Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

It appears the dropping brain damage includes your inability to comprehend time. C&A are AFTER being kicked out. Every bible hugger declares they were the first children of A&E -- you are stuck with that story else you can claim to be a new prophet with a new revelation. If so I demand to know your authority.

Yes, Cain and Able are after the fall, how is that relevant to who Cain had children with? Did I miss something here? Are you getting your conversations confused?

But since you agree to LATER ON lets run with that. Do you have the least comprehension of the consequences of totally inbred incest? I assume you are not.

Do you know why incestuous relationships can sometimes lead to birth defects? Obviously not if you think it would have led to them back then.

sons and daughters of A&E must have migrated to Nod many generations before Cane was born.

Why? The text never says Cain was not married when he left to go to Nod. It simply says he conceived his first child while in Nod.

WHEN did they migrate from Eden to Nod? There are many other problems which your explanation must address although the absence of a breeding population that applies to A&E also applies to Nod.

…only if you do not actually know why incest can cause birth defects; it would not have been an issue for them.

Is this not enough for you crazy young earth creationists?

No, your displayed ignorance of basic genetic principles is not enough for me to change my position.

Looking for contradictions in the bible is like looking for contradictions in the Wizard of Oz. Neither describe real events. What difference could it possibly make?

You’re the one who claimed you could find such contradictions, not me; so you must have thought it was relevant. The fact that you insist on changing the subject is quite telling though.

Of course you will find an excuse to explain why no matter how many times I demand the Chapter and Verse you will never produce a single one mentioning Eden. I often wonder what it is like after I challenge these nonsense claims when believers go rushing to their bibles and learn I am correct.

Well numerous verses make it quite clear that Humans are sinful from the time they enter into existence, and Romans chapter 5 is very clear that this sinful nature entered the world through Adam’s transgression in the Garden. Have you ever actually read the Bible or do you only get this stuff from second rate atheist websites and blogs?

More evidence believers are crazy and stupid and ignorant and down right uneducated. I think it is good you are letting your hair and telling it like it is as now there is no question you are crazy, ignorant, stupid and uneducated.

Personally attacking me doesn’t prove your position any. However, I find it interesting you’d call me uneducated and ignorant when in fact you have made it very clear that you are ignorant of how recessive mutations actually occur and the fact that Darwinian theory also teaches that all mankind is the result of incest (we know that all modern humans descend from one single women, therefore her children had to mate with one another). Oops!!

Why might you be so concerned that there are contradictions in stories about the Land of Oz?

That’s a fallacious appeal to ridicule, someone is getting very desperate.

There is no difference between Oz and the OT in this matter.

There’s no difference between Oz and the Old Testament? One is a place and one is textual divine revelation, I do not know if I have ever witnessed such an egregious category error.

Why are you so concerned that you work to claim there are no contradictions in stories about the same things that never happened? That does not appear reasonable.

They did happen though, so that point is irrelevant too.

This is not a debate.

Well it has been a bit one-sided (kudos to John V), but we can still call it a debate if it makes you feel better.

4004BC is contrary to all observed facts about the universe. Are you claiming you did not know that?

Are you claiming you didn’t know that even if that were the case (which it is not) it is not an example of a logical contradiction?

Logic depends upon validated and observed premises being true before applying the rules of logic.

That’s totally incorrect, sound deductive logic is not contingent upon observation (inductive reasoning). I find it a bit amusing that in the very same post that you called me stupid and ignorant in I have to take the time to correct your fundamental and rather amateurish blunders.

It is always the date not the fact. It always has been. Because science has moved the date back a tad from the bible begat age does not change the fact that infallible divine revelation is not just wrong but ridiculous.

Why are you trying to use science (which we know is a fallible source) to try and prove that scripture is not infallible? That’s so small time.

Imagine a believer who pretends not to know that bloodline and genealogy does not mean bloodline. Imagine a believer pretending not to know that adoption is not bloodline. Imagine a believer claiming there was no word for adoption in ancient times else it would have been used. Imagine the bastard son of Mary. I have nothing against bastards but believers do not seem to like the word.

Are you unaware of the fact that if a person was adopted in Hebrew culture they became part of their adopted father’s genealogy? Were you really not aware of that? You got caught again.

As to the father's side of a real genealogy, what is the bloodline of your god and why does it have blood? Words are words. Words have meanings. They had the same meanings when they were used in the past as they do today.

Asserting that words have the same meaning today as they did in the past is an absurd statement (the word ghost today means something completely different than it did 500 years ago). Luke is not referring to God’s bloodline, but rather Jesus’ adoptive father Joseph’s genealogy, when children were adopted, just as today, they are considered part of the families genealogy (genealogy simply means a family’s history). You got caught making another blunder and now you’re just grasping at straws.

