• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
What assumption? That things happened in the order they were described? If they happened in a different order, then they would have been given in a different order.

It is simple.
If biblical text contradicts reality, it is because you are reading the text wrong.
If other religious text contradicts reality, it is because it is a false religion.
 
It is simple.
If biblical text contradicts reality, it is because you are reading the text wrong.
If other religious text contradicts reality, it is because it is a false religion.

And if biblical text contradicts itself, it's either because you are reading it wrong and it doesn't really contradict itself at all, or the "contradictions" are just different perspectives on the same thing and this richness of perspective makes the biblical text all the more truthy.
 
The red flag in your post is that it required the injection of your wording to make the argument. You added the wording “after” and “before”. Those words are not in the biblical text you used. You're assuming and adding things that are not there to help your argument.

Wow, are you really that dishonest? Everyone can clearly see the order of events there. Let me repeat here, just for you, in the hope that you can follow the order of events:

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

This clearly speaks of animals made first, and after that, once he was satifsied with it, he made humans.

Compare that to this:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof...

This clearly tells us that humans were made first, and then he decided to make animals, so that the poor guys won't be alone.

Really, stop twisting facts just because you don't like them. Your dishonesty is really disgusting, and only gets worse each time you post such crap.

Didn't your bible say something about lying? But then i guess you have not read it up to that point either.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Quote:
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof...


This clearly tells us that humans were made first, and then he decided to make animals, so that the poor guys won't be alone.

You're entitled to your opinion. But nowhere does it definitely say when the animals were formed in relation to man except in Chapter 1. The writer could have been referring to when the animals were formed in the previous chapter or he could be talking about the animals "specific to Eden". He was talking about Eden at the time, see Genesis 2:8 and Genesis 2:15 -- He's talking about Eden.

If God creates plants on Day 5 in Chapter 1 and then starts talking about Eden in chapter 2 and says I will create plants for Adam. He is not necessarily talking about creating plants for the first time. If I say God has formed plants in my garden in the desert. That does not mean there aren't plants elsewhere in the world that have already been created by God. Now if the bible said ("before" God ever created the "first" animal in the "world" he created man) then you would have an argument.

And given what was already said in the previous chapter 1, any subsequent verses where ambiguity exists should be interpreted in the direction of what was said in Chapter 1. There is no clear contradiction in my opinion, if you disagree so be it.
 
Last edited:
Nasadiya Sukta sounds more truthy. (Translated by Raimundo Pannikar from here)

Hymn of Creation
Holy Rigveda X.129.1-7

Neither Being nor non-Being existed then;
There was no sky, nor heaven, which is beyond.
What covered? Where was it and in whose shelter?
Was the water the deep abyss in which it lay? [1]

There was no death, hence neither was anything immortal;
There was no distinction between night and day.
By its inherent force the One breathed windless;
Nothing other than that existed. [2]
Darkness there was,
In the beginning all this was a sea without light;
That which, becoming, by the void was covered,
That One by the force of heat came into being. [3]

Desire entered the One in the beginning,
It was the earliest seed, the product of thought.
The Sages searching in their hearts with wisdom
Found the bond of Being in non-Being. [4]

Their ray extended light across the darkness;
But was the One below or was it above?
Creative force and fertile power was there;
Below was energy and will, above. [5]

Who knows for certain? Who shall declare it here?
When was it born and when came the creation?
The Devas came later,
Who then knows whence it arose? [6]

None knows when creation has arisen;
Whether He made it or did not make it,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
Only He knows, or maybe even He knows not! [7]
 
You're entitled to your opinion. But nowhere does it definitely say when the animals were formed in relation to man except in Chapter 1.

Liar! Tell me DOC, do you get denser by the minute? Have you been so brainwashed by your religion that you are already unable to read plain english? How hard can it be to compare two snippets of text and see the blatant discrepancy in the timeline there?

I'll repeat it again, maybe it will get into your head some day:

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof...

Whats even worse is you blatantly obvious dishonesty. Care to tell us why you included only one of the above quotes in your reply, instead of both? Might it be because there is a least one synapse in your head left that fired up and made you aware of the contradiction, but you chose to go ahead anyways?

Really, your tactics are really sad. But then, go ahead, you may drive more people away from that fairy tale that your religion is. After all you succeeded with that in two instances already.

You are really a poster child for what horrible things religion can do to people.

Greetings,

Chris
 
You're entitled to your opinion. But nowhere does it definitely say when the animals were formed in relation to man except in Chapter 1. The writer could have been referring to when the animals were formed in the previous chapter or he could be talking about the animals "specific to Eden". He was talking about Eden at the time, see Genesis 2:8 and Genesis 2:15 -- He's talking about Eden.

If God creates plants on Day 5 in Chapter 1 and then starts talking about Eden in chapter 2 and says I will create plants for Adam. He is not necessarily talking about creating plants for the first time. If I say God has formed plants in my garden in the desert. That does not mean there aren't plants elsewhere in the world that have already been created by God. Now if the bible said ("before" God ever created the "first" animal in the "world" he created man) then you would have an argument.

And given what was already said in the previous chapter 1, any subsequent verses where ambiguity exists should be interpreted in the direction of what was said in Chapter 1. There is no clear contradiction in my opinion, if you disagree so be it.

Why do you assume a unitary author for both chapters? Do you have any evidence to support this?
 
