in this thread, http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=41525 , zandore brought up the supposed contradiction between Gen 1 and 2 concerning the creation. i replied:

zandore replied:

why is what i said wrong? ancient hebrew verbs did not have different forms for different tenses like modern languages do. verb tense must be determined from the context of the passage. given the context of the first chapter, it would probably be more correct to render "formed" in the perfect past tense as "had formed". the NIV, ESV, and the Darby translation do render "formed" in the perfect past.

Something is right.

Besides, Genesis 2:18-22 is talking about how God gave Adam a mate.

Basically, the verse(s) say "Adam was alone, he named all the animals and tried to find company in them, but there was still something missing."

The words " and formed" means it already happend. Otherwise it would say "so God formed" The scripture is just showing that even all the animals were not company enough for Adam. So, God gave Adam a wife.

You can even see the in the authorized KJV it says above Genesis 2:18...

"God creates a wife for Adam"

nice of that god to be deciding what role a woman will take!

what if she does not want adam?.... well i can guess how the god would smite her given his other smitings.

good to have you around amal to warp and twist the words of the bible to fit your needs! as they say about religion: if the facts don't fit, alter the facts or the text to make them!

cheerioioiouoio......

Well, then thats just too bad. What if Adam didn't like Eve?

I don't "warp and twist the words." It's called reading comprehension.


I am altering nothing.

reading comprehension? or reading what you want there to be?


(yes, i know it could go either way. people could also read the thing in a way to discredit it)

when i meed a cud chewing rabbit or talking snake i will reconsider my stance!

by the way, what is the answer as to why, if the bible supports evo, christians have not been teaching evo for 2000 years? even more perplexing, why so many of them fight evo "tooth and nail" so much to even put forth that psuedo-science make-believe garbage called intelligent design?

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds in 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. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the mans ribs (or side) and closed up the place with the flesh." (Genesis 2:19-21, NIV)

Its just saying how there were animals at the time, but they were not suitable for Adam.

Where does it talk about a "cud chewing rabbit?"

As for the serpent, Satan could have taken control over it.

Evolution can fit in the Bible. But the Bible does not come out and tell us in every little detail.

ah... falling back on abiguity again! (well thats a change from the appealing to authority route anyways)

still you did not answer the question:

Hmmm.... I thought I did.


Therefore, it cannot be taught directly from the Bible, simply because there isn't enough detail.

I don't necessarily fight evolution. However, I do question it. But I have even questioned some parts of the Bible.

Are you going to answer my question now?

Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Source

amal: you are funny.

if the bible meant reflection it would have said reflection, not cud! unless of course it was a big fat MISTSAKE!

There may not have been a Jewish word for "refection."

Besides, it says that refection has the same principles as "chewing cud."

"Raise up what has been swallowed."

raise up means something different than poop it out and eat it again!

i love your loose intererpretations! i can do it because i see the book as baloney!.... well...

using your freedom of interpretation i have concluded that jesus was a cross dressing hermephrodite! (who really did love his fellow man)

What if it poops in it's mouth?

Hey, I didn't know this answer to this one. Thats why I used that website. However, I think what they say makes sense, in this subject anyway.

No, this is not true. Remember "Davinci Code?" It says Jesus banged Mary-Magdelene (sp). So, I highly doubt Jesus wore skirts. Besides, they wouldn't have gone well with his beard. Duh.

in the world of "interpret to mean what you want it to mean" anything goes!

i thought you didn't agree with the davinci code?

This is a stupid argument to begin with. Geneis came from the Book of Jubilees and within it it contains a much more detailed account of the Nephillim, the fall of the angels, and well, Enoch's actual book. Enoch PRECEEDED GENESIS. Does that register!? Now, Genesis, therefore isn't the first book of th Bible. Enoch is. Eoch, the first prophet, and the first to write, was told DIRECTLY BY GOD, about the creation of the Earth, and was therefore the FIRST account of Creation. The second account, in Jubilees-turned-Genesis, was told secondhand by an angel (I think it was Raziel) to MOSES. YES, THAT FAR ALONG. Moses. After flood Moses. And that account has now been cut to bits and called 'Genesis'. So, if there in fact are any condradictory parts, it is because someone screwed up while cutting and pasting and broke the rules while doing so.

sarcasm.

good thing ashley is here to clear the thing up!

yup, musta been bad editing! thats why the bible is so messed up!

well at least we have admission of its fallibility.

*whew*

LOL, ahh had to do it, you know me lol

As for the fallibility of th Bible, if it is in any way fallible, it's at the hands of man. Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the editor! lol

I think we should shoot everyone.

one of the very few things i ever wanted of a bible backer was the admission that because it was written and translated by man, it was fallible!

