Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical contradictions.
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 329 (8106)
04-02-2002 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by bretheweb
04-02-2002 2:48 PM


"Ah the joys of banging your younger sister! I just love the morals espoused in the *literal* intepretation of the bible."
--Its a cultural belief and way of life, maybe a little more professionalism in your post bretheweb? Before Moses set the law down against incest, there was no problem within its practice. I guess this is immoral but homosexuality is completely fine...
"Why was it named Nod?"
--Why did God make the sky blue? Why not Green? Its a bit of a circulatory question. Though you may find the definitions of the word 'nod' interesting: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nod Pronunciation Key (nd)
v. nodded, nodding, nods
v. intr.
To lower and raise the head quickly, as in agreement or acknowledgment.
To let the head fall forward when sleepy.
To be careless or momentarily inattentive as if sleepy; lapse: Even Homer nods.

To sway, move up and down, or droop, as flowers in the wind.
v. tr.
To lower and raise (the head) quickly in agreement or acknowledgment.
To express by lowering and raising the head: nod one's agreement.
To summon, guide, or send by nodding the head: She nodded us into the room.
n.
A forward or up-and-down movement of the head, usually expressive of drowsiness or agreement: a nod of affirmation.
An indication of approval or assent: The contestant got the nod from the judges.
Phrasal Verbs:
nod off
To doze momentarily: nodded off during the lecture.
nod out Slang
To fall asleep, especially as a result of taking a drug.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Then why was it named Nod?
Was Eden East taken?"
--See above.
"Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown."
--Yes, and?
"Then what are these?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
"Gods word" has been carefully edited since they created."
--A little more specific than providing a link please? Possibly a quote (If you will, try not to be willingly attempting to discourage, such attempts are usual happenings and easily detectable at times)
"And yet the air above my head is still quite empty."
--And your implying?
"ps... please only respond with short, coherent sentences, thanks."
--I posted what seemed to be needed and relevant, besides my providing the definitions quote, the post seems suitable.
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by bretheweb, posted 04-02-2002 2:48 PM bretheweb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-02-2002 7:42 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 69 by bretheweb, posted 04-03-2002 6:25 PM TrueCreation has not replied

DavidAlias
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 329 (8113)
04-02-2002 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by TrueCreation
04-02-2002 11:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

a)--His sister (Ahhh!).
b)--Who? Do you mean Where? or What? Where - in the east, What - A named territory of land.

a) His Sister??? OK. Where is the chapter & verse explaining this?
I ask again . . . .Has something been omitted?
Who performed this editing?
b)In my limited knowledge of ancient history, it seems to me that most lands in biblical times were named for kings or for the peoples populating them, so where did these 'Nodites' come from? if they were the children of Adam & Eve, why is there no mention of their existence or lineage anywhere else in the Bible? . . . .Has something been omitted?
By Whom?
I'd repeat my last question from my previous post, but I think you get the idea . . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 11:42 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 7:37 PM DavidAlias has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 329 (8114)
04-02-2002 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by DavidAlias
04-02-2002 6:50 PM


"a) His Sister??? OK. Where is the chapter & verse explaining this?"
--Not listed, just like the color of Jesus' hair.
"I ask again . . . .Has something been omitted?"
--Yes, everything irrelevant.
"Who performed this editing?"
--Nothing was edited, this is the way it was written.
"b)In my limited knowledge of ancient history, it seems to me that most lands in biblical times were named for kings or for the peoples populating them, so where did these 'Nodites' come from?"
--There was no dynasty, no king, no ruler, nor leader. Just Adam, Eve, and their kids. This was an event preceeding the Flood, greatly altering land topography.
"if they were the children of Adam & Eve, why is there no mention of their existence or lineage anywhere else in the Bible?"
--Because, it is history, and such as the flood and even the creation story, there are many parallels within other creation stories, which others in these forums would argue that these other creation stories are the origin of the biblical one while I see it on the contrary. Such stories would have been greatly altered to their taste and liking of the story-teller if not passed as a holy document, in which little if not anything would be altered.
". . . .Has something been omitted?"
--Yes, everything irrelevant.
"By Whom?
I'd repeat my last question from my previous post, but I think you get the idea . . . ."
--I would repeat mine as well, though I believe we do.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by DavidAlias, posted 04-02-2002 6:50 PM DavidAlias has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by DavidAlias, posted 04-02-2002 11:25 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 70 by bretheweb, posted 04-03-2002 6:48 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 79 by no2creation, posted 04-11-2002 1:54 AM TrueCreation has replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 65 of 329 (8115)
04-02-2002 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by TrueCreation
04-02-2002 5:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Before Moses set the law down against incest, there was no problem within its practice. I guess this is immoral but homosexuality is completely fine...

