myth uses ELOHIM (lit. 'gods') and the 2nd myth uses YHWH ELohim. Stick to the actual words in the texts, por favor !!



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by LAUTERMILCH
 

I hear you. Tempting to take it out on that church. I got ripped off by the wife of a Mormon chaplain to the tune of $3000.

It's just people. It's not about God.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 

God "made" in Genesis 1, and God "formed" in Genesis 2. Here's some help for you: ecclesia.org...



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Chaos,

First and foremost, this topic has been discussed SO OFTEN on this and many other sites I'm surprised you got as many replies as you have.

Secondly, please stop using 'Christians' in the manner that you are. There are many 'Christians' that believe in a mixture of science and religion. I know many that believe the date 6000 years may not actually equate out to what WE know as years. Or the translation of the number in fact could be closer to 6 billion.

Anyway, that's all besides the point I am trying to make. There are more religions than the Christian religion that believe in the Old Testament. Namely Judaism and Islam. So for you to keep singling out 'Christians' in an infammatory manner is simply setting the stage for angry comments.

Oh yeah, do some searching for the posts on this topic and you will, I'm sure, get your answers.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 


Ouch.

Well, the law you cite was specific to that culture and time. For example, if they were surrounded by cannibals, they would have had a law not to partake of human flesh with their neighbors.

In the case of virginity, it was a safeguard against passing along diseases from generation to generation. Today, if your wife has fornicated before your marriage, she brings with her the bacteria and viruses of all the people with whom she has had intimate relations, and all the same for all the people those people had intimate relations.

Which is better? I think God had the right idea. I married a virgin, and I was a virgin. We did not carry syphilis or any of the other 50+ STDs into our relationship, and we did not pass generational STDs to our children. Sort of like washing your hands each generation. Good idea, but God must be wrong, right?

The Bible notes that the sins of the fathers can pass to the children. It refers to these iniquities as different from sins. For example, if your father is a wife-beater, you may be one, too. Not always. Etc.

These commandments were stringent on the Hebrews because God was trying to preserve His oracles, the deliverers of His Holy Word to the Earth. Since the beginning, Satan was attempting to destroy the lineage of Christ. For example, Cain killed Abel. This took both Cain and Abel out of the lineage. Hence, Seth ("is appointed") was appointed to replace them to regain the lineage. Had the Hebrews been destroyed by a plague, or such, the lineage and plan of God would have been complicated. Hence, the laws to preserve the Hebrews. You are not under such laws today.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Hi Jim--

Are you telling me you don't know the difference between paleoHeb 'bara' ('he created' , i.e. from zero, i.e. by a word) and paleoHeb 'yatzar' ('he formed', i.e. from pre-existence material, like a potter with his clay) ?

Or do you REALLY think by your silly link that the Greek LXX majority witnesses here 'accurately' translate' the paleoHeb Vorlage it is trying to work into Greek?

What are you trying to say, exactly? Are you fluent in PaleoHeb enough to be able to discern these distinctions here, or not?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

My comments to Titen-Sxull

How about Egypt making the Jews slaves?

God doesn't send anyone to Hell. They send themselves because they have free will.

Do you know what was in Jericho? There were giants there and they were pure evil and even the children were evil.

Where in the Bible does the Israelites take slaves as they make their way to the "promised land".

Jobs sons and daughters were grown up. God didn't rob Job it was the devil.

The Biblical flood was before the Epic of Gilgamesh.



So just because the Egyptians kept them as slaves that suddenly means its okay for God, a being who is meant to be loving and forgiving, to slaughter their children?

God does send them to Hell, he is the judge of the world according to the Bible. If God is All Knowing and All Powerful then Free Will by definition cannot exist. The book of 2nd Peter claims: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.". So if God is not willing that any shall go to Hell and nothing can oppose the will of an all powerful being then NO ONE would go to Hell.

Even the children of Jericho were evil? I don't believe that for a second, sounds like a bunch of child murderers trying to justify their actions by claiming it was Gods Will and that those children were evil. What about the newborns of Jericho, were they pure evil as well?

Check out Numbers 31: 17-18:

"17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who is not a virgin.

18But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves."

You claim it was the Devil who single-handedly brought Job down, but what does the book of Job say? 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."

It was God who allowed the trouble (some translations even say God brought EVIL) against him.

You can't win, put down your Bibles and seek the truth.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


no, he got adam an ishshah not a hay-yah, and then adam named her chavah, which is not hay-yah.

what's up with the word changes?

[edit on 21-10-2009 by undo]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
deleted due to quoted post changed.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by JonInMichigan]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Hi Undo

Hayyah (or Chayyah, 'life') is the sg of Chayyim, lit. 'lives' but often translated (or taken) singularly, e.g. LeChayyim ('to life !' as a toast &tc.)

Where on earth do you find Chevvah in the paleo? There is no VAV in the unpointed Hebrew Vorlage to the LXX or in the DSS fragments or even in the much much later Masoretic, only the middle literal YOD which is doubled.

Not sure what MSS text you are quoting, certainly there is nothing there for Chayyah (Hayyah) with a VAV in the middle that the Hebrews ever knew....

Are you also non-fluent in paleo too?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott


Can you name a single flaw in the Bible, please?


Yeah... the first line should not have read "In the beginning..."

but rather, "Once upon a time..."

Ahh... here we go... a little help for the Fundies... undeniable *proof* that the Earth is only 6000 years old:



[edit on 21-10-2009 by JonInMichigan]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I really do not understand the level of hostility that some (not all) posters in this thread have toward Christians. The bible & Koran both have stories of creation, but the original post is clearly singling out only Christians. Christianity is not the only religion that follows these religious texts.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


i'm looking at transliterated hebrew. . which is ChVH
i'm also looking at paleo.
here:
wiki
tiny.cc...
are you saying that's not there? cause i see it here
parallel
tiny.cc...

[edit on 21-10-2009 by undo]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JonInMichigan
 


there are no fundies in the thread. you're making fun of a person who isn't present to answer your childish antics.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join