I was going to do a series on supposed contradictions in the Bible. I thought that if atheists could see, perhaps in "real time" examples where their defences might not be quite as high, I thought that maybe they could see their error.
I should have known that it'd be a waste. Rab has proven that there is no point in continuing. In my clearest post on the subject (Bible Contradictions VII) Rab, and I assume all other atheists as well, simply cannot comprehend anything if it's written in a Book that condemns their world-view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
You fucking liar.
I told you i went and read it and for clarity, here is what i found.
Gen 1:25-27
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 2:18 & 19
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." -ANIMALS MAK.
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
That is from the new international version. Clearly states that in case one, he made animals first, and in case two, he made them after to bring man a 'helper suitable for him'.
How can you possibly argue against that?
Yeah, so powerful i believe what i have written, it is worthy of being posted twice.
But you are certainly right in one respect, i have definitely proven there is no point in continuing, because the contradiction i speak of is definitely in place. There are many more like it.
You'd have to force yourself to twist the way those passages are written to even begin to believe they agree.
I have to hamme this point in:
Note that it clearly says, "I will make a helper suitable for him", NOT that he 'HAS MADE'
He is yet to do it, and describes in the very next passage how he did this from the ground.
Rab, the helper that God was going to make was Eve. As an object lesson, to hammer home the point Adam was to examine the creation that had already been made.
Now God HAD made the animals. HAD made Rab. HAD made. None of them were a suitable helper. So God made Eve. Only another human is suitabl to be our mates, partners in life.
Even if i accepted that the word HAD, in this instance really infers the animals were there before, and not that it is merely there as a means of telling th sotry in the past tense there is a problem.
Firstly, i sill think it is clear made them, presented them to adam, and then he realised that none were suitable.
To further support this, I have looked into the matter and concluded that the addition of the word 'HAD' has been in fact added.
The King James Version, which as far as i'm led to believe is the most familiar one, has effectively the same passages with the word 'HAD' omitted.
Go figure.
To be honest, it reads more sensically when it is omitted. If the word had, really means he made the animals before hand, surely you must admit it kinda pops up like - "oh, he made the animals before this, by the way!", even though a fair bit of detail has went into describing evrything befoe hand in Gen 2.
In any case, yeah, King James Version has the word had omitted - very likely indeed that the word had has been inserted into the new international version to try and counter the clear contradiciton.
In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated:
"Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate "yatsar" as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added).
Thats all very good Makarios, but the bible says what the bible says.
The King James version does not have the word 'had'. How can one therefore conclude that the animals were already in place? This isn't even a matter of belief/non-belief. It's just grammar if you want to debate the word 'had'.
There are plenty of more contradictions but i guess you have an 'answer' for all of them?
"There are plenty of more contradictions but i guess you have an 'answer' for all of them?"
Part of me would like to look at some passages where you think there are contradictions. The other part says, "What's the point?"
Well Mak, i have higlighted a clear contradiction just there.
Is it not painfully obvious that the word 'had' has been inserted into the international version to clear up for the obvious error?
How about-
Gen 2:17 Effectively claims that-
Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
Gen 5:5 States that-
Adam lived 930 years.
Or what about the instance, anywhere, when god says he is displeased with something, that ultimately he is responsible for. One, he could've avoided it, secondly, if he is omniscient he should know it is coming, therefore should do soemthing about it.
“Is it not painfully obvious that the word 'had' has been inserted into the international version to clear up for the obvious error?”
First of all, I showed you that the word Yatsar can mean “formed” OR “had formed” and I even gave you examples of other places where it was used as “had formed.”
As well, using simple logic, when we know from Genesis One that animal life was formed prior to human life, it confirms that Genesis Two means "had formed" - past tense. You obviously can’t get it but I’m not supposed to comment on this deficiency on your part so I’ll move on.
===========
"Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit."
What translation are you using that says, “On the very day . . .”?
===========
“Or what about the instance, anywhere, when god says he is displeased with something, that ultimately he is responsible for. One, he could've avoided it, secondly, if he is omniscient he should know it is coming, therefore should do soemthing about it."
Where does that happen?
Genesis 6:5-6 (New International Version)
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
The other was from King James again;
Genesis 2:17 (King James Version)
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Seems more and more to me that the new int. version has simply corrected certain contradictions in the older, king james version.
"As well, using simple logic....
Using simple logic you should be able to conclude that the same god that has apparently blessed Lionel Messi with awesome footballing talent and a life full of riches and happiness is not the same guy responsible for dumping an impoverished african child into a living hell where every day is a struggle to survive while a worm burrows through their eyeball.
But no, you'll have a sloution to that as per usual :/
Post a Comment