biblical anomalies

[SnakeLord]

Yes. But the bottom line is that both of your examples were not actually valid.

How so? Your only return comment was that the child in question might be 18 years old, (as if that somehow means stoning him to death for disobeying his parents isn't such a bad thing).

Why do you come to this conclusion?

Long story. When it's complete I will let you know.

Obviously God does not agree with your assessment of the situation.

Obviously not. Guess he didn't contemplate making a bigger planet.

Well the verse we’re talking about seems pretty clear cut to me, but it is open to interpretation. I think a little bit of common sense clears most of these little niggles up to be honest.

No offence, but a particular verse will generally always seem pretty clear cut to whoever's reading it. My point is that everyone has their own version of how it's clear cut. It says the "Egyptian men did the same".. that would clearly imply they also turned the Nile into blood, and yet you choose to debate that. You see, easily interpretable.

 

[davewhite04]

Hiya Snakelord,

How so? Your only return comment was that the child in question might be 18 years old, (as if that somehow means stoning him to death for disobeying his parents isn't such a bad thing).

You originally stated that the Christian God teaches “to stone our children to death if they're bad, and to kill any homosexuals that we find” Your rebuttal when I asked for a reference to this referred to stoning a son, not children. Now the word children in the Bible is pretty clear cut and it is mentioned well over 1000 times in the KJV Bible. Now if God wanted to teach to stone children then he would have mentioned children or child and not son. You have concluded on your own accord that son must automatically mean child, and I disagree.

No offence, but a particular verse will generally always seem pretty clear cut to whoever's reading it. My point is that everyone has their own version of how it's clear cut. It says the "Egyptian men did the same".. that would clearly imply they also turned the Nile into blood, and yet you choose to debate that. You see, easily interpretable.

Yes, but some simple logic like I showed you clears this up, well it does for me. Enchantment is also mentioned in that verse, which implies they were actually doing something completely different. But ultimately you’re right; people draw their own picture from what they read in the Bible, hence the large number of forums that discuss books or verses to great lengths.

Dave

 

[SnakeLord]

You originally stated that the Christian God teaches “to stone our children to death if they're bad, and to kill any homosexuals that we find” Your rebuttal when I asked for a reference to this referred to stoning a son, not children.

That's somewhat pedantic, and you know it. However...

A) "..his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of this town..." I can't really picture a mother and father grabbing their 50 year old son and dragging him off to town. The very passage itself implies a young person.

B) So you would condone someone stoning their son to death if he's over a certain age?

C) If it makes you feel better, I will edit my text to say "son". Either way, god has commanded that you kill your rebellious son, regardless to age - Which in itself would include when they're only young children. Although I did an extensive search, I could find no age factors spoken of by god. He didn't say "Only stone your son to death if he's above 18 years of age, which makes this a perfectly wonderful rule."

You have concluded on your own accord that son must automatically mean child, and I disagree.

And it would appear you have concluded that it means everything other than a child. At least I can rest the case simply by stating it's no better regardless of their actual age.

Yes, but some simple logic like I showed you clears this up

Apparently not. It's hardly "cleared up", you've just written it off as everyone over a certain age, without even pointing out that makes it no better. You are still told to stone your son to death. I fail to see the good outcome of the whole affair, aside from a grown up son has the ability to say "ouch".

Enchantment is also mentioned in that verse, which implies they were actually doing something completely different

Not in the NIV, and from what the general consensus says, the KJV is the most flawed version of the bible. However, it wouldn't really make much difference in the long run. Your son decides to do some "enchantment". Would you now go upstairs, drag him into town and stone him to death? Would it not be better to try and help him away from that life? Would it not seem to be the "jesusy" thing to do? Oh no.. the OT god says stone him to death.. Why wait until he's died from "natural causes" and then let god judge him and send him to hell when he can get you to stone him and then send him to hell?

 

[davewhite04]

Hiya Snakelord,

A) "..his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of this town..." I can't really picture a mother and father grabbing their 50 year old son and dragging him off to town. The very passage itself implies a young person.

Did I say 50 year old?

B) So you would condone someone stoning their son to death if he's over a certain age?

No. I personally wouldn’t condone stoning anyone for anything in this day and age.

