Biblical contradictions.

quote:

---

"Has something been omitted? Was 'Gods Word' edited by men? If so, by whom?"
--No

---

No?? Then why is there something called the King James VERSION? Why are there so many different Bibles, all translated differently with word choices lending different meanings to the passages? [QUOTE]"And what are the implications on the validity of the Bible as the infallible word of God if it has been edited by men?"
--See above.
[/B][/QUOTE]Answer the above, please.

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. 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

---

Um, cloning has been happening naturally for a very long time.Have you ever heard of identical twins?In addition, plants are propogated by cloning all the time. I have a couple of cloned ferns growing in my living room right now, as a matter of fact.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"No?? Then why is there something called the King James VERSION? Why are there so many different Bibles, all translated differently with word choices lending different meanings to the passages?"
--Oh, you mean translations? Well if this is what your question pertains to, than in that light, sure abundant editing, though the same meaning. I could say, "Hola, como estas" in Espanol, though if I 'edit' it to read in English, "Hello, how are you", there is still the same meaning as the former.

---

You know full well that the way something is translated can easily change it's meaning, TC. Since Hebrew has no vowels, and the same word can have many different meanings depending upon context, don't you think that, if they wanted to, different translators could change the meanings of passages? Either on purpose or by accident?What about the many entire chapters which were removed, early on in the Bible's history?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Um, cloning has been happening naturally for a very long time.

​

Have you ever heard of identical twins?

​

In addition, plants are propogated by cloning all the time. I have a couple of cloned ferns growing in my living room right now, as a matter of fact."
--Even though I do not know exactly what techristians point was, your form of cloning is a slightly different process than he asserted, so neither do I see your point as well.

---

My point is that people throw around the "cloning is really bad" thing all the time without knowing what they are talking about.I suspect that techristian is talking, specifically, about the cloning of large mammals, but that isn't what he actually said. He lumped all cloning together.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"You know full well that the way something is translated can easily change it's meaning, TC. Since Hebrew has no vowels, and the same word can have many different meanings depending upon context, don't you think that, if they wanted to, different translators could change the meanings of passages? Either on purpose or by accident?"
--Yes, it would have been written in context of course. And possibly yes, though extreamly rare would errors be made, but then there is also the obsticle of having this error leaching into a stable agreement in post publications to come. Also, copies were copied directly from the previous text which was as stated earlier, taken into extreamly high consideration on word for word and letter for letter accuracy.[/QUOTE]

​

Uh, you still haven't explained to me why there are so many different VERSIONS of the Bible, which each have somewhat different flavors and slants. Who cares if each 'copy' of the KJV of the Bible is pefectly-done? Why was it ever changed AT ALL to be different from any other Bible?

---

"What about the many entire chapters which were removed, early on in the Bible's history?"
--I have not heard of chapters themselves being removed, though books in their whole, yes.[/QUOTE]OK, then what about the whole books which were removed? [QUOTE]--dani17 has pointed out a relevent verse, it shows how there may be no direct evidence of God, though there is always indirect evidence, which is also used for application for earth history.
[/b][/QUOTE]OK, please tell us what this evidence for God is.

OK, here is another contradiction which, to date, no Biblical literalist has been able to explain to me...There are contradictory accounts of when Jesus was crucified, depending upon which Gospel you read. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have him being crucified after passover, while John has him being crucified BEFORE Passover.Most Biblical scholars say that the reason the John account is so different is because it was clear that Jesus really wasn't going to, LITERALLY, come back and make the Jews the ruling people of the land, as he had claimed in the Bible,(Mat16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.)so all of the reward for the people who followed Jesus was transferred to the afterlife.Here's some more. So, how agout drinking a little poison for us? I choose Drano."67.Jesus said that his true followers will routinely perform the following tricks: 1) cast out devils, 2)speak in tongues, 3) take up serpents, 4) drink poisons without harm, and 5) cure the sick by touching them. Mk.16:17-18"

quote:

---

Does the supposed error change the intended context of the passage or does the intended meaning still follow through? Can the error be recognized and corrected?