Yes, but that order of events is based on an assumption by welshdean, and not the actual literal text. There are no words "after" or "before" in the text, those are welshdean's words.

Which just goes to show why your apologetics are so appalling.

The Biblical text clearly demonstrates that one of the distinctions between Genesis version A and Genesis version B is the obvious discrepancy between the order of events.

If you can't even admit that, and instead resort to "Nyah, Nyah, it doesn't say before or after," then your arguments have no credibility (not that they ever did, but one can always hope for a first time :rolleyes: ).

GB
 
DOC said:
He is not necessarily talking about creating plants for the first time. If I say God has formed plants in my garden in the desert.
Having lost faith about a zillion posts ago in this thread, reading silly rubbish like this takes on a new meaning.

DOC, who is talking about "creating plants?"
 
You're entitled to your opinion. But nowhere does it definitely say when the animals were formed in relation to man except in Chapter 1. The writer could have been referring to when the animals were formed in the previous chapter or he could be talking about the animals "specific to Eden". He was talking about Eden at the time, see Genesis 2:8 and Genesis 2:15 -- He's talking about Eden.

If God creates plants on Day 5 in Chapter 1 and then starts talking about Eden in chapter 2 and says I will create plants for Adam. He is not necessarily talking about creating plants for the first time. If I say God has formed plants in my garden in the desert. That does not mean there aren't plants elsewhere in the world that have already been created by God. Now if the bible said ("before" God ever created the "first" animal in the "world" he created man) then you would have an argument.

And given what was already said in the previous chapter 1, any subsequent verses where ambiguity exists should be interpreted in the direction of what was said in Chapter 1. There is no clear contradiction in my opinion, if you disagree so be it.

I don't think even you believe this nonsense.
 
You're entitled to your opinion.
DOC, it isn't opinion. It's simple language comprehension. If you wish to argument that there is not an implied order, you must refer to the original language to make that argument.

But nowhere does it definitely say when the animals were formed in relation to man except in Chapter 1. The writer could have been referring to when the animals were formed in the previous chapter or he could be talking about the animals "specific to Eden". He was talking about Eden at the time, see Genesis 2:8 and Genesis 2:15 -- He's talking about Eden.

If God creates plants on Day 5 in Chapter 1 and then starts talking about Eden in chapter 2 and says I will create plants for Adam. He is not necessarily talking about creating plants for the first time. If I say God has formed plants in my garden in the desert. That does not mean there aren't plants elsewhere in the world that have already been created by God. Now if the bible said ("before" God ever created the "first" animal in the "world" he created man) then you would have an argument.

And given what was already said in the previous chapter 1, any subsequent verses where ambiguity exists should be interpreted in the direction of what was said in Chapter 1. There is no clear contradiction in my opinion, if you disagree so be it.

This isn't just opinion. It's wild speculation tied together with gossamer fantasies.

This statement is even more wrong than your claim that there was no fiction from the 1st/2nd century. And that is saying something.
 
The bible is not a science book, it deals with God's relationship with mankind and spiritual truths, which is probably why it only devotes about 2 pages (out of 1400 pages) to the creation of man and everything in the universe..
And yet you go to great pains to try to show how the bible got the science right (sort of) despite the fact that it got the science wrong (completely).

And personally I don't really care much about how God created the universe and how long it took to do it. I'm more concerned about my life and where I and others are going to be in eternity.
So why are you trying to make the biblical text fit the science? Looks to me like you care a lot.
 
You're entitled to your opinion.

But you are not entitled to make up total bollock. AGAIN, the accepted reason there is two genesis, is that one is older (the second one), and was left in, and the first account, is a newer more prepped up one. They are NOT by the same "author", and they aren't even original, they were taken from neighborhood religion myth.

But I bet I'll get ignored by you. Too hard to asnwer this, that goes agaisnt your worldview, so you will simply ignore it.
 
The Magic Sky Fairy exists outside of time and space, so he can do things before he says he is going to do those things.
 
You're right about one thing, it isn't a science book. That's why it needs to be kept out of science classes. Glad we agree there. How do you know god created the universe? What if he inherited it from an another god before we came around? How do you or the bible know we aren't a pan-galactic hand-me-down? And eternity? What evidence do you have there even is such a thing? Can god microwave a burrito so hot, that even he can't eat it?


Interesting theory, there.

So an Ancient God made the Universe, then lost it in a poker game to the Jewish/Christian/Moslem God perhaps?

Who since then has been trying to puzzle out what to do with it?
 
Wow, are you really that dishonest? Everyone can clearly see the order of events there. Let me repeat here, just for you, in the hope that you can follow the order of events:



This clearly speaks of animals made first, and after that, once he was satifsied with it, he made humans.

Compare that to this:



This clearly tells us that humans were made first, and then he decided to make animals, so that the poor guys won't be alone.

Really, stop twisting facts just because you don't like them. Your dishonesty is really disgusting, and only gets worse each time you post such crap.

Didn't your bible say something about lying? But then i guess you have not read it up to that point either.

Greetings,

Chris


Chris - I think you're forgetting that lying for Jeebus to evil Atheists (and folks who support the wrong religion ("not Mine" in other words) is not only allowable but mandatory...

:)
 
Last edited:
Reason "dumb' The new testament writers couldn't agree. Reason "blah blah blah" : you can embarrass yourself and still be wrong. Yeah, its called being an imbecile. ???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom