You just said he defined the difference in Leviticus. You haven't yet explained how he knew the difference. The point is he can't know. You are logically challenged.
Faith did make one inconsistent statement when she said that the difference was unknown until it was explained in Leviticus. We are not told how Noah knew the difference, but the text clearly says that Noah did know. I'm not sure why that's a big deal compared to any other miraculous things described in Noah's story. Also there is no pretense here that the story is being told by an eyewitness.
Even after Leviticus, the rationale for deciding why most of the animals are considered unclean is completely unclear. At best we're told how to identify some of them.
ABE:
The distinctions that jar points out are not new or unique to him. It's pretty easy to find discussion of the points from both fundamentalists and other sources. Unlike the discussion here, the stuff you find on the net is pretty dispassionate and does not involve calling anyone an idiot. My personal view is that the inconsistency regarding the count of fowls is pretty easy explained. It certainly isn't enough for me to conclude that there are two separate story tellers.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
Faith did make one inconsistent statement when she said that the difference was unknown until it was explained in Leviticus.
As usual you apparently misread. I can't find anywhere that I said "the difference was unknown." I said the difference was not "spelled out" until Leviticus but that it WAS known before that. I also said there was no distinction made between clean and unclean FOOD until Leviticus, only between animals for sacrifice.
At first I thought the distinction was assumed when God told him they were now to eat meat, but then I changed my mind because the point of the distinction for the Israelites was to set them apart from the heathen. However, I could be wrong about that and the distinction WAS assumed for Noah, and was then lost by the time of the Levitical Law which is why it was clearly spelled out for the Israelites.
abe: It's OK with you for him to call me "logic challenged" for my orthodox interpretation but I can't return the favor with "iddiott?"
One does have to be mentally challenged to say what he said about it, even, or especially, if he's in league with all the idddiotic liberals on that understanding.
Faith did make one inconsistent statement when she said that the difference was unknown until it was explained in Leviticus. We are not told how Noah knew the difference, but the text clearly says that Noah did know. I'm not sure why that's a big deal compared to any other miraculous things described in Noah's story. Also there is no pretense here that the story is being told by an eyewitness.
Even after Leviticus, the rationale for deciding why most of the animals are considered unclean is completely unclear. At best we're told how to identify some of them.
ABE:
The distinctions that jar points out are not new or unique to him. It's pretty easy to find discussion of the points from both fundamentalists and other sources. Unlike the discussion here, the stuff you find on the net is pretty dispassionate and does not involve calling anyone an idiot. My personal view is that the inconsistency regarding the count of fowls is pretty easy explained. It certainly isn't enough for me to conclude that there are two separate story tellers.
I am making a big deal out of not much here with Faith. There is a lot one can do more significant than this. However, she is just getting her information from apologists. They are often as deluded as she is and often lie so poorly, I sort of gag at the responses. And, in my view, if a person reads Genesis in context, it appears entirely as Jar suggests. Two writers, two different stories.
I don't draw any distinctions that the text itself doesn't draw. Where it's historical I read it as history, where it is figurative, and it's not at all hard to tell, I read it as figurative, and so on, and in this I am with the whole orthodox Protestant tradition, unlike GDR who favors a self-inspired guru of some sort with a very limited following.
Yes, Faith, we're familiar with your claims. You think you're the source of orthodoxy, that you declare where the Bible is historical or literal or figurative or whatever. No need for discussion, just listen to Faith declare her faith.
I don't judge ANYTHING by how it "FEELS" to me.
Sure you do. The emotionalism behind your words is palpable.
You wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the butt...
May I remind you that it is you who believe a book can trump reality.
...and you certainly wouldn't know anything about the Bible since you belong to a heretical cult that rejects it in favor of worldly "reality," and boy is that a joke.
Your views on the Bible have as little basis in fact as this "heretical cult".
You have a screwy idea of "objectivity." You can't find sense in the Bible because you've been indoctrinated against it by your cult.
A book can only accurately describe reality, not define it.
And Faith is right about faith. Sometimes even GDR is right in spite of himself. You on the other hand ...
You managed to get through an entire post without making a single argument based upon fact. You only repeated the same statements of faith you've stated many times. You're just preaching.
I'm not ignoring you I just don't have time to respond. I'll be away from the computer for a week. If this is still thread is still active I'll get back to you then and show you the error of your ways.
Cheers and thanks for the discussion.
Sure thanks. Do some reading if you get a chance. You are kind of repeating Christian folklore, that isn't always based on the facts. Consider reading non-bias information. If you are mostly just repeating Christian lore, without checking if it is based on any facts, " the error of ways" is always going to be with you. Please check outside sources as you seem quite logical. As an example. If you wanted to know about the early Mormon church, a bias LDS site will paint a rosy picture. Also it's completely wrong. Likewise Christian sites weave a tale about many things, not supported by outside information and often it's the opposite.
I didn't say a mere compendium would make it special, the compendium makes it not "A book" but many books by many authors over a millennium and a half, and the significance of this fact, for the mentally deficient, is that their agreement and continuity of revelation,...
You're just declaring your beliefs again without a shred of evidence. Gathering books by different authors together into a single book doesn't make it special. The books that comprise the Bible were selected by committees of men, committees who disagreed about what books should even be in the Bible.
...and especially continuity of prophecy, DO add up to evidence that this book IS special. For prophets who often did not even fully understand their own message to be in agreement with each other is indeed special and evidence that there is an intelligence overseeing the whole production quite apart from the individual authors.
