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.

 

Evolution compatible with Creation?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Kailassa
 

"Anyway, based on the list given by madness - do you agree that 'owr stands for:
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) ?
yes / no?
you said:

How could it be, when the same account states the sun, moon and stars were not created at that stage?
If you are saying the light had to come from those celestial bodies, you are denying the words of the bible, and denying the ability to perform miracles.
Can god perform miracles or not?
yes/no?


What a conundrum huh! Since you don't accept that the simple answer to hebrew word 'owr is:
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) - you're in a bind because it will make your reasoning faulty. Hey that's ok we make mistakes.
So to cover it up you come with:

you are denying the words of the bible, and denying the ability to perform miracles.

I thought you guys don't believe in miracles?

What's this "you guys" business? Do you think only one particular type of person can see that evolution is a proven fact? Your use of the word "evolutionist" is pathetic. Are you a gravitationalist for knowing gravity is a proven fact? I don't know anyone else in this thread, except by their posts. And it just happens that the posts of the people you label "evolutionists" are the ones which argue logically, using well researched facts as their basis.

We, (the posters you call evolutionists,) seem to each be at a different place regarding spirituality. Which is not surprising, because one's awareness of god does not obligate a person to close one's eyes to scientific research.

Someone has really put it over you, in that regard, brainwashing you into the notion that some demonic "god" will make you burn in hell forever if you use your brain and stop denying facts and I feel sorry for you.

If one is logical, one may have personal proof of the existance of god, and have witnessed miracles, but still understand the difference between evidence-based theory and "the god of the gaps" theory.

The importance of miracles in this context is not whether or not I believe in them, as you are not using my words as evidence for your "argument". You are using the words of the bible as the basis for your argument, so the question is, do the writers of the bible believe in miracles?

If the writers of the bible believed in miracles, it's illogical to assume they did not allow for the miraculous in their writings.

So please tell me, yes/no, did the author of Genesis demonstrate, anywhere in his writings, a belief in miracles?



Interesting reasoning huh, if evolutionist mention miracles it's okay, but if we mention miracles - it's a no no. It's not scientific they say!.

Don't be silly. You're allowed to believe in miracles all you want.
Just don't pretend that it's logical to mix miracles and evolution. If you want to make a science of miracles, you need proof of those miracles, and saying they must have happened because science does not have an explanation is not only illogical, it's also, where this argument is used on creation sites, frequently a lie.

Get enough actual proof of miracles, and I can guarantee even the firmest atheist, if he/she is a scientist, will be interested.


So again - Kailassa, is it possible in a tiny winie possibilty that 'owr can mean:
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars). After all it was included in the list that madness provided.

No it isn't possible, because you must interpret words in their context, and the context, in this case, clearly states there was no sun, moon or stars created at this point.


Unless you're doubting the site he provided. That somehow you are correct and everyone else is incorrect - even the linguistic experts?

Now you're being silly again.
The site gives meany possible meanings, one being "light".
How am I doubting the site by accepting that is most likely to be the intended meaning in verse 3?


edit on 24/11/10 by Kailassa because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ewokdisco
 


in theory,everything IS created. after all,we all came from the very same source: the big bang.

How does this automatically imply the existence of a creator? You can't have creation without a creator.


atheists are usually rebelling against a strict religious upbringing and are thus too blinkered.

Clearly you don't know many atheists.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


While certainly its possible a God could have created using evolution I don't think the Creation myth of Genesis is compatible with what we know about our origins. Most Christians understand Genesis is just a myth written by men. Much better to follow the evidence and if the evidence all points toward Evolution and away from Genesis I fail to see why God couldn't have used Evolution to create. I don't think there's any evidence for a God, let alone one being involved in Evolution though but that's another subject entirely.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Most Christians understand Genesis is just a myth written by men

edmc^2 doesn't believe these people are actually Christians (unless they've been 'fooled').

edmc^2 has a very narrow definition of Christianity: if you're not a Bibliolator, you're not a Christian.

edmc^2's true object of worship appears to be not God but the Bible.


edit on 25/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


So as not to be accused of ignoring posts – I'll address your entire post.


