Conflicting statements in the bible

[Tex]

I'm not claiming that. You cannot know that any more than "there are no aliens". Perhaps there is a skinny version of a rhino running around on some planet.

So you can't prove a negative!

But what if I were to say "I know there are unicorns" wouldn't you want proof? And good proof too.

Would "I read about unicorns in a medieval book which said they were real" be good enough.

And what of the dog heads?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-head

People thought these were real.

There was even a dog head saint.

in the Eastern Orthodox Church, certain icons covertly identify Saint Christopher with the head of a dog

I don't believe in a deity simply because the bible says he exists and have presented evidence for the existence of a deity. You simply limit yourself as what constitutes evidence.

And as for dogheads, Christians don't actually think they exist, nor did they ever. It's how they depict that specific human saint based on the life of said saint. From what I looked up underneath your wikiquote, a dog head means they are un-Christian. Christopher was un-Christian for the majority of his life and lived in "Canaan" with the "Canines". This applies also to the Vikings.

[Baalzebutt]

@ Mouse, no weaseling from me I asked you for more specific information, if you want do that then who truly is the weasel. I'm willing to take your challenge just be precise.

Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)

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.

Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.



Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)

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.

Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

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 the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Specific enough?

[Minimalist]

I don't believe in a deity simply because the bible says he exists and have presented evidence for the existence of a deity.

That's where you're wrong, Tex. Your own pious brain farts are not evidence.

[downbeatplumb]

I don't believe in a deity simply because the bible says he exists and have presented evidence for the existence of a deity. You simply limit yourself as what constitutes evidence.

Yes I prefer evidence to be real and verifiable.

And as for dogheads, Christians don't actually think they exist, nor did they ever. It's how they depict that specific human saint based on the life of said saint. From what I looked up underneath your wikiquote, a dog head means they are un-Christian. Christopher was un-Christian for the majority of his life and lived in "Canaan" with the "Canines". This applies also to the Vikings.

Well that's not what the professor of medieval history said in a 2007 documentary.

The "existence" of the dog heads was a problem with missionaries wondering if the should preach to them if encountered, could they have souls?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZUFsae5n4M

[Minimalist]

"Canaan" with the "Canines"

Proof - if any were needed - that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

[Statler Waldorf]

People who make supernatural claims conveniently frame them in such a way that they are in no way testable, reproducible, or observable by anyone else. Every single such claim can, in no way be distinguished, from a hallucination or a lie.

That’s not true at all, often large groups of people all experience the same supernatural event.

I am suggesting that you can believe in the existence of manufacturing plants because there are manifold independent ways to verify this. Going to visit one in person is only if you do not find the secondary sources acceptable. Furthermore, manufacturing plants are entirely rational ideas. Their existence does not conflict with what we know to be true about the universe.

So if I accept the validity of the sources giving account of God’s interaction with His creation I am justified in believing in God? How does God’s existence conflict with what we know to be true about the Universe? That seems to be quite the category error.

Religious claims, on the other hand, fail on both accounts. The ideas are pure fantasy, and it is impossible to prove otherwise.

So you assert, but I see no reason why that is indeed the case.

You can't just go visit God and watch him make things.

So?

An assertion which cannot be critically analyzed is worthless.

How do you critically analyze the assertion, “An assertion which cannot be critically analyzed is worthless.”?

An assertion which is specifically designed to be immune to critical analysis is certain to be a lie.

So the assertion, “I can trust my ability to critically analyze” is a lie?

Factor in the obvious agenda of the religious to make the assertion immune to criticism and the lie is obvious.

Obvious? To whom?

Yet, it strikes you as entirely acceptable to suggest that since we do not know exactly how life began, the answer must be the Christian God. "I don't know the answer, so here's the answer."

Where did I say that? I was poking holes in the fact that even though you do not know how life began you assert that it must have a natural explanation (which is not an assertion that can be critically analyzed).

Obviously not, because that is your stupid logic at work, not mine.

Then what valid and sound argument can someone make to prove their car was created? Give me an example (it’s not my logic by the way, I was actually borrowing your logic, so if you think it is stupid that’s not my problem).

It has to be possible to visit a manufacturing plant, firsthand, in order to logically believe their car was created. If someone claimed that cars come from a manufacturing plant which was was invisible and in no way detectable to anyone who didn't have faith in it, and there were explanations for the existence of cars which did not rely on such worthless assertions, believing in the manufacturing plant would be an idiot's job.

Let me get this straight, you’re saying that we cannot make simple design inferences based on specified complexity unless it’s possible to visit the source of such objects firsthand? So we cannot infer that the pyramids were built by Egyptians because we cannot go back in time and experience ancient Egyptians building pyramids firsthand? You’ve also trapped yourself here because you believe that life can come from non-life, and yet we have never experienced anything remotely close to this occurring naturally firsthand. You also are using the word faith differently than the Bible does, so that’s fallacious equivocation.

You do not need to do anything if you do not give a damn about supporting you claims.

I do not need to support claims that countless numbers of people have already proven for me, life is too short for that.

As to choosing from the list, one would think there is some place an equivalent website addressing them.

So you can’t choose one from the list? Is that because you know they all fail?

My issue of course was your implication that you know of no contradictions, as though the entire idea is new to you. If I were really playing this game I would start at the beginning and ask how Gen I and Gen II can have conflicting, infallible divine inspirations. If you really wish to play the game, start in the beginning.

I am still unaware of any actual logical contradiction in the Bible, so that claim still stands. You’re going to have to be more specific though, which portions of Genesis 1 and 2 are you referring to? For someone who claims to have numerous examples of contradictions you sure seem rather hesitant to present a specific case.

It takes balls to try to weasel out of your offer that way. Te Salude!

Asking for you to be more specific is not “weaseling” out of anything. It seems to me that you’re intentional vagueness is precisely that though. Give us specific verse numbers and how you think they contradict.

Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)

You shouldn’t fight Mouse’s battles for him, he’s a big boy. However, I appreciate you providing us with the verses to examine.

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.

God makes some animals and then God makes Adam, so far so good.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

That verse doesn’t actually say anything about when man and woman were created, just that they were both made in God’s image, and they were.

Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)

I do not see any contradiction in this verse compared to Genesis 1 in my Bible, can you point it out to me?

"25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” - Genesis 1:25-26 (ESV)

“Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.” - Genesis 2:18-19 (ESV)

I think it’s clear from the two passages, God creates the animals, God creates Man, God puts man in the Garden, God brings the animals that he had formed to Adam in the Garden to be named.

Where’s the contradiction there?

Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

Yes, and I see nothing in these verses that contradicts anything there.

Specific enough?

Yes, I appreciate you being specific about the verses you are referring to, but you’re going to have to be more specific about where you’re seeing a contradiction, I see no contradiction in the verses I provided from the Bible I own.

[Godscreated]

---

@ Mouse, no weaseling from me I asked you for more specific information, if you want do that then who truly is the weasel. I'm willing to take your challenge just be precise.

---

Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)

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.

Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Thanks for being more responsive than Mouse.
The order in these verses are correct as per the six days of creation. To this point in scripture there is and wouldn't be a contradiction.
Verse 27 in no way suggest a simultaneous creation of man and women, it's a gigantic stretch to even suggest that. At most besides the creation of humans we are told their gender.

Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

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 the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Specific enough?

OK, let's get something straight here, many on this site want to call chapter two the second creation instead of the same story in greater detail. It is the same story with detail added. You are treating this as if it is the same story (with contradictions), I do not know if you have claimed chapter one and chapter two as different stories before, I know Mouse has. So I'll assume you see it as the same story and explain it with that assumption.
Chapter one gives a day by day outline of creation, then chapter two gives some details of what God was doing without doing it chronologically. This should be something everyone that's written a paper would know. So chapter two is only for detail and chapter one is chronological. The only possible chronology in chapter two would be the creation of Adam and Eve.
Thanks again for the specific verses.

[Minimalist]

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Yep. G-C. You certainly do have your head shoved firmly up your ass, as always.

So your "god" made man and woman and then told them to start fucking before he did anything else but YOU decide it does not mean what it says. Do you have a bible according to G-C kicking around somewhere? You have an amazing capability for self-delusion.

I'm surprised you aren't locked up in a padded cell for your own protection.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

OK, let's get something straight here, many on this site want to call chapter two the second creation instead of the same story in greater detail.

The same story with different detail. You can't get much more specific than changing which comes before the other in one and reversing the order in the other.

[John V]

OK, let's get something straight here, many on this site want to call chapter two the second creation instead of the same story in greater detail.

The same story with different detail. You can't get much more specific than changing which comes before the other in one and reversing the order in the other.

How about the same story from different points of view? Chapter 1 would necessarily be given by revelation, as man doesn't show up til near the end. Chapter 2 at some point seems to switch to Adam's point of view (consider particularly the aside on gold in v12).