Joseph was not in his bloodline and not manner of adoption can make it so and at the time adoption NEVER meant anything like it.

Luke never uses the word bloodline, he uses the term translated as genealogy.

But you will continue to pretend people 2000 years ago did not know the difference between adoption and bloodline -- because you are stupid.

Attack me all you like, but that just makes you look sillier whenever I have to correct you (which apparently is quite often).

As you do not have Chapter and Verse on this adopting I DEMAND to know why and how you claim to have the authority of divine revelation as to this otherwise unremarked adoption. I want to know the exact basis upon which you claim the authority to add to divine revelation. Please be very, very specific in your response.

Oops! I caught you making another erroneous claim. Matthew 1:18-25, 13:55

I do, I breed rottweilers and incest (if that's what you want to call it) brings with it a great risk of bad genes being doubled up, but the same applies for the good genes. The problem is we do not know which ones may be recessive, thus the real risk of inbreeding. Sometimes we risk it to try and save a quality that's very desirable for the rottweiler breed, but only after observing a few generations to try and determine if any bad genes have become progressive.
So now to Cain and Able including their siblings, oh yes mom and dad too. Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve were created perfect, no genetic mutations, no genetic problems at all, therefore no problem with intermarriage at this point, because their offspring are not effected by genetic problems. Apparently this did not become a problem until God gave a commandment that brother, sister and cousins were to no longer marry. Until the flood people were living hundreds of years and not just the ones named, so apparently they were having few genetic problems.
Now, even if Cain and Able were Adam and Eve's first two born (I personally do, but that doesn't make it necessary) the scriptures say nothing about their ages when Cain killed Able, they could have been a couple hundred of years old. This means Adam and Eve could have had a hundred or so children, but not only that their children could have had many children and their children's children could have had many children, man were getting into a lot of people in just a couple hundred years. So yes these children had plenty of time to move around, even to Nod, and establish new areas to live in. No big deal here, at least for those of us who had doctors with good hands.

Ah man GC! You beat me to this; I was going to let him wallow in his ignorance a bit longer before I explained how genetics works. Well played though sir!

A little interesting factoid though, the historian Josephus wrote that according to Hebrew oral traditions Adam and Eve had 33 sons and 23 daughters.

The scripture is not clear on anything. Obviously. There wouldn't be professions all over the world dedicated to decyphering its cryptic messages in an attempt to fit it to modern science. At any rate, I understand why you would dodge this one. It's probably safer.

I think scripture is quite clear. I didn’t dodge anything, you dodged my initial question. You claimed that the existence of the Christian God is contrary to what we know about the Universe, I want to know how. If you misrepresent the Christian God in any way I’ll be sure to let you know. Now are you going to back that claim up any?

Is Of course! Look at Newtonian physics compared to Relativity. But, it's a heck of a lot more than anything offered by Christianity, and even the flimsiest of scientific theories are verifiable and falsifiable. That's the point of science!

Wait, so you are trying to use a source that you openly admit is fallible to try and prove a source is not infallible? How is that any different than trying to use the testimony of a person who openly admits to being a liar to try and prove that another person is also a liar? That’s not possible.

Don't have to, the qualifying criteria is established from the manufacturer (funny thing about falsifiable claims...evidence) As long as mine meets the criteria, its a Toyota. I just need to know what my car would need to have in order to qualify as a Toyota.

Me: How do you know your car was made?
You: Because Toyota made my car.
Me: How do you know Toyota made your car?
You: Because it has a sticker on it.
Me: Why does that sticker mean Toyota made your car?
You: Because Toyota said that’s what the sticker means.
Me: Why does it matter what Toyota says?
You: Because Toyota made my car.
Me. How do you know Toyota made your car?

Around and around it goes! That’s the problem when you invoke circular arguments, they do not lead us anywhere. Do you have any evidence that Toyota made your car that is not based on Toyota’s claims to have made your car?

This is just me having fun at this point by showing you that things can be logically justified as being created, and that such things can even be logically attributed to a specific creator among many possible ones. We're eons past the God hypothesis at this point.

No, not at all, your entire argument is based off of the claims made by Toyota to have made your car. Of course we have claims from God that He in fact made the Universe, so right now we’re on equal ground. You take Toyota’s word for it, I take God’s word for it.

Not so. With understanding and knowledge of what qualifies as a Toyota, this is not an issue. Are you pretending to ignore this or do you take money they give you just hoping its not counterfeit?

Without seeing Toyota making your car you are forced to take Toyota’s word that they indeed did make your car.

Yes. Logical Absolutes are universal and immutable apart from any subjective experience. Something either is or is-not. Can't be both at the same time in the same way.