Are you saying that Mosaic law defines what is right and wrong as opposed to just what is legal and illegal?
On a more practical note, the taboo against close family incest is the most widely practised of all taboos; with good reason, as the offspring are often calamitously disabled. Perhaps you feel that human genetics changed on the day Moses came down from the mountain - or at least on the day the law was formulated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 5:14 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 8:58 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 329 (8121)
04-02-2002 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Mister Pamboli
04-02-2002 7:42 PM


"Are you saying that Mosaic law defines what is right and wrong as opposed to just what is legal and illegal?"
--Within the confines of the belief system, yes this is a right and wrong prospect, and seemingly analogous is a legal and illeagle activity.
"On a more practical note, the taboo against close family incest is the most widely practised of all taboos;"
--Glad to hear it.
"with good reason, as the offspring are often calamitously disabled."
--Gosh, whoever made the law, was apparently indicative of this, as if this practice continued, the human race would have been in a great amount of trouble.
"Perhaps you feel that human genetics changed on the day Moses came down from the mountain - or at least on the day the law was formulated?"
--See above, in all technicallity it played a major role, if the law were not formulated, there would have been an emense increase in speciatory degeneration in functionality and corruption of the human genome.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-02-2002 7:42 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-03-2002 1:06 AM TrueCreation has not replied

DavidAlias
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 329 (8130)
04-02-2002 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by TrueCreation
04-02-2002 7:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
/B]
By saying 'everything irrelevant' I assume you mean everything irrelevant to the story of the Jews and Christians - that is to say, they (among others it would seem) are all the progeny of Seth, the surviving, unbanished son of Adam & Eve.
So, If the Bible is the story of the Jews and the Christians, (& I have no problem with that) then there is an enormous amout of human history that is not within it's scope. No (or very little)mention of the peoples of the Far East or the Americas or any discussion of how these people got there from their supposed Edenic origins. Gee, maybe that's where the 'Nodites' ended up. Oh yeah, that's right; that was all before the epochal Flood (or should that be apocryphal? No, no literalist would settle for that! LoL).
I suppose that wouldn't change your argument about the divine orgins of the writings, but I think you'd have to agree, that it cannot be viewed as a complete history of all humanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 7:37 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 68 of 329 (8132)
04-03-2002 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by TrueCreation
04-02-2002 8:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Are you saying that Mosaic law defines what is right and wrong as opposed to just what is legal and illegal?"
--Within the confines of the belief system, yes this is a right and wrong prospect, and seemingly analogous is a legal and illeagle activity.
"Perhaps you feel that human genetics changed on the day Moses came down from the mountain - or at least on the day the law was formulated?"
--See above, in all technicallity it played a major role, if the law were not formulated, there would have been an emense increase in speciatory degeneration in functionality and corruption of the human genome.

I'm confused. Was incest morally right or morally wrong before the Mosaic law was formulated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 8:58 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by bretheweb, posted 04-03-2002 6:50 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

bretheweb
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 329 (8154)
04-03-2002 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by TrueCreation
04-02-2002 5:14 PM