Did you forget that you've refused to discuss prophecy in this thread?
You can't even prove God exists let alone that his words have ever been written down.
The Bible alone proves He exists and that it contains His words, for those who aren't shackled to a false opinion.
More witnessing for God. We already know what you believe. What you've failed to do is offer any evidence for your beliefs. This is what actual evidence of God or at least something supernatural would look like (were it not actually a movie):
This is what your evidence of God looks like:
That's it. That's all you got, words in a book. Words that often contradict either themselves, reality or both. At best you point to the mundane and call it evidence of God, at worst you just make stuff up. We're all familiar with the act, I don't know what you think you're accomplishing. Maybe you consider coming here to testify for God some kind of atonement for past sins.
May God show you the truth since you won't listen to anybody else.
Supercilious sanctimony is a poor substitute for evidence. Can you provide any basis in fact for your beliefs, in particular that God exists and that his words appear in the Bible.
All you're really doing so far is saying, "I've accepted this book as the word of God based upon wishful thinking and insufficient and flimsy evidence, and everyone else should do the same else I will hurl insults at you."
Sigh. Context-challenged as usual, the lot of you. The reason I mentioned the millions was to contrast with jar's single lone wolf reading of the Bible. Why can't you people read?
Why can't you say what you mean?
Making accurate observations and accurately interpreting data is not a popularity contest. What most people believe does not define reality, and if it did then fundamentalist Christians, being a minority in this world, would have to be considered wrong, so it makes no sense that you even brought it up.
Do you have any evidence at all that the Bible contains the inerrant Word of God? You've mentioned prophecy several times but have refused to discuss it. If that's your only evidence, and if you're refusing to discuss your only evidence, then what are you doing here?
Well said, thank you for making the effort to clearly express this.
My point is that I do have a consistent method of understanding the Bible that isn't arbitrary. Faith on the other hand on the other hand is inconsistent about how she explains away the many inconsistencies between the various books in the Bible in trying to consistently show that the Bible is consistent as it has to be if it is inerrant.
Yes, precisely, but is it really proper to exclude yourself? Isn't ex post facto rationalization of choices simply what people do? We all want to believe we make rational decisions, but the fact of the matter is that when asked, "Why did you do such-and-so?" we find we have no reason so we just make something up. And we don't have a reason because life is full of hundreds of daily choices where we do what is habitual as opposed to performing a detailed analysis. Our beliefs accumulate in a similar manner.
That was Mondale in one of the presidential debates in 1984.
Actually there are good reasons to accept the resurrection as being historical...
As far as I know, there is no historical evidence for a resurrection of Jesus by God, nor even historical evidence that God exists.
I went through one philosophical rationale earlier.
Resorting to philosophy is nearly synonymous with descent into obscurantism.
I also have yet to find a version of the explanation for the rise of the early church that IMHO is reasonable, whereas an historical resurrection easily explains it.
I think the determined ministry of Paul explains the rise of the early church best.
I can find all sorts of reasonable reasons not to believe the legend of Noah as written about in the book of Genesis.
For those reasons that are of a general nature, do none of them apply to the resurrection? The sheer impossibility and lack of evidence seem to apply to both resurrection and Noah.
We can argue, as Percy did in a recent post, that not all beliefs have equal validity but once again that is based upon our beliefs.
No. No no no no no no no no no.
There is an objective world of reality out there. All beliefs are not equal, and that is not just a matter of belief. You can descend into philosophy if you like, but the real world is real nonetheless.
What a wonderful advertisement for fundamentalist Christianity you are. You can respond by telling us again what horrible people we are, thereby showing how well your fundamentalist beliefs help you follow the message of Jesus.
Of course, I knew you'd twist it which is why I didn't post it before, so here you are twisting it as expected. You don't know how to read in context, you take Genesis 7:3 out of its obvious context in which it is to be interpreted in the same vein as 7:2, clean fowls by sevens just as the clean beasts are by sevens, both being the specificity that was left out of Genesis 6. This is how you make a mess of everything you read in the Bible, and you have the effrontery to claim your reading is right and the reading of millions of Bible believers wrong.
I can't see how this explains what looks like a clear contradiction. Genesis 6:19-20 says:
Genesis 6:19-20 writes:
19"And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and femaile. 20Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive."
The above passage appears to clearly describe God telling Noah to bring two of every kind of bird. But Genesis 7:2-3 says:
Genesis 7:2-3 writes:
2"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; 3and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth."
This appears to clearly describe God telling Noah to bring seven pairs of birds of the air.
The two passages clearly describe God telling Noah to bring conflicting numbers of birds aboard the ark, and they also don't agree on which birds. One passage says all birds, the other says only flying birds.
You keep railing on about reading in context, but there's no context that could change the simple difference in numbers between the two passages.
The two passages clearly describe God telling Noah to bring conflicting numbers of birds aboard the ark, and they also don't agree on which birds. One passage says all birds, the other says only flying birds.
You keep railing on about reading in context, but there's no context that could change the simple difference in numbers between the two passages.
When I brought up the contradiction between flying birds and all birds once I was told that only flying birds were found in the middle east despite the fact that one ostrich species is the "Arabian Ostrich".
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
So the forces of darkness win due to sheer numbers and invincible blockheadedness, what else is new at EvC?
You've again provided a one sentence response consisting solely of ad hominem. There's nothing of substance to be addressed. There are a number of people here whose mere presence strongly suggests their eagerness for a discussion based upon facts and substance, but you offer nothing but insults.
™ Version 4.2
(1)