​

Man is a creature of error. Even in science, the god of so many, error abounds.

​

It is therefore our responsibliity to recognize the errors, whether they be in the realm of religion or secularism, and correct them.

---

Well, then, answer Percy's original question:How do you recognize the original or "correct" word of God, and how do you recognize a tranlational error that has changed meaning, or not changed meaning?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
***I think your are punching the air here. I fully described my "method" and "criteria" in my post. What part did you not understand?***Jet

​

Shalom

---

The part we don't understand is that, say, two people can believe they are guided by faith and God, spend their lives painstakingly studying and researching, etc., and come up with different interpretaions of the same material.How do we decide who is correct? The interpretation which is most like our own could be correct, or not. The one most like most other people's interpretation might be correct, might not. The one which is most different from all others might be correct, or it might not be.Are you saying that we just have to figure out which one feels best?In that case, who's to say any of them are correct?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawman:
>Pls do, but my point is you DON'T KNOW what to accept as truth or >not. Therefore it is JUST opinion.

​

What we accept and don't accept concerning Christianity is either our choice or we 'talk' to God about it.
Usually, Christians don't 'talk' or pray to God about certain things and they take their own opinion on the matter. Which is one of the reasons this religion has a bad rep.

---

If Christians "talk to God" or anything like that, that is their own business and I do not begrudge anyone the religious practice of their choice. In fact, I think it is a crucial civil liberty that all Americans are free to worship as they choose.One big reason certain stripes of Christianity (mostly in the US) get a bad rep in the education, scientific, civil liberties, and religious communities is because they wish to force their religious views upon everyone else by having them taught in public school science classrooms.They are attempting to dress their religion up in a lab coat and give it a beaker to hold in the hopes that they will get it taught alongside, or even instead of, real science.To anyone interested in intellectual honesty and true scholarship and discovery, this tactic is offensive and demeaning to science and religion both.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
One of the biggest questions I have of late is why do evolutionists feel so threatened by the teaching of creation? If evolution has so much evidence, and creation has so little, (or none, as some so boldly claim), then I would think that evolutionists would not only agree to, but would actively encourage the practice of teaching both creation and evolution side by side so that the evolutionists could show everyone just how right they are and just how wrong the creationists are. Leaning on that tired old "creation isn't science" argument doesn't wash anymore than saying "evolution is science."

​

http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/EvolutionIsNotScience_f.htm

​

Jet

​

Shalom

---

OK, let's say that Protestant Christian Creation is taught alongside science in a science classroom. Why not teach Native American Creation in the science classroom? Or Shinto Creation stories? Or Roman, Australian Aboriginal, or Egyptian Creation?After all, since Protestant Christian Creationism is based in what the Bible says, and what the Bible says holds ultimate sway over any natural evidence which might be discovered, then any other religion's creation story is as supported as any other.Now, if you are suggesting that Creation Science be taught about in, say, a class which discusses the nature of scientific inquiry, a philosophy of science class, or in a comparative religion class, then I think it is a great idea and will clearly demonstrate that Creation 'science' is quite lacking as an actual science but is strong as a very effective marketing tool for the far right Christian political wing.Creation 'science' isn't real science. It violates the tenets of scientific inquiry. You have, in the past, been directed to much more information which explains this in great detail. Here is, yet again, a good definition of science. You will also find an internal link which will take you to another essay which explains how Creation 'science' breaks the rules of science. I hope you will actually address the specifics of these links this time instead of waving them away and avoiding them. http://www.skepdic.com/science.html------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

Interesting information! Thanks Joe! However, the question still stands. Even in non-Christian, non-Judaic, and non-Muslim nations, a seven day week has been adopted. Why? Is there some reason other than a Judeo-Christian influence? Is it astronomically valid to adopt a five day, ten day, or twenty day week versus a seven day week? If not, why not? If so, then why the seemingly universal adoption of a seven day week?