(bible literalists drive me bonkers)

Amalgamut, put the gun down, take a deep breath, we'll get you through this lol

Yes, the translation is also another problem with the Bible, like where one version says Abyss, and other of the 50,000 other versions says 'big hole in the ground with no bottom'. And they're both English versions! lol

The main reason why I protect the Bible (meaning, saying it does not have error) is because if I say it has error, then the next line out of the skeptics mouth will be "well, how do you know the whole thing isn't an error?"

Well, the original texts aren't flawed. They followed a rule then, brought down by God. God didn't initially like the idea of man reading and writing, fallen angels taught it first, and then God allowed Enoch to write 366 books (I'd love to know where the rest are). When He did so, He gave him a law that said Biblcal texts MUST be written in one long word, hence the term 'The Word' or the Logos. There were no spaces, no punctuation, no verses in the original texts, just one word. If one letter was misspelt the entire text was considered corrupt and disregarded. One letter. So, technically, the current Bible, put together by Romans, is in breach of that law.

And there was a reason for it. When the angels were teaching man to write with ink and paper (Papyrus) the charge was this, that 'Man's faith will be changed by the use of ink and paper' as taught by the angel which did so. And, it has.

So, it's not the original texts which are fallible, it the translations/changing of them which is.

So, you are saying that there are 364 more "books of Enoch?"

Currently there's 2, 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, and there's a 3 Enoch which is said to be a Hebrew Version. There's also 'The Book of Watchers/Giants' in the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. There's a few of them around, but no, nowhere near all of them.

Oops - posted in wrong thread - I don't know anything about this - so sorry

We forgive you MM lol

Paraprhase:
"Even though I am aware that there are >>SOME<< errors in the book, I will defend it in its entirety, because if I admit that there are errors, someone will question the accuracy of the rest of the book"

Does that mean that, in defending the errors you know of, you will use any arguement? Twist language to conform to what the errors state? Deceive others by chanting "it is infallible"?

Wouldn't it serve your purposes better to admit to the flaws, and move on? To my mind, if you defend something that you know is wrong, and then are found out, it casts a shadow over your other arguements.

Example: If a Police Officer is found to have perjured himself (lied under oath), ALL of he current cases, and prior court cases are reviewed. The logic being that if he has lied to get a conviction >now<, then he has probably lied before.

well that didnt take very long to go off topic.

@jmpd1:

exactly!

and to add:
if people insist the bible must be 100% word for word correct, it just makes the faith look weaker when we say "look at error X" and they try to wiggle some alternative explanation to uphold infallibility!

in comparison, if they admit the book can be prone to errors, but that does not negate the message, we have a much harder job on our hands. i prefer to question the message rather than the literal. if i "win" any bible argument i want it to be on true merit and not because someone translated a word to the wrong tense!

and to ashley:
you will note i go after the NT (christianity) pretty hard but don't touch the torah (or not very much anyway). the reason for this is i admit the ancient jewsish people had knowledge that still stands up against today's current knowldge. i think judaism was the last of the great religions prior to some sort of human setback. how many of these setback events have occured i am not sure. i do think that the cultures leading up to around 2000 years ago were far more knowledgable than many give them credit for.

this is also why christianity is the most flawed of religions (on record), because it was the first of the restart phase of this cycle. as such, it was again a primative religion born in a time of unrest which because of the uncertianty led to the false idolization of a man (jesus). this later became the elevating of a man to a god. IMO flawed, flawed, flawed! in the historical context of the mythology that is why muhammad was necessary, and i see islam as a more complete religion than christianity. (as i have said before, christianity is the dark horse)

I have never "twisted the text." I never said the bible has errors. If I found something that I thought was "error" I would study the scripture more and get the full meaning. I can honestly say that I haven't found anything in the Bible that I would consider "error." If someone comes up to me and points to an error, I study the text. Besides, the only "errors" that would be found would be very slight translation tidbits. Such as the Hebrew word for "evil". People think God doesn't send "evil" spirits, and in certain verses it says God sends them out. The word "evil" in Hebrew means 15 different things. It is not the same "evil" that is used by Satan, or a murderer. People look at this and yell "error!," however, the text is correct and there is no error if you simply look more in depth to the scritpture, and into the Hebrew language.

I don't defend something I know is wrong.

I'm not lying.

My main point is when someone says there is an error, I don't agree without studying the text. I look at the text, and study it and I find that there is no error. I don't simply say "yeah it could be" without looking at it first. The second I don't look at the text and take the easy way out and say "yeah it could be an error" is the second that the skeptic says the whole thing is an error. I have yet to be shown what I would consider an "error."

