It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:43 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

see this post

that doesn't discount that the passages may be talking about 2 different creations of man, nor does it discount that there was more than one creation, since the first man created does not have to be literally the only man created. i hope people will get past the issue here which is that the interpretation of the passages, no matter how accurate, are not evidence of what the passages actually mean to say. it's highly condensed data.

for example, check this out

the first man created is 'adam
then in Genesis 2:3
instead of the 'adam, it's ishah (woman) and iysh (man).
then it's back to 'adam
then it's back to iysh.

i think these are two different groups

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:59 PM
Hi Undo

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) re-appears again:

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the 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
in the day when they were created.


That is why scholars see Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a and 5:1-2 as a SEPARATE creation myth from 2:4b - 4:25

Clear as mud?

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

well genesis 2:3 falls within the parameter for the first writer, as you say. and unless eve is ea, i doubt eve is jehovah.
hay-yah (ea)

ea + enlil = jehovah. or to be more precise, the elohiym (named after enlil)

[edit on 20-10-2009 by undo]

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:06 PM
If you ask me the whole bible is flawed.
That's my personal opinion.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by RoyalCanadian

it's not flawed, just misunderstood and occassionally mistranslated into english from the original texts. the gist of it is what we are supposed to get:

be kind.
be civil.
be charitable.
be steadfast.
be honest.
be honorable.
eat right.
live clean.
don't make oaths (which falls under the be honorable part, or as yoda would say, do or do not, there is no try).
be good.

that kinda thing.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Anuberial
reply to post by Nventual

First of all, the Bible is the word of God...It is true that man wrote it, but God told them what to say and how to write it. They did not just interpret it

WWHHHoooaa now hold it right there, please!!!
I have a sister in law who saw lasers shoot out of my eyes and brother in law that believes we're all connected to each other like a human internet and sits and stares at the L.E.D. on his computer tower flashing and has conversations with it, seriously I'm not making this up.
Now if either of them put on robes and started writing down their thoughts and walking around professing to be in contact with GOD and "this is what he said"
Um yep I can see the padding on the room walls now.
Its a shame what has been done to the human race in the name of God.
As far as flaws within the bible, I dont have enough fingers and toes to count them all up on.
There's "something" that connects all the dots, but we dont know it.

edit spelling

[edit on 20-10-2009 by HappilyEverAfter]

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:23 PM

one more thought on the subject:

tiamat is a babylonian creation, one of the marduk-era history changes. she was preceeded by the previous god of water (sweet, salt and the chaotic waters of the nun), named ENKI, who was also the akkadian EA. therefore, enki not only preceeds her by one set of stories but by 2 sets of stories.
the tower of babel (babilu) is the chaos gate of the water god, which is not tiamat, as you can see the name is EL or IL, which is LIL which is ENLIL. now you could argue that LILITH is ENLIL, but considering ENLIL as a male deity also predates LILITH, i dunno how far that'll take ya.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by Amagnon

Where in the bible does it say the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?
I know what your saying...but there is to much to talk about when it comes to determining the age of the Earth using the bible...that's why I avoided it, it wasn't what I wanted to talk about...but I read a fair bit about it...and when it comes down to it...the general belief is 6,000 years to 10,000 years old. So the word "day" has a very free interpretation as used in genesis...I thought it meant 24 hours...why wouldn't God say "a period of time" instead? Did he want to confuse everyone? He obviously knew such a thing would cause great conflict with his story, and cause a lot of people to stop reading after the first page...real smart...

He didn't use the word 'day'. THe bible was translated from Hebrew into English - its the guy who interpreted the Hebrew into English that couldn't figure it out.

Those that read the bible in English and think that is the way it was written have a rethink coming. It was written in Hebrew, but parts of it were written in an older language and later translated into Hebrew.

When Constantine originally ordered a bunch of 'bibles', the guy who was ordered to translate it (Eusebius I think?) didn't even want to attempt the task. There were so many conflicting texts and so forth - but Constantine insisted - and I guess the Emperor gets what the Emperor wants.

Obviously working from a whole lot of complete and fragmented texts - the bible was constructed and converted in Roman language - later to old English.

Reams of material was not put in - and of course it was touched up to not offend Romans. I guess the story of Pontius Pilate - washing his hands of the matter was probably a load of crap.

The Old testament is kind of a mosaic of different stuff - Genesis doesn't rightly belong in the Old Testament at all - its origin was probably somewhere completely different - and much, much older than the other text - probably oral tradition for millennium.

The old Roman gods were simply converted over for Christianity - and given saints names - so they could continue to be venerated - Apollo became Paul for instance (think thats correct).

Anyone who spends even a little while delving into the origins and history of it all is likely to find their "Written by God" paradigm takes a sound beating.

