Why the bible is wrong...

[Baxter55]

I would have just loved to have seen Noah being stung a million times by thousands of angry bees, wasps, and hornets. Not to mention the ants... spiders... venemous snakes... angry badgers... KILLER bees (hahah poor bastard Noah)... fleas... ticks... horse flies... mosquitoes... I could go on and on and on. He must have been swollen to twice his normal size with stings and bites on top of shovelling shit 24/7 to keep the animals from getting sick and dying. Damn... what a man. Oh but I forgot he had his family with him too so that was a few extra hands. Then all the cousins made babies with no abnormalities and within a few thousand years these descendants were as diverse as the races we find across the globe today.

[Baxter55]

Oh yeah and the evidence of flooding is found globally because all land has risen out of the sea due to plate movements... lava flower... magna pockets pushing mountains into the sky... things like that. How do you explain the Grand Canyon which is the product of millions of years of erosion?

[clonemeister]

Regarding your statement about half-mammal half-dolphins, if these animals didn't evolve from land mammals, why is it that modern whales still have hip bones and the remnants of hind legs? Why would an oceanic creature ever have needed hips and hind legs? Btw dolphins are still mammals.

As for the satellite pics of the so-called arc, I've seen them and nothing about them was clear enough to tell what it is on ararat. Also one of the eye-witnesses claimed to have gotten a close enough look to see iron bird cages, yet man didn't begin smelting iron until well after the supposed time of noah. The flood I made referance to in my first post here was local and not global by any means. The fact that there are fossils of sea life thousands of feet above sea level has nothing to do with floods and everything to do with geology. There are parts of Crete underwater today that were above sea level not too long ago and it wasn't caused by any flood.

[cmbr66]

just a few quick questions for you guys.

1. do you or have you ever studied the bible. not just reading other articles about it .

2. do you belive in god.

[Baxter55]

1. Yes.
2. No.

[clonemeister]

1 yes (as well as the torah, koran, book of mormon, and others) how about you?

2 define god

[ubik]

uhhhhh religious talk..... about bible.

www.cygnus-study.com

about christianity: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/

[IGotTheCottons]

*sigh*

i now have a new mission. i've checked out a little of that first site. i must say he would convince me if i didn't know much about the Bible... but i do know a decent amount... enough that i feel i'd beable to tell him a thing or two.

it won't make a difference because he's so deeply committed to downing the Bible. he won't even consider the fact that he might be wrong. it's impossible to argue with someone who is so close-minded. so i'm going to go and give him an explaination to a good portion of his supposed errors. what he does after that i don't really care. i just want to show him that he can't be so sure of his supposed errors.

also, i find it ammusing how he claims to know so much about the Bible, but yet says he went from Christianity to Atheism? this ammuses me because the Bible says once you're saved, you're saved... it's forever. so i guess this just shows he wasn't <b>really</b> a Christian like he claims.

[phunkyphil]

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons
also, i find it ammusing how he claims to know so much about the Bible, but yet says he went from Christianity to Atheism? this ammuses me because the Bible says once you're saved, you're saved... it's forever. so i guess this just shows he wasn't <b>really</b> a Christian like he claims.

no offense, but thats an incredibly weak argument


can you explain exactly how its more likely that he wasnt a 'real christian', instead of the fact that he converted from christianity to atheism and contradicted the bible, using an argument other than 'because the bible is always right'?

[IGotTheCottons]

i wasn't trying to make an argument. i was just pointing out that the Bible says you are "sealed unto the day of redemption" when you get saved... meaning you will keep your beliefs.

what i'm trying to say is this... there's a reason why a person get's saved. it's not because they just say "hey, i wanna believe this now". they feel God working in their hearts and they accept salvation. you can't just change your mind after doing this. if he truely were saved, that would mean he did feel God working in his heart, he did accept salvation, and he wouldn't be claiming to be an atheist now.

[Baxter55]

To be saved = To stop thinking and start praying like a good tool.

[Digit]

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons
<b>spe-cies</b> n. pl. 1.) a distinct kind; sort. 2.) <b>any</b> of the groups of <b>related plants or animals</b> that make up a genus. - Webster's New World Dictionary.

there you have it. my previous explaination IS accurate. different species within the same plant or animal family can be achieved through selective cross-breeding.

ok, salt deserts are explainable by science... how about the giant clam that was nowhere near where the ocean should have been? there's a lot of fossils that science CAN'T explain without a global flood of some sorts.

2 quickie replies:
yes well done... you've got the dictionary out... although i did have a dig at this, it wasnt really what i was contesting tho... my point which i made rather poorly was that you cannot believe in creationism AND evolution. you may tell me yet again that u dont beleive in evolution but the changes in a family line ((do ya like my cunning avoidance of "species" and "animal type"?)) through selective breeding or through natural selection, are aspects of evolution.

sorry but it can be explained and several plausable theories have been given by science. any scientists that say it cannot be explained are simply either living with their heads in the sand or ignoring what goes on in the scientific community.

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons

i also know how plate tectonics work. i said that the pentagon developed a theory of how BOTH (the flood and plate tectonics) are possible. and there is pleanty of evidence supporting the flood... and i've given a decent amount of it.

forgive me for not beleiving EVERYTHING the pentagon tells us. I've heard the crap they said about cannabis. I've seen some of the released secret documants from years ago quite clearly depicting their lies.

but anyway... i never proposed the flood didn't happen

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons

i find it humerous how some people will be so quick to believe that living cells just magically appeared on the earth by some chemicles mixing together and being electricuted. then somehow managed to create itself extra DNA in order to progress higher in the "evolutionary ladder"... but yet they will refuse to believe that there's something else out there (God) that created us...

which "Great" scientific minds have you been talking to telling you it was "magic"? that explanation hasnt been used for hundreds of years! and it really doesnt take that much to start of life. its not as amazing and/or "miraculous" as some would want us beleive. If you know enough about the main ingredients (Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and to a lesser extent Nitrogen) you can see molecules of such suprising similarity to molecules that are considered "Organic" here on earth in some extremely unusual places, for example, it has been quite widely speculated that hydrocarbons exist in vast oceans (perhaps entire surface) on the moon called Io around Jupiter. and if conditions were right its not such a big leap to create an amoeba. unless of course you beleive the world really is 12,000 years old (or 8000... whatever... it's still a rediculaous concept), where this isnt even barely enough time to see an ice age through. ..."magical" hehe. ;p

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons

what i speak of (species changing through crossbreeding and such) is adaptation. true you can consider this a form of evolution... the evolution i don't believe in is bacteria progressing into invertibrates, progressing into fish, progressing into amphibians, progressing into reptiles, and so on and so forth... because it's IMPOSSIBLE. darwin himself even renounced his theory of that happening. in order for a change in an animals anatomy to happen like that it'd have to gain substantial amounts of DNA... tell me... how does DNA just appear out of nowhere in the nucleus of an organism? and also... maybe you could try explaining why it is we can't find the fossils to verify that this form of evolution actually took place? where's all the half mammal/half dolphins that drowned before dolphins learned how to evolove into aqautic mammals? there's far too many holes for evolution to be even close to accurate.

the reason darwin couldn't accept this was because he hadn't seen enough evidence for it, as you put it, the "half" species. just because darwin couldnt see the whole picture is no need to write is work off so quickly. Even einstien had a huge hole in his theory of special relativity and general relativity... he called it the cosmological constant, which we now now is accounted for by all the other 'matter' and energy (predominantly the popularly termed 'dark energy') in the cosmos. my point is... science is progressive. If one guy comes along and explains soooo much more than what was explained before, do not completely discredit him when it's discovered that he has not found out EVERYTHING. all scientists know, and will admit they do not know it all.
Evolution does seem to have 'gaps' in teh evidence, if you were to beleive the old theory of evolution that believes entirely in a steady and smooth transition between variations. it is now known that this is the smaller of the effects of evolution. the greater is that of the leaps and bounds. much like how humans (homosapiens/cromagnons)are here... a bi-product of the last ice age. adapt and survive, or stay the same and be beaten of by not only the new environmental challenges, but also by the new adapted competition. so why have we not seen so many of these inbetweens? because they ARE so much more rare.. because these states occurred over so much fewer generations, and so the remains will be harder to find.

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons

as for why God would choose to put the animals in a boat instead of just starting over... that's a good question, and i honestly can't tell you the answer to it. i'm not God, nor do i claim to understand why he does what he does.

hehe. yeah i love these types of answers. completely impossable to refute because of the very nature of the concept of god and how that concept has survived, and yet gives no real answer at all.