​

Jet

​

Shalom

​

---

Gee, somehow the idea that the seven day week was adopted by everyone because the more powerful people came in and converted everyone to their religion doesn't seem very mysterious to me.In addition, the Church was freaking rich and if I'm not mistaken, controlled and funded a great deal of trade and commerce. It would make sense to adopt the week structure that your most powerful customer used so you could coordinate business with them.Are you really asking why everyone has the same week structure now?? Trade and commerce!!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] OK, let's say that Protestant Christian Creation is taught alongside science in a science classroom. Why not teach Native American Creation in the science classroom? Or Shinto Creation stories? Or Roman, Australian Aboriginal, or Egyptian Creation?After all, since Protestant Christian Creationism is based in what the Bible says, and what the Bible says holds ultimate sway over any natural evidence which might be discovered, then any other religion's creation story is as supported as any other.***Your point is well taken and valid, to be sure. All of the above are as rooted in history as is the erroneous concept of evolution.***Jet[/QUOTE]Nice non-response.

quote:

---

schraf: Creation 'science' isn't real science. It violates the tenets of scientific inquiry.......Creation 'science' breaks the rules of science.

​

***I believe this has been discussed at length already. But in case your memory needs refreshing, then visit...................
http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/EvolutionIsNotScience_f.htm
Your "real science" argument reveals the so-called science of the TOE to be full of holes.***Jet

---

You miss the point. Even if you could show that Biology, or the ToE which is a very important unifying theory of Biology, somehow isn't scientific (which you haven't and I don't think you can), this would not make Creation 'science' any more scientific, and therefore it remains inappropriate to teach in science classrooms.

quote:

---

schraf: http://www.skepdic.com/science.html

​

***Actually, I have already bookmarked the skepdic site, as well as a number of others. I am never opposed to examining all sides of an issue, even when I am convinced that one side, (in this case, the argument for evolution), is so full of errors, misinformation, and outright lies that it is, without a doubt, completely inane.***Jet

---

OK, how about giving some SPECIFIC criticisms of the ToE. HOW, exactly, does it violate the tenets of scientific inquiry.I have asked you, repeatedly, for specifics in this vein, Jet, and all you do is avoid real debate.Jet[/b][/QUOTE]------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[QUOTE] Nevertheless, I realize that some individuals have a very thin skin but I am not going to name any names, "Larry! Schraf! Percy! Mark!", (ha, ha, just a joke, so don't hate me just because I'm a bit sardonic at times).
[/B][/QUOTE]Thin skin? You have got to be kidding!It's not that you are "a bit sardonis at times". It's just that you do not answer direct questions, and then tend to become abusive and accusatory when pressed. You actually accused me of undermining the e-mail or snail mail of your super-secret "Creationist research" place you claim exists when I requested some literature.I'll admit that you have been better behaved as of late, but you still tend to ignore and avoid specifics like the Plague.By the way, how is that super secret research going? Tell us; how it is going to contribute to the increase of scientific knowledge, and therefore our understanding of nature, with it being so secret?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
Originally posted by Quetzal:

​

Filling in the blank (you should probably also read some of the other threads in this forum for more details - see especially my replies to Syamasu and Philip): random mutation and genetic recombination plus the action of natural selection and the stochastic processes of genetic drift + Time = Evolution. Happy?

​

***Like I said. Chance + Time = Evolution.***Jet

​

Shalom

​

---

Like my sig says...'willfully ignorant'

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] Like my sig says...'willfully ignorant'***Like your signature says, you have chosen to be willfully ignorant. You can blame the Catholics if you like, but don't blame God and don't blame me either. It is your choice, so live with it and stop the whining.*** Shalom Jet[/QUOTE]Your reply doesn't exactly make sense, does it?I will simply say that your belligerant attitude and debate "non-style" makes my sig true just about every time you engage anyone on any subject in this forum.Avoiding and ignoring points is your favorite tactic, and when that doesn't work you resort to name-calling.Can't you see that this earns you zero respect?Why would I want to be a Fundamentalist Christian like you if they, like you and others I have encountered, tend to be abusive towards other people and intellectualy-dishonest?[/b][/QUOTE]------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"