quote:
--Its a cultural belief and way of life, maybe a little more professionalism in your post bretheweb?
Oh come now Tru... dont tell me you're shying away from the morals espoused in the "word of god"?
Dressing it up in pretty words might make you feel better about it, but it doesnt change the facts.
quote:
Before Moses set the law down against incest, there was no problem within its practice.
Absolute nonsense, Tru.
I think it was Mr.Pamboli who pointed out the pervasive, cross-cultural and ancient taboo against incest.
To suggest that at some point prior to Moses it was acceptable is ridiculous.
On a side note, it seems that A&E would have been playing it safer by encouraging their children to engage in sibling incest as this is, genetically speaking, the least detrimental with the issue of father/daughter fornication being the most detrimental.
quote:
I guess this is immoral but homosexuality is completely fine...
Now what has one got to do with the other?
quote:
--Why did God make the sky blue? Why not Green?
While I appreciate a tap-dance as much as the next guy, I wasnt asking a rhetorical question.
The blueness of the sky and the greenness of the grass are the result of the good old laws of nature and have nothing to do with the supernatural. Sorry.
quote:
Its a bit of a circulatory question.
You wanna try that one again, chief?
"Circulatory": of or relating to circulation or the circulatory system.
[QUOTE]Though you may find the definitions of the word 'nod' interesting:
404: This page could not be found[/URL] -->]404: This page could not be found< !--UE-->[/QUOTE]
None of which answers my question.
Now come on Tru, any fool can paste a dictionary definition as if it is meaningful.
How hard is it to simply admit you dont know?
Quick question.
Why are you posting the English dictionary definition for a non-English place name?
quote:
--See above.
I looked.
Your non answer is still unsatisfactory.
quote:
--Yes, and?
"Giants"?
We've got the million year old fossils of massive animals... where are the 6000 year old fossils of massive humanoids?
quote:
--A little more specific than providing a link please? Possibly a quote (If you will, try not to be willingly attempting to discourage, such attempts are usual happenings and easily detectable at times)
Apologies, the link is:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html
How does this and the Council of Nicea jibe with your assertion that the bible is unedited?
quote:
--And your implying?
Was I implying something?
quote:
--I posted what seemed to be needed and relevant, besides my providing the definitions quote, the post seems suitable.
Much obliged.
brett
------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.
[This message has been edited by bretheweb, 04-03-2002]
[This message has been edited by bretheweb, 04-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 5:14 PM TrueCreation has not replied

bretheweb
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 329 (8155)
04-03-2002 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by TrueCreation
04-02-2002 7:37 PM


quote:
"I ask again . . . .Has something been omitted?"
--Yes, everything irrelevant.
"Who performed this editing?"
--Nothing was edited, this is the way it was written.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself, right?
"Ommission" of the "irrelevant" works (determined to be so by whom exactly?) means that it was edited.
No way to avoid that fact.
brett
------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 7:37 PM TrueCreation has not replied

bretheweb
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 329 (8156)
04-03-2002 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Mister Pamboli
04-03-2002 1:06 AM


quote:
I'm confused. Was incest morally right or morally wrong before the Mosaic law was formulated?
According to the internal logic of the bible it would have to be morally right as, in this case, it preceded the laws that defined it as wrong.
Right?
brett
------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-03-2002 1:06 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

techristian
Member (Idle past 4103 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 72 of 329 (8160)
04-03-2002 8:59 PM


My wife steered me to this place. It looks like things haven't changed much since I first posted on a similar forum. (In the BBS days)
As far as incest is concerned, it wasn't addressed before Moses. This is because contrary to what most atheists believe, man is not EVOLVING, but DEVOLVING. Back when Adam was around, we had PERFECT DNA. So there was no problem back then with intermarriage. After many successive generations the DNA structure became corrupt or in other words FLAWED. This is in part to one of the fundamental laws of entropy which states that as time goes by order will decrease.
Order,can never increase without INTELLIGENT outside intervention. This is also why we age and die. Each time our cells reproduce , errors are introduced. This is somewhat like making a copy of a copy of a copy on a XEROX. Does the 20th generation look as good as the original?
Dan
http://musicinit.com/pvideos.html

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by bretheweb, posted 04-03-2002 10:21 PM techristian has not replied

bretheweb
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 329 (8162)
04-03-2002 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by techristian
04-03-2002 8:59 PM