What's this "you guys" business? Do you think only one particular type of person can see that evolution is a proven fact? Your use of the word "evolutionist" is pathetic. Are you a gravitationalist for knowing gravity is a proven fact? I don't know anyone else in this thread, except by their posts. And it just happens that the posts of the people you label "evolutionists" are the ones which argue logically, using well researched facts as their basis.


OK, may I call you “people who believe in evolution” then or is atheist the better description?


We, (the posters you call evolutionists,) seem to each be at a different place regarding spirituality.


So are u saying then that as “people who believe in evolution” you also believe in spiritual things?
What does that even mean?


Which is not surprising, because one's awareness of god does not obligate a person to close one's eyes to scientific research.


So are you then a 'theist evolutionist' or I should say 'people who believe in God and evolution'?
Sorry, I'm just trying to figure out what you believe.

As for “because one's awareness of god does not obligate a person to close one's eyes to scientific research.” – are u referring to me or people in general?



Someone has really put it over you, in that regard, brainwashing you into the notion that some demonic "god" will make you burn in hell forever if you use your brain and stop denying facts and I feel sorry for you.


I thought you already knew what I believe but it might come as a surprise to you but I don't believe in such a place nor a God that “burns” people in what you call hell. Where did u get that idea anyway?
Again u got it wrong.

Btw, the scripture does not teach such a literal place in case you don't know. Why would a loving God who gave his son to save mankind (sinners) roast them? This I don't quite get. Unless – you were taught that way – blindly believing it.

Jesus said - the Truth will set you free – if you are willing to listen.


If one is logical, one may have personal proof of the existance of god, and have witnessed miracles, but still understand the difference between evidence-based theory and "the god of the gaps" theory.


I'm still new at this “god of gaps theory' – what is it really?

Is it the same as the “god did it” mantra that 'people who believe in evolution' keeps invoking when ever something is hard to explain?


The importance of miracles in this context is not whether or not I believe in them, as you are not using my words as evidence for your "argument". You are using the words of the bible as the basis for your argument, so the question is, do the writers of the bible believe in miracles?
If the writers of the bible believed in miracles, it's illogical to assume they did not allow for the miraculous in their writings.


If you are saying the actual process of creation is a miracle – I'm with you on that. If you're also saying that it's scientific I'm with you on that. All I was trying to find out is, if you know what you were talking about. That's why I tried to get your understanding of the matter. Because based on my research your reasoning is incorrect.

As for "If the writers of the bible believed in miracles, it's illogical to assume they did not allow for the miraculous in their writings".

Obviously. The Bible is full of miracles.

The text in question though is so simple and so clear that I'm a bit surprised you keep ignoring it's logical meaning. And why on earth you keep saying that the 'sun' was miraculouly created in the 4th day since it's not the case. Read on and you will find why.

Now, what's so hard about my question – all I was asking was if it's possible the word 'owr mean “b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)”

According to context it is the correct meaning.


So please tell me, yes/no, did the author of Genesis demonstrate, anywhere in his writings, a belief in miracles?


I heard this argument before, accusing God of not performing any miracles in the book of Genesis, thus they conclude that miracles didn't happen. And I think that's what you're trying to do here. But one thing critics don't quite understand is that the Bible is ONE BOOK – starting from the book we came to know as Genesis all the way to last book that we came to know as Revelation.

Btw, any idea when did the 66 Bible books got it's name along with it's chapters and verses?

Again, aAs for miracles – they are all written in the Bible,in fact even Hollywood made a movie of it. If you've watched the 'The Ten Commandments' - it's laid out in color all the miracles (super natural events) performed by Moses (the writer of Genesis).


Don't be silly. You're allowed to believe in miracles all you want.
Just don't pretend that it's logical to mix miracles and evolution. If you want to make a science of miracles, you need proof of those miracles, and saying they must have happened because science does not have an explanation is not only illogical, it's also, where this argument is used on creation sites, frequently a lie.


First of all you're the one who first brought up miracles. I didn't even mentioned it because I was showing that the Bible is scientifically accurate even though it's not a scientific book.

As for mixing “ miracles and evolution” - I have no idea what you're talking about. And what's “logical” about it?

Like what I said in the OP – evolution is not compatible with Biblical Creation – that includes miracles I might add per your insistence.