@amul:

not twisting things: is that like how you interpreted "bringing up" as in our cud chewing rabbit conversation to be the equiv of pooping it out and re-eating it?

naw, you don't give wide margins, or allow for selective interpretation now, do you?

Did you not read the post I had on this? All "chewing cud" means in this scripture is "to bring up." Do you honestly think the Hebrews knew that "chewing cud" meant to eat your food, then puke it up to digest more of it by chewing more, and so on? Do you think they knew the entire process of "chewing cud?" No, to them it just means "to bring up."

Besides, in the definition of "cud" could be used for a human...

cud [kud]
n
1. zoology food chewed twice: partly digested food that cows and other ruminants return to the mouth, after it has passed into the first stomach, to chew again as an aid to digestion
2. something continuously chewed: something that is chewed repeatedly, such as tobacco (informal)

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I chewed tobacco before, so technically I was "chewing cud."

Secondly, if this were an error does this completely discredit the Bible?

I don't think the Holy Spirit would have wanted the author of this book to say "the rabbit eats its own poop, therefore it is an unclean animal." "Chewing cud" is a much more professional word to use here.

it is an error! and it does prove there are errors in the bible!

it does not disprove the entire text but it does show the book is not to be taken as 100% accurate and as with all texts MUST be questioned and stand up to scrutiny.

the parts that stand up to scrutiny are perfectly fine. the underlying messages (some of them) are perfectly fine!

the man-god silliness and the cud-chewing rabbits have to go to the recycle-bin though!

See? Thats the thing. Jesus was not an error.

not a textual error, but an error of the initial followers of him to have in their times of uncertianty (they beleived the end of the world was imminent) to have turned so furverously to a man as to have made a false idol of him and even proclaimed him a god!

Well, if Jesus was an "error" then these people who followed him went to alot of trouble to write his teachings down.

They must have all been drunk and stoned, and trippin' x.

Also, Christianity is the biggest religion. This should give it some credibility.

there is a difference between the man's teachings and treating him as an idol!

you could enjoy the music of john tesh, or you could worship him, build a shrine to him in your house, and mold your life around his music!

funny reference to the dunk and stoned given that christianity is the "don't worry, get high" religion born of the beginning of the most recent restart cycle of humanity!

now don't go appealing to numbers! the number of people that do something says nothing of its validity! (you have to stop with the heavy applications of classical faulty logic)

Jesus is God's son. He is not an idol. He is part of the trinity.

so say the original followers that i say falsely raised a man to the status of a god!

not to mention i have discussed, briefly, how in doing so they invalidate the entire religion!

thats ok though......

and I though Islam was the worlds largest religion?

Could you perhaps provide the hebrew definitions of "evil", all 15 versions?

And regarding the rabbit/cud debate: First you said there was no such passage, then you "explained" it away. Of course, there were no biologists, or veternarians like we have today, but I'm sure that even the ancients could tell if an animal turned and ate its own feces. As to your object to how it would be written, rather than ""the rabbit eats its own poop, therefore it is an unclean animal."", it would be written along the lines of "Any animal that eats of itself" or some such wording.

@ Hyper: I think you are wasting your breath here. Amalgamut has already stated that if there is an error reported in the bible, he reads it until there is no error.


And, in closing, since Amalgamut refuses to acknowledge minor errors, instead engaging in verbal games of twister, I place less credence to his other arguements defending other issues. But that is just me.

You don't understand. The Jews believe that God will send his son down. They Jews however, did not think Jesus was the Messiah.

Jesus was the Messiah, but he wasn't "good enough" for the Jews, they wanted a leader that would take them to war and defeat their enimies. Jesus did not do this (nor would any man sent from God).

So, the Jews are still "waiting" for their "Messiah."

But what they don't/didn't realize is that their "messiah" had already come and gone.

so a god that wipes out entire tribes out of spite...
so a god that sends plagues upon man...
so a god prophesized as returning to engage in war (armegeddon)...

is somehow out of place with a god that would send a messiah that would lead a war?

CONSISTANCY...... now there is a concept.....

how about the only one of these things that is not like the others is a peace-loving brother-loving.....

jesus is the one that does not fit!

the jews got it right, you just won't admit it!

Kind of like certain forumites that are looking for a god that will "take them to war and defeat their enimies." in the end times, hmmm?

Funny how history has a tendency to repeat itself.
repeat itself.

No, they did not.

And why would I admit something I don't believe?

it starts with an e...........

we should really just have one debate and get it over with, if your game.