quote:
As far as incest is concerned, it wasn't addressed before Moses.
Really?
And your sources for this? [/quote]
This is because contrary to what most atheists believe, man is not EVOLVING, but DEVOLVING.[/quote]
Ahhhh.
Well that explains everything then.
Now here is where you provide compelling evidence to support this assertion.
Also, you are aware that "devolution" is still *evolution*, right?
Lets assume that a T-Rex's small front limbs were actually once more powerful/useful.
Though, honestly, the two concepts dont have much in common.
Devolution presumes an order from which to "devolve".
Evolution, being only about change, doesnt care one way or the other.
quote:
Back when Adam was around, we had PERFECT DNA.
LOL
How do you know this?
Were you there?
Do we have a DNA sample?
What bible verse is that derived from?
quote:
So there was no problem back then with intermarriage.
Certainly not in *that* particular creation myth, true.
However, lets not confuse that with reality.
quote:
After many successive generations the DNA structure became corrupt or in other words FLAWED.
Once more with feeling... and your compelling evidence for this is?
Hell, I'd settle for a bible verse that specifically mentions DNA.
Flawed or not.
quote:
This is in part to one of the fundamental laws of entropy which states that as time goes by order will decrease.
Ahh... close, but no ceegar.
The SLOT states that entropy ***in a closed system*** can never decrease so long as entropy is defined as unavailable energy. In a closed system, available energy can never increase, so its opposite, entropy, can never decrease.
The universe is in fact winding down... even as stars are being born, decreased entropy, and stars are dying out, increased entropy.
Life, at least on this planet, just happens to be one of those decreases in entropy in a very tiny subsystem of a much larger system. [/quote]
Order,can never increase without INTELLIGENT outside intervention.[/quote]
And your evidence for this is?
That life has arisen on this planet... that stars are born... all point to the contrary of your statement.
quote:
This is also why we age and die. Each time our cells reproduce, errors are introduced. This is somewhat like making a copy of a copy of a copy on a XEROX. Does the 20th generation look as good as the original?
Your evidence?
It occurs to me that the only "perfect" DNA that ever existed was the very first strand that arose.
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I'd like to see the basis for your assertions.
brett
------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by techristian, posted 04-03-2002 8:59 PM techristian has not replied

techristian
Member (Idle past 4103 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 74 of 329 (8163)
04-03-2002 11:13 PM


Have you heard that cloning will produce an offspring that will age rapidly. It is believed that the clone will already have the age of the donor and tries to rapidly catch up to the age of the donor. All experiments including those recently done in Japan prove that cloning produced offspring with age. What is age, but a basic ENTROPY or BREAKING down of the DNA structure? I believe that God , in His infinite wisdom , knowing that we would attempt unethical cloning for body parts has already made it that our genetic material will age.
Dan
http://musicinit.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-03-2002 11:59 PM techristian has not replied
 Message 76 by compmage, posted 04-04-2002 12:44 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 78 by nator, posted 04-04-2002 7:02 AM techristian has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 75 of 329 (8164)
04-03-2002 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by techristian
04-03-2002 11:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
Have you heard that cloning will produce an offspring that will age rapidly.
No I haven't. I have heard that many, but not all, clones have shown some symptoms of premature aging and I have also read that some of these have shortened telomeres. But then I have read that this is possibly the result of damage during the microinjection or electrofusion cloning methods. I have read nothing to suggest that these problems are insurmountable.[b] [QUOTE]It is believed that the clone will already have the age of the donor and tries to rapidly catch up to the age of the donor.[/b][/QUOTE]
Who believes this? I haven't read this except here.[b] [QUOTE]All experiments including those recently done in Japan prove that cloning produced offspring with age.[/b][/QUOTE]
All experiments? Perhaps you should read of the work of Advanced Cell Technologies who have shown the very opposite. In their case they cloned cow cells which were near the end of their capcacity to divide and were able to demonstrate that the cloning process restored the telomeres (the chromosonal "cap" which degrades with each cell division) to relative youth. In November 2001 (in the journal Science) they published research showing successful healthy clones. See http://www.nature.com/nsu/011129/011129-1.html for a quick newsy account of their latest work.[b] [QUOTE]What is age, but a basic ENTROPY or BREAKING down of the DNA structure?[/b][/QUOTE]
"Age" covers a huge variety of conditions, many of which have nothing to do with DNA.[b] [QUOTE]I believe that God , in His infinite wisdom , knowing that we would attempt unethical cloning for body parts has already made it that our genetic material will age.[/b][/QUOTE]
Why didn't he just design a life form without either means, motive or opportunity to attempt cloning? But whatever - your beliefs are, of course, your concern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by techristian, posted 04-03-2002 11:13 PM techristian has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 76 of 329 (8166)
04-04-2002 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by techristian
04-03-2002 11:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
Have you heard that cloning will produce an offspring that will age rapidly. It is believed that the clone will already have the age of the donor and tries to rapidly catch up to the age of the donor.
Who believes this?
quote:
All experiments including those recently done in Japan prove that cloning produced offspring with age. What is age, but a basic ENTROPY or BREAKING down of the DNA structure?
DNA is only one of the many factors to do with age.
quote:
I believe that God , in His infinite wisdom , knowing that we would attempt unethical cloning for body parts has already made it that our genetic material will age.
Your belief is irrelavent. Without evidence this is nothing more that an assertion.
------------------
I have conquered worlds...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by techristian, posted 04-03-2002 11:13 PM techristian has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024