Get enough actual proof of miracles, and I can guarantee even the firmest atheist, if he/she is a scientist, will be interested.


Nope, you are wildly mistaken here.

Sadly there's no amount of miracle can be provided to convinced someone if the heart is unreceptive. Why, even Jesus performed many miracles in front of people, yet they hated him and eventually killed him.

Now we finally come to the crux of the topic:


(So again - Kailassa, is it possible in a tiny winie possibilty that 'owr can mean:
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars). After all it was included in the list that madness provided.)


No it isn't possible, because you must interpret words in their context, and the context, in this case, clearly states there was no sun, moon or stars created at this point.


So if “No it isn't possible” that the Hebrew word 'owr can mean: b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars). Then why did the creators of the site included it as one of the possible definitions of the word 'owr?

Then it's your word against their word.

Do you think the writers / creators of the got it wrong? I don't think so.


(Unless you're doubting the site he provided. That somehow you are correct and everyone else is incorrect - even the linguistic experts?)

Now you're being silly again.
The site gives meany possible meanings, one being "light".
How am I doubting the site by accepting that is most likely to be the intended meaning in verse 3?


So what you're saying then is that it's possible that 'owr can also mean b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars). Correct? That's all I wanna know.

If you don't want to accept the logical meaning – then so be it. I understand why the hesitation.

But just to be clear, your understanding that the sun and moon were created in the 4th day is out of sequence, it's incorrect in three glaring points, that is:

1) Linguistically: 'Light' comes from a source, the – sun, moon stars ('owr and ma'owr.).

2) Scientifically - for how could plant life (phyla kingdom) grow, survive, spread in the '3rd creative day (Gen 1:9-13) w/o photosynthesis provided by the sun and

3) Scripturally - if the sun was created in the 4th day? – Gen 1: 14-19)


Now I know you will not and cannot accept these simple logic for your eyes are blinded by a theory that is still unproven, still being debated, still changing, still being questioned and above all still a theory. These I can prove to you without a doubt. So far – none has successfully disproven the Biblical accounts of Genesis.

It must be a miracle then you might say? No, just common sense and scientific facts – as in biological facts.

Notice:
As sunlight strikes the surface of the thylakoid, PSII arrays of chlorophyll molecules called light-harvesting complexes are waiting to snare it. These molecules are especially interested in absorbing red light of a specific wavelength. In different locations on the thylakoid, PSI arrays are on the lookout for light with a somewhat longer wavelength. Meanwhile, both chlorophyll and some other molecules, such as carotenoids, are absorbing blue and violet light. - what is the main ingredient for this process to occur? Sunlight!

Makes sense?

But if u insist then good luck.

Now here's how I understand the Creation Events based on as you say “well researched facts as their basis”. I'll just provide a few here so as not to make this post long.

(btw, Blue_Jay touched on it already)

How it all began.

Gen 1:1 – this simply means a beginning of creation by God (the things in) the heavens and the earth.

Quite simply and elegantly, the Bible’s opening words refer to the creation of our solar system, including our planet, as well.

What are the 'things' in the 'heavens'? Could it be the sun, moon, stars, planets, solar system as well as that of the stars in the billions of galaxies that make up our universe?

My scientific and logical conclusion; yes.

Note:
Length of time was not given here, so this could be billions and billions of years (this reminds me one of the great thinkers in astronomy/cosmology – the late Dr. Carl Sagan.

Scientific facts:

According to scientific research and latest calculations, the universe did have a beginning and is around 14 byo since the 'big-bang'. Still expanding away from the point of origin.

Am I correct so far?

Coincidence? I say Nope!

Now I know you will not believe and will probably poopo it or as one poster here likes to say horse###, but I'll quote it anyway. Here's an article from a well recognized science magazine stating the obvious about the universe.

From the June 23, 1983, issue of New Scientist magazine:


“The emergent science of cosmology does not and cannot deny the existence of God.”


The Physics professor continued:


“In the last few years more and more scientists have been struck by what they regard as a string of improbable ‘accidents’ or ‘coincidences’ that are built into the laws of physics to enable the universe to produce the familiar systems we see—galaxies, stars, atoms and, most significant of all, us . . . The most minute change in the relative strengths of gravitational and electromagnetic forces would turn stars like the Sun into blue giants or red dwarfs. All around us, we seem to see evidence that nature got it just right.”