C) If it makes you feel better, I will edit my text to say "son". Either way, god has commanded that you kill your rebellious son, regardless to age - Which in itself would include when they're only young children. Although I did an extensive search, I could find no age factors spoken of by god. He didn't say "Only stone your son to death if he's above 18 years of age, which makes this a perfectly wonderful rule."

What I was trying to establish with you in my previous post was that in the Bible children are mentioned specifically with anything that relates to them. The God I know wouldn’t teach us to stone a child, which is why I pointed out the vagueness of the verse you used in the context of your earlier outburst.

And it would appear you have concluded that it means everything other than a child. At least I can rest the case simply by stating it's no better regardless of their actual age.

See above.

Apparently not. It's hardly "cleared up", you've just written it off as everyone over a certain age, without even pointing out that makes it no better. You are still told to stone your son to death. I fail to see the good outcome of the whole affair, aside from a grown up son has the ability to say "ouch".

I was referring to the sea of blood discussion.

Not in the NIV, and from what the general consensus says, the KJV is the most flawed version of the bible. However, it wouldn't really make much difference in the long run. Your son decides to do some "enchantment". Would you now go upstairs, drag him into town and stone him to death? Would it not be better to try and help him away from that life? Would it not seem to be the "jesusy" thing to do? Oh no.. the OT god says stone him to death.. Why wait until he's died from "natural causes" and then let god judge him and send him to hell when he can get you to stone him and then send him to hell?

What general consensus is this? Why are you mentioning stoning in the context of the sea of blood discussion?

Dave

 

[SnakeLord]

Did I say 50 year old?

I notice you have a distinct compulsion to be pedantic, and to completely avoid the point. Once again, the passage itself implies a young person.

No. I personally wouldn’t condone stoning anyone for anything in this day and age.

What does day and age matter if it's what god said to do? Think because the calender changes, gods commands become worthless?

What I was trying to establish with you in my previous post was that in the Bible children are mentioned specifically with anything that relates to them.

Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "with the help of the Lord i have brought forth a man."

The above text doesn't mention child, it says man.. so do we now accept that Cain was born fully grown?

It says to stone your son. He could be 3 years old, 3 months old, or 300 years old. You have no position to justify it as meaning anyone above a certain age.

The God I know wouldn’t teach us to stone a child

He'd teach you to stone your son though, and again.. you have no position to justify age limits.

which is why I pointed out the vagueness of the verse you used in the context of your earlier outburst.

You're amusing, I'll give you that. However, again you have no position to justify that text as meaning everyone over a certain age.

I was referring to the sea of blood discussion.

And how was that cleared up, lol? The Nile would already be red, they couldn't have done it. But.. but... the bible says they did. Are you calling the bible a liar?

 

[davewhite04]

Hiya Snakelord,

I notice you have a distinct compulsion to be pedantic, and to completely avoid the point. Once again, the passage itself implies a young person.

I agree. It was you who mentioned a 50 year old though. I don’t know where you get the idea of me being pedantic from

What does day and age matter if it's what god said to do? Think because the calender changes, gods commands become worthless?

I think some do yes, to be honest, hence my answer.

Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "with the help of the Lord i have brought forth a man."

The above text doesn't mention child, it says man.. so do we now accept that Cain was born fully grown?

I’m pretty sure Eve gave birth to a male baby.

It says to stone your son. He could be 3 years old, 3 months old, or 300 years old. You have no position to justify it as meaning anyone above a certain age.

You are right, it could mean any age. I just think it doesn’t apply to a child and you think the opposite, so really we’ll get no where as I’ll not change my mind and I’m pretty sure you won’t change yours.

He'd teach you to stone your son though, and again.. you have no position to justify age limits.

He might teach me but I wouldn’t obey him in this instance. People and Society has come a long way and what was written regarding discipline thousands of years ago does not have a place in society these days. Being a Christian I believe The Ten Commandments are the laws which are timeless.

You're amusing, I'll give you that.

I’m glad you’re getting something from this discussion

However, again you have no position to justify that text as meaning everyone over a certain age.

Do you have any justification to state it means a child?

And how was that cleared up, lol? The Nile would already be red, they couldn't have done it. But.. but... the bible says they did. Are you calling the bible a liar?