Anyways - I have no doubt that some of it is a useful look at ancient traditions - and also Genesis is extremely revealing. If you separate Genesis from the bible - and realize that it is not talking at ALL about the Hebrew God - then you might get a nice shock to your system - its an incredible tale really - and everyone should objectively read it and try to fathom its meaning.

I am agnostic - most would say I'm atheist - but obviously I know something of this book - I also have read the Talmud and Koran - and parts of the Bhagavad gita - all of which I highly recommend.

Whether we like it or not - we live in a world surrounded by religious nuts - best try and understand them.

EDIT: One more thing - with all the information available to him - the Pope is almost certainly an atheist. I would imagine it is a requirement.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by Amagnon]

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:02 PM
Well,I am a Christian, went to church for 30 years and believed that the "story of creation" as we were taught was right. However, Father God called me out of "church" (the buildings) and began to teach me to listen to HIM as HE interprets HIS word for me. What He showed me was that we listened to what MEN had to say about His word, their interpretation, and we all know where letting someone else decide what is true leads to. To get the truth of God's word, you have to ask the author of the book to interpret for you. I mean, if you had Edgar Allen Poe at your house every day and were reading his works, wouldn't you ask him what he meant by certain passages? IMO, and this is what God has showed me so far, He didn't form Earth as we know "In the beginning". We have no clue just when the "beginning" was. He may have left the earth void for billions of years. Genesis also shows that He let the earth bring forth trees and herbs, and the water bring forth the creatures. Who knows how long that went on? The only things in Genesis that He specifically created out of dirt were the plants, animals and Adam and Eve that He placed in a "special" place He planted: The garden of Eden. He had already created other men in His image: Gen. 1:27-So God created man in his own image'. The garden and the creatures in it were created specifically for the man He specially created, the only ones that He created from dust and " breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by CHA0S

The Bible never says the Earth is 6000-10000 years old. Look it up. You won't find it. This is just something some people believe based on nothing, but possibly geneology listed in the bible.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:39 PM
Augustine believed that the earth was created instantaneously and that the time frame depicted in the Bible was there only so that man could wrap their minds around the concept. Perhaps this applies here as well. The earth could have existed for eternity and the time frame only exists in the Bible for the sake of comprehension.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:59 PM

Originally posted by CHA0S

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

But hold on..."In the beginning" was it the beginning or not? Was it the creation of the heavens and the Earth or not? Get your story straight...and you can't say it shouldn't be taken literally...either everything in the bible is absolute truth, or we can't trust any of it.


What about star light?If we were to assume that the Bible was God's perfect revelation, but that the light from the stars was deceiving us, how could we trust such a God's written revelation? For if God's physical evidence is deceptive, could not the written evidence also be deceptive?

So...what say you Christians?

It is simple.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Right?

But if you continue through the 2nd and 3rd verse;

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.


And that explains that.

When God commanded there be light, there was light.

What's so flawed now?

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:03 PM
reply to post by CHA0S

The Sun is Shrinking
by Russell Akridge, Ph.D.

What does the shrinkage of the sun have to do with creation and evolution? The sun was larger in the past than it is now by 0.1% per century. A creationist, who may believe that the world was created approximately 6 thousand years ago, has very little to worry about. The sun would have been only 6% larger at creation than it is now. However, if the rate of change of the solar radius remained constant, 100 thousand years ago the sun would be twice the size it is now. One could hardly imagine that any life could exist under such altered conditions. Yet 100 thousand years is a minute amount of time when dealing with evolutionary time scales.2

How far back in the past must one go to have a sun so large that its surface touches the surface of the earth? The solar radius changes at 2.5 feet per hour, half the 5 feet per hour change of the solar diameter. The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet in one mile. Assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to

t = (93,000,000 miles) (5,280 ft/mile)
(2.5 ft/hr) (24 hr/da) (365 day/yr)

or approximately 20 million B.C. However, the time scales required for organic evolution range from 500 million years to 2,000 million years.3 It is amazing that all of this evolutionary development, except the last 20 million years, took place on a planet that was inside the sun. By 20 million B.C., all of evolution had occurred except the final stage, the evolution of the primate into man.

One must remember that the 20 million year B.C. date is the extreme limit on the time scale for the earth's existence. The time at which the earth first emerged from the shrinking sun is 20 million B.C. A more reasonable limit is the 100 thousand year B.C. limit set by the time at which the size of the sun should have been double its present size.