Noted astronomer Dr. Robert Jastrow:


“Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the Universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy into the Universe?”


In answer he said: (consider the implications of this statement)


“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”


“'essential elements' - 'a flash of light and energy'” - what does this remind you of?

Formation of matter by means of energy – E = mc2.

Now can you see Einstein's formula in the following verses?

“Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these, that bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by name; by the greatness of his might, and for that he is strong in power, not one is lacking. Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from Jehovah, and the justice [due] to me is passed away from my God? Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard? The everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary; there is no searching of his understanding. He giveth power to the faint; and to him that hath no might he increaseth strength." – Isa 40:26-29. (ASV)

Here's another version v26 (NWT):

“Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.”

Finally the professor concluded one of the famous statements ever made by a scientists:


“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”—God and the Astronomers


Again, I ask coincidence? I say NO!

Gen 1:2 – attention is now given to the “formless and waste” earth where “there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep”. For what purpose? To be inhabited of course. Is it coincidence that the third planet from the sun was selected as a home for mankind?

Does science agree with this statement? A formless earth with lots of water essential to life? Let's see:

Note just one of the many conclusions made by many scientists:

Planetary scientist Andrew Ingersoll.

He said that for surface water to remain liquid, a planet must be the right distance from its sun.


“Mars is too cold, Venus is too hot, Earth is just right,”
he explains.
Similarly, for the growth of vegetation, there must be sufficient light.

From a headline: “Life May Exist Only on Earth, Study Says” the New York Times pointed out:


“At a distance of 93 million miles from the sun, earthly temperatures have supported life. But if our earth had been slung into an orbit only 5 percent closer to the sun, a runaway greenhouse effect would have turned the planet into something like Venus—a cloud-shrouded planet with temperatures close to 900° F.

“If, on the other hand, we had been only 1 percent farther from the sun when the earth came into being, runaway glaciation would have enveloped the earth, and 1.7 billion years ago our planet would have become a barren desert similar to Mars.”—April 24, 1979.


Here's a small quote from a university that advocates evolution:

Notice the similarity of statements with the exception of life evolving.


Mercury is too close to the sun and too hot. Any water that might have been there (and any other volatile chemicals) would, long ago, have evaporated into space.
Venus also is too close to the sun to have any surface water. The climate there is classified as a “run-away greenhouse effect.” While Venus probably has torrential rains from its heavy cloud cover, the high heat almost immediately evaporates any surface water.
Mars, on the other hand, is too far away from the sun, and so is too cold. Any water and carbon dioxide present on the planet are frozen solid in the “ice” cap (a tiny bit of CO2 thaws out and provides a thin atmosphere over portions of the planet during the Martian summer. Also, the planet is too small to hold very much atmosphere, and there is not enough of a greenhouse effect to keep the planet warm. Thus, there is essentially no atmosphere left.

Once again, conditions happen to be just right here on planet Earth. We are just the right distance from the sun! On Earth, the heat and the size are such that the water is neither all frozen nor all vaporized.


biology.clc.uc.edu...

I'll stop here for now...ran out of time.

will continue if you want more.

Again – up to you if these things are true or not.

Q: are my eyes closed? I don't think so.

But what does this reveal – that ALL Praised and worship and thanks be given to the Creator of Life!

“Every day will I bless thee; And I will praise thy name for ever and ever. Great is Jehovah, and greatly to be praised; And his greatness is unsearchable.” – Ps 145:2, 3 (AVS)

As for evolution – all of these came into existence by means of what? Who knows the final answer as it keeps changing their mind. No wonder 'people who believe in the evolution theory' are so confused. For what purpose – survival of the fittest (a dog eat dog world), no real meaning, a dead end.

Creation by a loving God Jehovah gives meaning to life.

Ty,
edmc2

next WfknSmth.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


No Kailassa, it's about the beauty of order out of chaos. My personal learning curve about the Golden Ratio and it's universal application was new to me.