No, I just think that chapter needs to be studied with the previous chapter maybe or it could be a problem with the translation I don’t know. I will agree that it is confusing however.

Dave

 

[mario]

>>Being a Christian I believe The Ten Commandments are the laws which are timeless<<

I thought ALL god's words are timeless, not just some. How about that commandment "thou shall not covet thy neighbour's ass?" How many people do you know have a donkey that you might want to steal?

 

[DeeCee]

Quick question...
Whats all this I hear about god being afraid of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of life lest they become immortal like him?
Sounds a bit petty to me.
If I had a tree of life I'd let everybody take a piece!
Oh and wasn't Lillith Adams first wife?
Whatever happened to monogomy?
Dee Cee

 

[§outh§tar]

Can anyone explain...

1) why did god rest on the seventh day? Was he tired?
It's a shame you're taking this literally. God marvelled at the work he had done and saw that "it was good". If you had only read Genesis 1:31 , a mere two verses before, you would see that he "God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good." God was surveying his work on the seventh day to see how truly marvelous His creation was.

2) how could an angel (lucifer) suddenly turn bad? I thought god made angels as spiritually pure beings.
Now you are implying that angels have spirits, which I don't think you have any proof of. Lucifer didn't suddenly turn bad, he was always a bad apple. To say Lucifer "suddenly turned bad" would imply that there was some sort of "time" and that as "time" went on, Lucifer suddenly became bad. I don't think you have any proof for this either.

3) why did fully 1/3 of the angels in heaven follow lucifer? Better working conditions?
What would you do if the most powerful angel Godo had created offered you a chance to rule heaven with him?

4) who did adam and eve's son, cain, marry? According to the bible he went over a hill and found a village and took a wife. I thought it was just adam and eve that god created.
How did you show up on earth, I thought it was just Adam and Eve God created. How did you end up having as many fingers as I do? How did you end up having as many eyeballs as I do? Certainly, most likely somewhere back in time you and I cross paths in history (by way of ancestors).
5) from adam and eve how did all the genetically different races of people on this earth show up?
Geography. Not everyone moved to the rainforest, not everyone moved to the desert. Besides, it would be better if you specified "genetically different".

6) if only noah and his family were all the people that were left after the great flood, how did all the genetically different races of people on this earth show up?
Look at number 4 for a somewhat similar response.
7) how come the angel of death, that was unleashed on the egyptians during moses' time, could tell who was a "first born" but couldn't tell the difference between a jew and an egyptian? The jews had to put a mark of blood on the door to protect themselves from it.
It was a sign of faith. If I told you that you had to kill a goat and put it's blood on your front door to protect yourself from Freddy Krueger would you believe me? Again, it was an act of faith.
8) how come the people of moses, after witnessing the awesome power of god part the dead sea, decided to worship a man-made golden calf?
Inherent rebelliousness. The same way no one taught you how to lie as a child even though you probably had no *real* need to.
9) how come after jesus performed all kinds of miracles like walking on water, raising the dead, curing the blind and leperous, turning water into wine at weddings, feeding multitudes of people with just a few loaves of bread and some fish, and finally rising from the dead himself...the jews STILL didn't believe that he was the son of god?
That is such a sad question to ask. How on earth do you think we have the New Testament? If the Jews did not believe, they wouldn't have spread the gospel, now would they? Why are you using the story of the 5000 and asking a contradictory question? The 5000 people would certainly not have followed him if they did not believe him.


So few questions... so many answers

I may have been unclear on some of these, it's really late over here and I have to go to sleep. Hope some of your questions have been cleared .

 

[Alaric]

SouthStar, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, He must have known what was going to happen to His creations. He must have purposefully created Lucifer, as if Lucifer 'surprised' Him in any way, He is not omniscient. He must have known in advance that 'it was good'.
(Of course, if He really was omnipotent and omniscient, He could not have created anything, as He already knows what He has created - He cannot suddenly decide to create, as that would imply that He didn't know He would eventually want to. Furthermore, He must have created the whole shebang, that is, decided everything that would happen, at the moment of creation, for the same reasons.)

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

The God I know wouldn’t teach us to stone a child, which is why I pointed out the vagueness of the verse you used in the context of your earlier outburst.

