Summations Only

Are you serious? If you told someone they could take two chicks from your hatchery for Easter and they instead took seven pair, you'd think that was okay since seven includes two? If you gave someone ten dollars to buy something for you and bring you the change, and they brought you three dollars in change telling you the item cost seven dollars when it really cost two, you'd think that was okay since seven includes two?Seven is not equal to two, Faith. It doesn't matter how many centuries apologists have offering answers like yours, seven is not equal to two. The two passages contradict one another. If you told someone to bring you two chicks, then told them to bring you seven pairs of chicks, there isn't a person living who wouldn't think you just contradicted yourself and ask you to clarify.Also, it's two individuals versus seven pair, not just two versus seven. Actually, "birds of the air" is a way of saying "birds that fly". What we know is that a long-standing tradition of Biblical inerrancy has over time resulted in a rather large archive of contrived explanations for Biblical error.--Percy

I only offered factual rebuttal. Let's continue that example: First you tell someone to bring you a pair of chicks, then you tell them to bring you seven pairs of chicks. The person's initial impulse is think that the inconsistency means you've made a mistake and that they should ask you how many pairs of chicks they should bring you, but then they remember that Faith is inerrant. How does this tell them how many pairs of chicks they should bring you?Or let's say you run a zoo that includes an aviary and an aquarium. You ask an employee to tag one pair of every bird of the air. He doesn't tag any penguins or ostriches. Should he be fired?--Percy

Lately you seem to be blessed with terminal unclarity. The issue was clean versus unclean, which is about food, which is what NoNukes is talking about. NoNukes seems to see a difference between saying the difference between clean and unclean was not "spelled out" versus saying there was no "distinction" made, and while I don't myself see much to distinguish between the two ways of expressing it, you said it about clean versus unclean food, and that's what NoNukes is talking about. So whatever your problem is, nobody has any idea.--Percy

But it doesn't say "AT LEAST". One passage says two of each kind, another passage says seven pair of each kind.Faced with obviously erroneous statements apologists like yourself seek interpretations that resolve the errors, but they aren't interpretations any reasonable person would ever think of. You're forced into those strained interpretations because you insist the Bible is without error. There's no actual internal or external factors driving you toward those interpretations, just the fiction that the Bible is faultless. Absent Biblical inerrancy these interpretations make no sense and aren't needed.People are always making up stories to cover up errors, doesn't mean you have to believe them. If Genesis recounted actual events then of course reality was more detailed then the written account, but there's no evidence that these were real events. The story of Noah is based upon the older Epic of Gilgamesh, plus there's no evidence of a flood, no evidence of a genetic bottleneck, no evidence of a repopulation of the Earth, no evidence of Noah, no evidence of God.But more germane to the original point about the conflicting accounts of two of each kind versus seven pair of each kind, it doesn't matter whether Genesis is a myth or is an overview of actual events. It contains errors and is not inerrant.--Percy

You're just stating your religious beliefs again. There's no evidence that the Genesis account is the "true account", no evidence that any account of a world-wide flood is true, no evidence that the tale was handed down from Shem to Abraham and eventually to Moses, and you don't even try to muster any evidence. What evidence we do have says that the Epic of Gilgamesh predates the story of Noah, and that the story of Noah derives from the Epic of Gilgamesh.Genesis clearly makes contradictory statements regarding the the number of pairs of birds to be taken on the ark, and the interpretations you're forcing on the text to resolve the errors are the inventions of apologists. Internal and external errors and contradictions abound in the Bible. People are always making up self-serving stories to explain away obvious error. Usually these stories are obvious after-the-fact fictions, and such is the case with most Biblical apologist stories. These contradictions in the tale of Noah result from a combination of two similar but not identical mythical traditions.--Percy

Aren't you dictating to everyone else how they are to understand the Bible?You're arguing in this way: "The Bible is inerrant because for any apparent error explanations can be invented that resolve the error. Anyone who disagrees with these explanations is wrong and will be summarily insulted. Case closed."You have yet to offer any evidence of Biblical inerrancy, of divine authorship, or even of God himself.--Percy

How are you missing how obvious it is to everyone that you are just making it up as you go along? We're watching you go through the same process in real time that all apologists go through as they make up explanations in an effort to resolve error.--Percy

You're not really discussing in this thread, just preaching and testifying. It's fascinating to see such irrational beliefs expressed so forthrightly and unabashedly with no hint of embarrassment. That you've once again become upset and frustrated probably means you have unrealistic expectations, neither desiring, expecting or brooking disagreement.You're arguing for inerrancy, yet the primary driving force behind the interpretations you're forcing on the text is the assumption of inerrancy. You can't assume what you're trying to prove.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