Perhaps you could enlighten me further? What do you think provided the impetus for the evolutionary process?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



How can you believe a book that claims to know about creation (like pretty much every religious text on earth) when in the same book you have content like this:


Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."



So now you see the dilema. If you accept the bible as the word of god and believe the genesis account to be correct, you also agree with this Exodus verse. Because after all, it is the word of god. Why would he speak the truth about creation and lie about killing slaves, right? I wonder how you're gonna twist this one to make it "fit"..


MrXYZ,

I hope that you are well.

I have to ask, did you cut and paste this verse, or did you find it on your own?

I will attempt to answer your question the best I can.

The Bible tries to make the best of a bad situation.

Humans have been, and are, living apart from God's original purpose.

Slavery was common in those days, now we are called employees or civilians.

If a slave owner (employer) tried to kill his servant, and the servant died, the slave owner would be killed.

If a slave was maimed, he was to be set free and given compensation for his injury.

If a slave lived for a couple of days and died, it could be said that the slave owner did not intend to kill his slave. However, if the slave owner used a lethal instrument on the slave, it would signal an intent to kill, and the slave would be avenged, if he died.

These laws were given to prevent abuse.

By the way, Hebrew slaves were released every seven years, or every Jubilee year, which ever came first.





You need to read the surrounding verses, and other scriptures to understand the intent of any one statement.






edit on 25-11-2010 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


Then why not write "though shalt not have slaves"? I doubt the slaves would be all that excited about "only" having to serve 7 years as a slave. And whether a slave owner intended to kill a slave or not doesn't make a difference for the dead slave, no?

I mean, you can twist and turn it as you want, that whole passage sounds horrible no matter what. I can point you to dozens more about slavery and RAPE sanctioned by "god".

So if the bible is the word of God, and you fully believe in Genesis...the bible must also be right regarding slavery and rape. Either that, or it's all hogwash made by people to control people. Which imo sounds the most plausible.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


No one's arguing that the problem of abiogenesis has been solved. But your deduction that creationism is right simply because we currently lack the knowledge to solve the problem is laughable.

Notice how not one of the scientists you quoted showed any evidence for god's existence. They're just blown away by the complexity and are in awe of the size of the universe and all its contents. Just like cavemen were in awe over fire and lightning.

But we live in the 21st century, and I'd like to think we're not cavemen anymore. We shouldn't feel the need to make stuff up whenever we don't have the final answer. Look back in history at how many things were attributed to god(s), we've explained a majority of those things through science. What's so hard in accepting that you don't know??

1) There's stuff we can explain scientifically: Evolution is such an example, we know how it works.
2) there's stuff we can't yet explain scientifically: Abiogenesis, advanced astrophysics, and a ton of other stuff...

And that's it, there is no third category...at least not one that objectively looks at reality.

Religion fills gaps in knowledge with mystical creatures or events without providing the slightest bit of evidence. Yet it wants to be accepted as an "alternative theory"...well, for that it would require evidence. And attacking every scientific theory your faith disagrees with ISN'T evidence.

And I've mentioned it before, but the bible isn't evidence of anything, just like me writing "there's a planet called ATSWORLDXYZ and all its inhabitants are talking turtles" isn't proof of such a planet existing. As long as religion won't allow peer reviews and acknowledge the need for real evidence, it will NEVER be an alternative theory to any scientific theory. And because that will never happen, you're right...they're incompatible.

Comparing evolution to creation is like comparing a rock with a turtle. One is a theory we've tested and retested to the point where we know it works, and one is pure speculation based on a 2000 year old book written by men. I'd pick objective science over subjective religion every single time when deciding how to live my life...you are of course welcome to disagree, it's a free country.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Exodus 21:16
“Whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave, is to be put to death."

Uh...what now?! Where do slaves come from in the first place?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   


If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. Exodus 21:2-6


So it's true, if you're a slave, god think it's ok for you to leave after only 7 years of slavery. Of course your master has the right to hold your entire family hostage, but you have the right to stay and remain a slave forever if you don't like that.

And people continue to believe anything that's written in this book. It's really quite sad.