Actually, it seems that sometimes He prefers bears. Mostly, however, floods and military genocide appear sufficient (and far more efficient).

 

[one_raven]

>>Being a Christian I believe The Ten Commandments are the laws which are timeless<<

I thought ALL god's words are timeless, not just some. How about that commandment "thou shall not covet thy neighbour's ass?" How many people do you know have a donkey that you might want to steal?

Actually it is closer to:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

 

[mario]

Actually the only important commandment is "do unto others as you would do unto yourself". Well, unless your a suicide bomber.

 

[mario]

Southstar, the jews do not believe that jesus was the son of god or a saviour. That is why they chose to crucify him. That's why it seems so contradictory for them to witness all those miracles that jesus did and then reject him in the end. Something like some jews rejected god after witnessing his power part the dead sea. When you see how powerful god is you don't just turn around and start worshipping a golden calf instead.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Southstar, the jews do not believe that jesus was the son of god or a saviour. That is why they chose to crucify him.

That is patently absurd. That Passion narrative is best understood as a ridiculous, and intensely anti-Jewish, late-1st-century construction wholly devoid of credibility.

 

[mario]

Not sure I follow you consequentathiest. Even today jews don't accept christ as god incarnate or their saviour. I'm not saying that's bad. It's their choice. Maybe they aren't fully to blame for his crucification but if the mob wanted him to die instead of barrabus then who was this mob? If they were just the common people of that area under roman rule then they must have been mostly jewish.

 

[Jotbathah]

Interesting forum going on here.

Mario, what was your original intent?

A quote attributed to CS Lewis comes to mind..."Noone has ever been argued into the kingdom of God." The stubborn (on either side, if this argument has only 2 sides) tend to become more stubborn.

If FAITH is the issue here, then it needs to be noted that we ALL live by faith as we can never have 100% of the issues and facts at hand prior to doing anything; our lives at every moment are fully dependant on suppositions, information,regularities/irregularities...

As such, Mario, what answer/s to your original questions would ever satisfy you?

 

[mario]

I'm not looking for answers cause I know there aren't any. I'm just pointing out how a lot of things don't make sense in the bible. Nobody really stops and asks questions. Or they manufacture their own answers. If we saw the miracles that people witnessed in the bible today, then we certainly wouldn't do what they did...like worship a golden calf after they saw god part the dead sea. PART THE DEAD SEA!!!! No golden calf can do that. But either the people were really weird back then or it's just a story that somebody made up. I tend to think the latter.

And how did we get negroes, chinese, spanish, pakistanis, indians etc etc etc from adam and eve or (later on) noah and his family? No amount of evolution in that short amount of time could change them that much into all those different races. Yet no one stops and asks how the bible explains it. The trouble is there is no explanation. So why are we supposed to believe in something that doesn't answer some very obvious questions?

 

[mario]

As for faith well I don't think we really need it to get thru the day. Actually we live mostly by knowledge instead of faith. We know that we won't float away because gravity holds us down. We know that if we turn the key in our car the car will start (most of the time). Daily activities are based on knowledge that was learned or determined by the laws of physics. Why do we need faith to get thru the day? Animals seem to do quite nicely without it. Now personal dreams or goals are a little harder to live without. Unless you're doing a life sentence in the big house.

 

[Jenyar]

I don't think that's quite accurate. What you mean is that we go through life with implicit faith. We trust the laws of gravity implicitly. If gravity seemed to be a slightly more nebulous and less necessary concept, people would have called it blind faith. We can't see gravity, but when we jump off the roof it's more than "hope" that makes us expect we'll reach the ground - and I'm sure even before Newton, people had the same faith in it, even if they had less "reason" to.

In fact, some people's faith in gravity was so strong that they never thought people would be able to fly. But because birds flew, others never lost faith that flight was possible. In the same way we trust police to uphold the law. We have this concept of law: some believe in it, others (criminals and outlaws) don't. Nobody can see it, nobody can measure it, nobody can even prove it, yet we have enough faith in its principles to uphold them. If we didn't, society would be in chaos. But is it only because we have actually seen society in chaos that it's "true"? What about peace? If we just hope for piece, nothing will ever happen. But if we believe in it, have faith in its principles, we will do something about it and maybe achieve it.