How is one event prophetic of another later event that has a couple similar elements, especially with extremely common events like only sons. There have been only sons since the beginning of time, and in Isaac's case he wasn't even an only son.Repeating the exact same arguments that have already been shown highly questionable is really all you got?All your contrived interpretations make no sense. You fundamentalists would never make these interpretations if not for your need for inerrancy. You have this whole meta-story that has almost nothing to do with what the Bible actually says. You can reinterpret practically any passage in the Bible to mean whatever you need it to mean at the time.--Percy

But God didn't sacrifice his son, and neither did Abraham. Someone wrote a story about a test of faith involving a father being asked to sacrifice his son. There's no evidence that the story is true. And someone else wrote a story about God letting the Romans crucify his son. There's no evidence that story is true, either, and it was written by someone who had full knowledge of the older story of Abraham.Stories from different eras that have parallel elements mean nothing, and in this case the author of the newer story had full knowledge of the older story. Given that there is nothing new under the sun, what would be extremely unusual would be if every story in the Bible were completely unique with no similarities to older stories.No one understands why you don't see that you're doing the same thing that all deeply religious adherents do, which is to cling strongly to their deeply held beliefs because they've convinced themselves that the evidence supports those beliefs. They all believe their evidence is better than yours, just as you believe your evidence is better than theirs. You can't convince them, they can't convince you, and neither of you can convince any of us because none of you have anything that resembles genuine objective evidence. You all think your religious beliefs are special and unique but are blind to this fact. I have to agree that "7 is the same as 2 because 2 is in 7" is a real marvel, and it's a result of trying to force inerrancy on the text by making up ridiculous stories to explain away errors. We know you sincerely believe all of it and that we can't talk you out of it, but people with delusions can rarely be talked out of it. But what's also true of delusions is that they rarely convince others. No one believes anyone claiming to be Napoleon. We've actually seen you in action making this stuff up. You even admit to making it up as you go along right here: Then there was this that I quoted for you a few messages back where you're clearly in the middle of inventing new interpretations: And you seem to be experiencing some kind of amnesia as you here deny that others have been tossing plenty of alternative interpretations of various passages at you: We can and have developed other interpretations, including the one the text plainly intended. People can read the thread, Faith. They can tell whose claims don't jive with reality. Your goal is to produce evidence that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God, but so far you've only been able to tell us (in greater and greater detail) your religious beliefs, but no evidence.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Books cannot prove themselves. The evidence we have says the Bible is a book like any other book, written by men with the types of attendant errors made by men.We also know that there is a very common type of person who insists that their religious texts contain no errors and that their religious beliefs are the only ones in the world that are completely correct. Logic demands that they can't all be right, and evidence from the real world tells us they are all wrong.--Percy

But the only party in this discussion who isn't taking the Bible "written as it was written" is you. Whenever the Bible's clear meaning is wrong or contradictory, you insist that it is saying something different than what was "written as it was written." Let's compare two possibilities:

• There's an impossible God for whom there is no evidence who orchestrated impossible events for which there is also no evidence.
  ​
• The Bible is just stories written by men that reflect awareness of older stories, something men do all the time.

--Percy

If angels are sons of God, and if Galatians says we are all sons of God through faith, then Jesus cannot be God's only son. Of course, Isaac wasn't Abraham's only son either, so maybe it's a better fit if neither God nor Abraham had only one son.You may now descend into a Talmudic dissection of the Greek word monogenes (μονογενὴς) and its use and interpretation in various contexts. If you insist on begotten as part of it's meaning then since anyone begotten must have a beginning Jesus can't be eternal.--Percy

It's your mythology, I guess you can make up whatever you like. So Jesus existed before he was begotten? And Jesus and Isaac were both only sons who had brothers?--Percy

My bias is against unevidenced claims, nothing else. Even were your claims of parallels accurate they wouldn't be amazing, but they're not accurate, and more importantly, that wasn't my objection.My objection was that the authors of the later story had read the older story. Just as important, the stories are unevidenced. If Abraham had actually taken Isaac to Mount Herzi instead of Mount Mariah but a scribe changed it for later effect, how would you know? If Abraham had actually had two sons by Sarah instead of one, how would you know? If Abraham and Isaac never actually existed, how would you know? You just assume the Bible is true - you don't really know. All you have is assumptions piled on assumptions. Like many people of various religions. This is your unevidenced belief. You don't really know.What's really strange is that you seem to think that the more details you provide of what you believe and the more often you repeat them that the more convincing it will be. Strange.--Percy