The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...
2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.
3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?
4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.
5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.
6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker
doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what
they WISH it said.
Thread where i tried to discuss this but got no christian respones at all: http://forum.freehovind.com/view-4811
| 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. | |
| 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. | |
| 22:22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. | |
| 22:23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; | |
| 22:24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. |
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and
of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the
male and the female, as God had commanded Noah."
"By it's (man given) definition is something that cannot be explained by
or with the present knowledge of man......like the big bang!"
- Now that's a false analogy I'm afraid. The big bang theory is a theory that tries to explain how our universe began and there is evidence beyond any doubt that the universe began. It's not something someone made up becuase it sounds good. It's based on mathematics and observations in our universe. How is that a miracle? Or do you mean the event of big bang starting? That is a bit hard to test or even speculate scientifically in, but that doesn't prove divine intervention.
There is a set of observations that many models can explain, but the big bang theory explains the most.
"God AND whatever evolutionists believe caused the first cause are BOTH by definition mysterious."
- What cause? There's no cause.
"Their methods (ways) are therefore also mysterious. "
- 1 out of 2 follows that way and i guess you know what doesn't? ;)
"I WANT to be pushed to the envelope of my knowlege. Otherwise, I'll
never know what it is I don't know! I'll only ask that you be
respectful as we "debate". This way, we will BOTH learn!"
- And i respect that. But the question is, are you prepared to be corrected and admit if you are wrong? Because without that a debate in a matter is worthless. I should have that stance as well, but what i mean is if no one can accept that they might be wrong in something it will only end like 2 fans of different sport teams who bash about on what team is the best.
"if evolution is truth, how do we know the difference between right and wrong?"
- There's not really something as absolute truth. It's a bit metaphorical of us to use it, but i mean. Gravity can never be completely true, we can have so much evidence to support it that we consider it as true.
Also the right and wrong thingy, it has been explained a couple of times on this forum. Essentially it's that when we were living in groups and hunted etc. pre-farming times. If we made the things we consider wrong it would weaken the group and your survivability would be lower. Like if you killed someone in your group, no one would trust you AND it would be harder to hunt cuz you had fewer people to help etc. So you see the natural selection has given us our perception about right and wrong. The humans that made more right than wrong was selected for and therefore it stuck. Just like bisexualism is still in our population since some scientists claim it strenghten the bonds among the group (much like in greek armies around year 0 ).
I even think Darwin made a remark about this in his book on some animals showing some kind of emotions in like primates.
Good reading on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_emotion
"The part of you and I that we can not touch like; the love, the hate, the morals has no necessity if evolution is truth."
- But it have. I just explained it. The theory can explain the fact that we have emotions and the fact that it's chemical reactions in our brains just like our hormone system makes it rather natural.
"If you've ever had your heart torn apart by breaking up with a
girlfriend, if you've ever witnessed a bloodbath (if even via TV) from
a hateful clash, if you've ever bypassed a temptation that could have
helped you or your family with "basic survival", then I believe you've
experienced something that exists in spite of "evolution"."
- Or how we can get depressed or other psychic illnesses from chemical inbalances on our brain?
"Sorry....two questions."
- No ask on all you want. I've been studying this for over a year now.
Im not that good with the bible or american politics for that matter. To be honest.
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."
Even the simple english wikipedia got this one right:
"The Big Bang is the belief that the universe began by growing out from a very small, dense, and hot condition about 13.7 billion years ago." Now that is "GROWING OUT FROM A VERY SMALL".
Fot note: No well read evolutionist would state what you just did. It's a strawman or simply trolling from someone who doesn't actually know, but think he's right by default.
"I've already said I am NOT about "winning"."
- well it's futile :P
"I won't admit I'm wrong when I'm not BUT, I will admit to ignorance
once you've reached the limit of my knowledge in a specific topic."
- Okey so if u got some fact wrong and i corrected it you wouldn't admit you mistake? I would. So please if you find any factual errors correct me, but you might have to show something to get me convinced of it or you could just write "lies, wrong or nope" for my claims. Trust me some people here have done just that.
"By the way, there will be NO "bashing" here. I want to learn, I want
you to think and learn....I will respect you no matter what you
believe. I just won't stick around long of you find a need to attack me
for any reason. You SHOULD be attacking my beliefs and points."
- Yeah... Some creationist have been very offended by my refutings since they saw it as i bashed their arguments without considering them and they thought it was like talking to a wall. If i dislike something i better have a good reason or something to base it on, if i don't please request it specifically.
"Does the chemical imbalance cause the feeling or is it the other way around?"
- No chemical imbalance can give changes in feelings and behavior, but feelings are not made because of imbalances. They are simply our minds reactions to our environment and basic instincts (as in love, sadness and joy etc.).
"Is there a study on this?"
- Almost any study on the chemistry behind any mental illness. I'll give you some examples.
http://science.csustan.edu/stone/chem4400/SJBR/StavytskaBarba2006.pdf
Also i believe Parkinsons disease is caused by chemical imbalance of dopamine in the brain. Obvoiusly the medicine for it is L-dopa, a derivate of dopamine that is broken down to dopamine in the brain since dopamine can't cross the blood-brain barrier.
While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history. The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the Universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.[54]
Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:
Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older Universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning."
what a little wiki can't all do for you.
"Most non-believers resort to name calling (Bible banger??)"
you migth as well call me a "gravitationalist" or a "cellist" or a "atomicist".
do you understand now why using the term "big banger" and "evolutionist" as descriptive terms of people are so useless?
" I WANT to be pushed to the envelope of my knowlege."
then prepare.
for the "flood" of evidence.
" I'll only ask that you be respectful as we "debate". This way, we will BOTH learn!"
=D
sure, just as long sa you read and understand the sources, we "evolutionists" won't mind.
we will be bothered if you come up with such misunderstandings like "why are bacteria still bacteria" tho...srly those kind of ignorant questions are always accompanied with a LOT of explaining.
Another idea is from Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. Hawking proposed a description of the Universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it. The description is timeless, in the sense that one set of equations delineates the Universe for all time. As one looks to earlier and earlier times, one finds that the model Universe is not eternal, but there is no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of 10-43 seconds, the approximation of a classical description of space and time breaks down completely, with the whole picture dissolving into quantum ambiguity. In Hawking's words, the Universe 'would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.'"