A further word of explanation is needed about the assumption that the rate of shrinkage of the sun is constant over 100 thousand years or over 20 million years. The shrinkage rate centuries ago would be determined by the balance of solar forces. Since the potential energy of a homogeneous spherical sun varies inversely with the solar radius, the rate of shrinkage would have been greater in the past than it is now. The time at which the sun was twice its present size is less than 100 thousand B.C. The time at which the surface of the sun would touch the earth is much less than 20 million B.C. Therefore, the assumption of a constant shrinkage rate is a conservative assumption.

The bible has two different creation stories. Genesis 1 is a bit different than the creation story in chapter 2.

How long between these two creations we don't know.

The Native Americans say we've had a few world ages. The first destroyed by fire, the second by ice and the third by water.

Adam and Eve may have been from the world destroyed after the ice age. Noah would of been from the world age of the flood to the Native Americans.

Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism
Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity to study transient geologic processes which produced, within a few months, changes which geologists might otherwise assume required many thousands of years. The volcano, therefore, challenges our way of thinking about how the earth works, how it changes, and the time scale we are accustomed to attaching to its formations. These processes and their effects allow Mount St. Helens to serve as a miniature laboratory for catastrophism. Mount St. Helens helps us to imagine what the Biblical Flood, of Noah's day, may have been like

Science as we know it is not always right. Much of science is based on theory. Until proven wrong we assume science is right. Yet anything that does not agree with main stream science is cast aside even the evidence. So is the bible wrong or do people just not interupt it right? Is science always right or are we conditioned to say it has to be right because this person has a bunch of degrees behind their name? Maybe the people teling us what the bible says just have a bunch of degrees behind their names also and don't really understand what the book is saying also.

Then again perhaps humans shouldn't put God in human form. Not the source of all creation anyway.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:09 PM
I don't have the time to go through all the posts, I got to about page 4.
But I just have to add my two cents worth.

In the beginning.......God created. It does not say how or when. But He created. The rest does not matter, we are not given lots of details.

God created the Word......and the Word became flesh

God created the Word as the living word.

The Bible is a story of faith and how a creator loves His creation. You cannot prove faith. You have to live it. You cannot prove love. You have to experience it.

God sent the Prophets to provide the proof.

If you do not understand the fundamentals, you miss the whole point of the story.

It has absolutely nothing to do with carbon footprints.

All I have read so far in the postings is arguments about details. I just wanted to add some truth.

A Christian has no need to defend God. God can perfectly defend Himself.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:19 PM
reply to post by CHA0S

some are even saying the structures in egypt are over 12000 years old

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by undo

That should be narrowed to two.

Love God.
Love your Fellow Man.

That's it in its entirety. Everything else is not Christian. To bad their are so many fake Christians and not many real ones.

Pick up a book or two. Your facts are so out of line you need to. You appear to know nothing about carbon dating and its limited usage. The earths age was not calculated with that method, ever.

The text of the Bible says not a word about the Earths age. Not a single word.

A good man once told me a friend is a person who will tell you to your face you have a big green booger in your nose instead of letting you walk around with it.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 11:29 PM
No, the Bible doesn't say its 6k-8k years old.

It actually mentions Earth Ages, hence the dinosaurs. The earth is millions of years old, and the Bible supports it.

Study Shepherds Chapel, its on TV all the time. He breaks it down and explains.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by CHA0S

let me ask you a question what does the age of the earth have to do with anything?

infact here is a bigger list of inconsistencies
Bible errors

after you read them also tell me how they change anything from the main message of the bible?

see your sitting there behind your keyboard trying to pat yourself on the back about how allegedly clever you are, you take a book written 2000+ years ago by people who weren't what you would call sophisticated the word of the bible was written by people who were pretty ignorant of the universe as a whole but the message of the bible was given to us from god and its always the message people like you will never understand, because your own feelings of inadequacy make you feel as though you need to try to feel superior to other people so you attack peoples beliefs with your feelings of self righteous intelligence.

your OP will not prove a single thing you will in no way sway a single person one way or the other its just religious baiting but by doing so your doing nothing but showing us all just how truly sad an individual you really are

don't just look at the pretty squiggles try to actually comprehend what it is your reading

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Love God.
Love your Fellow Man.

That's it in its entirety. Everything else is not Christian.

As long as people are okay with swapping that 'god' term with countless other names and lateral metaphysical concepts, then the entirety of that thinking sounds very righteous and spiritual to me. Of course what you outlined there applies to many religions, or at the very least, is held by religious people from varying religions. Ergo, it would be inaccurate to call that 'Christian' in any orthodox or churchy sense of the term.

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by Blaine91555

i was talking about the old and the new. the old testament had things like that in it, and we are essentially talking about genesis, which is old testament. not to mention jesus also said those things. be kind, be charitable, you want me to quote?
i know you know it's true. they aren't laws, their guidelines for living.

btw, were you suggesting i am not a christian?

[edit on 21-10-2009 by undo]

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in