Look, the bible was written by MEN (plural) as a basis to control the masses. It's been used 2000 years ago, and it still works today as politics show.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Then why not write "though shalt not have slaves"? I doubt the slaves would be all that excited about "only" having to serve 7 years as a slave. And whether a slave owner intended to kill a slave or not doesn't make a difference for the dead slave, no?


Jacob served Laban, for Rachel. " And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had for her". Genesis 29:20

He could also write "though shalt not have employees or pay taxes" but it wouldn't be practical.

We work for half the year to pay our taxes. Many people are slaves to their job, lose it, and you lose everything, in some cases.

In Israel, some had to become slaves to work off debt.

Some slaves chose to permanently stay slaves. They enjoyed a nice life.

I think what you are envisioning as the life of a slave in Israel, is skewed by the way slaves were mistreated by other nations and in other era's.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


You're conveniently leaving out all the nasty bits about being slaves...including being sex slaves.

By the way, what's also hilarious is that a lot of Christians talk about the sanctity of marriage...when the bible specifically says it's ok to have concubines!!

LINK



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



So it's true, if you're a slave, god think it's ok for you to leave after only 7 years of slavery. Of course your master has the right to hold your entire family hostage, but you have the right to stay and remain a slave forever if you don't like that.


Not if he was already married, or the wife given to him was Hebrew (she would also be let go every seventh year). His family would go with him. Exodus 21 2-6



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



By the way, what's also hilarious is that a lot of Christians talk about the sanctity of marriage...when the bible specifically says it's ok to have concubines!!


Again this goes back to God's original purpose for humans. Genesis 2:22-24 and Genesis 1:27,28

God didn't invent concubines, that wasn't His intent.

It didn't work out too well for Abraham, and God had to clean up the mess.

Jesus stated God's intent on marriage in Mathew 19:4-9

1 Timothy 3:2 a Christian man with responsibilities was to have one wife.

Sex slaves?

Show me the scripture.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


Rape in the Bible
You ask and you shall receive in life.
Polygamy in the Bible
I'm a polygamist and proud!



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 



Rape in the Bible
You ask and you shall receive in life.
Polygamy in the Bible
I'm a polygamist and proud!


So you are not actually reading the Bible.

Why did the tribe of Benjamin need wives?

Where does it say that anyone was a sex slave?

Did God institute the practice of polygamy?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Sexual slavery, or being sold to be a wife, was common in the ancient world. While no sanction was made in the Old Testament for sexual activity outside marriage,[49] the taking of concubines as secondary wives was allowed


Slavery

The Bible does not condone sexual slavery, as practiced by pagan nations, in the ancient world.
edit on 25-11-2010 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


Since many characters in the Bible practiced marriage relations with many women God didn't care. You also have the rape of Dinah's.

DINAH’S RAPE AND REVENGE — 33:18 — 34 Jacob once settled in the city of Shechem in Canaan, where a young man named Shechem raped his daughter Dinah. Shechem wanted to marry Dinah; so his father, Hamor, offered to buy her as a wife for his son. The price, according to Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, was for each male in Shechem to be circumcised. Hamor was delighted to have Jacob’s family unite with his family, so he and all the men in Shechem agreed to circumcise themselves. Simeon and Levi had no intention of giving up their sister to the man who had raped her; they were angry for revenge. While the men of Shechem were still in pain from the circumcision, Simeon and Levi sneaked into the city with their swords and killed all the males including Hamor and Shechem. Jacob’s other sons followed behind and stole anything of value in the city and of the women and children they “captured and made their prey.” Jacob was not angry with his sons for their deceit and their treachery. Rather he was disturbed that other Canaanites might take revenge on him. The always helpful God told Jacob to leave the area. “As they journeyed, a terror from God fell upon the cities all around them, so that no one pursued them.”

Source

I have read the Bible and the Quran. Just you have to interpret the Bible. I try to explain the Bible and Quran how it's truly interpreted by the authors.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 




Since many characters in the Bible practiced marriage relations with many women God didn't care. You also have the rape of Dinah's.


God's people were not to marry into other nations that served pagan gods.

A pagan raped Dinah.

Did her brothers overreact?

What would you have done?

The problem here is some of you guys are going to sites that cherry pick negative events in the Bible, twist them, and presto, evolution must be true.



edit on 25-11-2010 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2010 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join