How do you know that’s the case? Where did these laws come from? How can immaterial, immutable, and universal laws exist in a Universe that is purely material? Is their existence falsifiable?

This is the part that makes me actually feel bad for you.

Please don’t.

It's the very reason that modern science should not be stripped from schools. People grow up living in a shroud of ignorance and label it knowledge.

If you knew anything of my scientific education, background, and profession you’d realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Since the 50's there have been hundreds of successful experiments that have produced the building blocks of life from that which had no life. Amino acids and protiens have been created using non living matter. This isn't even news breaking information, but you think you've delivered a death blow to our concepts.

Oops, you’re claim is not that life was created in a laboratory under controlled conditions billions of years ago (which synthesizing amino acids is not the same thing as synthesizing life), you’re claim is that life arose from non-life naturally, yes naturally. In order to support that claim, using your own standard, you’re going to have to point me to an instance where we have experienced this happening in nature (not in a laboratory)- or else you in fact are the one who delivered your own death blow. Proving something can happen in the laboratory (which has not even been done yet) is not proof that it in fact did happen.

It's just sad. All that exists in the universe is matter and energy.

Not true, according to you apparently immutable, universal, and immaterial laws of truth exist in the Universe as well.

Matter can and HAS been transformed from non-liviing matter to living matter.

When? Where? How? That’s quite the claim to so casually make.

Look up Abiogenesis.

I think you’re the one that’s going to have to do some more research on this subject.

Have you ever taken a Biology class?

Taken them…got my degrees…taught them.

Do you understand how common this knowledge is among people that search for answers instead of just taking the stupid ones handed out at church?

I caught you being inconsistent about your own standard, you claimed that we can only know what we can experience to be true, and now you are admitting that you believe life arose from non-life billions of years ago which is something we cannot experience to be true. You refuted your own position and I simply caught you doing it, do not get all whiney about it.

This had to be my favorite stupid thing you just wrote. Of course simply saying it is doesn't make it so.

Then stop merely asserting it.

But, combined with my knowledge of things that come out of the ground that are removed in their original state, and my knowledge of FORKS, if I pulled this from the ground at an excavation, it would be perfectly valid to infer it WAS A FORK AND IT WAS NOT REMOVED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE! Lol...YOU MORON!!! LOL!!!

That’s funny; you merely just tossed the same assertion out there, “Well it’s valid because I say it’s valid.” I want to know how you know that simply because a piece of wood looks like a fork to you makes it valid to infer that it was indeed something designed to be a fork? Is that question so difficult to answer?

Exactly like this!

So the Universe looks exactly like it should without a God because this is how the Universe looks? Nice circular argument.

Since there's no reason to believe otherwise you idiot!

This assumes that the default position is that there is no God; that has got to be the most philosophically unsophisticated position you have taken thus far, and that is really saying something. Even if there were no reason to think otherwise (which is not the case at all), it does not justify your position that there is no God governing the Universe, I was hoping you’d perhaps bring something of merit to the table to discuss but this philosophical blunder right here a removed all doubt that you are really small-time when it comes to the subject matter.

…if you wish to suggest otherwise, you'll need something intelligent to say, rather than trying to get me to argue with myself. Welcome to the burden of proof.

The burden of proof? Since you possess such a condescending heir, and seem to believe that you possess such a wealth of philosophical and logical sophistication surely you knew that both sides equally share the burden of proof when dealing with an interrogative such as, “Does God exist?” You did know that; please tell me you knew that?

You continue to ask questions that a 12th grade philosophy student would already understand. You need a library card and access to Google. Damn kid.

Well you must not know as much as a 12th grade philosophy student does since you conveniently dodged my question. I will ask it again, “How do you know that you can trust your ability to deductively and inductively reason?” I know you cannot answer that question, and I think you know that too, which is why you dodged it.

Of course it's falsifiable idiot! If you can come up with a good one that has any validity whatsoever and yet is STILL UNFALSIFIABLE then you have proved it falsifiable.

Did you really just type this? Do the laws of logic have any merit? How do you falsify them?

THATS WHY GOD FAILS, IT HAS NO RESULTS!

Science would be impossible if God did not exist, so all scientific empirical discoveries can be credited to God’s existence, I think those are pretty good results.

You poor idiot. Yes... 150 years of Abiogenesis. Jesus, do you have access to a library? What school district do you live in? It's sad.

Again, I asked for an example of it taking place in nature, not under intelligently controlled conditions in the laboratory, do you not have an example? I am sure you are also aware that self-replicating life has not been synthesized in any laboratory to date so your supposed evidence is also meaningless. I feel like a cat playing with a mouse right before he eats it, I can see what’s coming and obviously you are utterly clueless. It’s priceless.