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons

digit, don't worry about it being 2 against one... i don't mind it just might take me a little longer to reply.

i personally only read the King James Version. not because of what a pastor tells me; but because i've done outside research and found out that the other versions were translated from a text that was taken from the textus receptus (the original greek and hebrew texts) and altered by 2 people who were deeply involved in the occult and hated the original texts. these versions were also <i>interpreted</i> by the translators. the KJV was translated word for word (meaning the took the original word and matched it with the closest possible english word).

sounds hauntingly close to some form of sectarianism there dude. but maybe i just took it the wrong way

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons

most people who are Christians will tell you they don't have all the answers (unless they're an idiot and think they do). i don't disagree that science plays a big roll, and has a lot of truth. but i do believe it is very flawed.

i'll post again on some of the differences between KJV and the more modern versions.

yay! so from what i said a little bit earlier and what you say there... humans dont have the answers! and to claim such would be an admitance to the rest of the world that you are to arrogant to search for the truth!

one thing i will say however is that most christians' "answers" are far more rigid and inflexible and (although i know this is still in much dispute) contradictory than that of the sciences.

i havnt read the rest of the replies after this because i'm not supposed to be here... things are happening wastedartist business wise.... so if im saying the same stuff someone already said forgive me....


..and damn that took too long (the whole of 30 minutes)... this is going to have to b the only thing i post tonight on the city. aw .... cya's soon.

[Zylark]

first to cmbr66 questions:

1: Yes, as a part of a religious history minor. funny, i got three minors, but no major... however most of the specific examples i've given here (with bible verses and such) are from articles i've read online. this is mostly due to that i don't own an english-language bible, only a norwegian one. well used at that.

2: No. my first recollection of "disobeying" authority was in kindergarden where i denied folding my hands and sing the table-prayer at meals... later i skipped all school outings for church, and at 15 when i was legally allowed to leave the norwegian church altogether i resigned my membership. my parents have never been really happy about this. infact my mother have since joined a charismatic-church that are pretty fundamentalist.

next, this thread was about how the bible is wrong, and not perfect. i've given out a few examples of direct discrepancies in the gospels themselves, which stem from the "perfect" king-james-version. the differences here are in the text itself, not differences beetween a religious outlook on the universe and a more scientific ones. so please, let the noah thing rest. i think we have all come to the conclusion that those who take the bible literally will never accept the observable world and it's history as portrayed by science. this is a "flaw" in the believer, not the bible.

oh, and i still haven't heard if cottons accepted the challenge i gave him regarding the ressurection story (see previous posts).

thanx for beeing in my corner digit. always good to have your sharp pen (ehm, keyboard) writing for your cause, not against

[ubik]

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons
*sigh*

i now have a new mission. i've checked out a little of that first site. i must say he would convince me if i didn't know much about the Bible... but i do know a decent amount... enough that i feel i'd beable to tell him a thing or two.

it won't make a difference because he's so deeply committed to downing the Bible. he won't even consider the fact that he might be wrong. it's impossible to argue with someone who is so close-minded. so i'm going to go and give him an explaination to a good portion of his supposed errors. what he does after that i don't really care. i just want to show him that he can't be so sure of his supposed errors.

also, i find it ammusing how he claims to know so much about the Bible, but yet says he went from Christianity to Atheism? this ammuses me because the Bible says once you're saved, you're saved... it's forever. so i guess this just shows he wasn't <b>really</b> a Christian like he claims.

And you obiviously can't be wrong? So if a person is a Christian he can not convert to any other religious philosophy? and have you ever even considered the option that bible is wrong? no because "you're so deeply commited to believe bible. and about that once you're saved you're saved correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't God himself point out between the lines that having other gods or bla bla bla you're an heretic and non believer and those who doesn't truly believe in his egoistic divinity aren't goin to be saved when the apocalypse comes?

[IGotTheCottons]

lol, people keep misunderstanding me...

through selective breeding or through natural selection, are aspects of evolution.

exactly... they're aspects of evolution. not evolution itself. just because you cross a white flower with a red flower and get a pink flower, doesn't mean that the pink flower evolved. it just means that the flowers DNA got mixed up to create another color. i know there's more to it than that... i'm just giving a simplified explaination.

the evolution i'm referring to when i say i don't believe in it, is the evolution that requires the addition of extra DNA to make the change. thus changing how many chromosomes are located in the cell, etc... all that stuff that has to happen in order to make a single celled organism turn into a human being. DNA doesn't just appear out of nowhere. by the way digit... i noticed you didn't respond to my other post regarding DNA just coming outta thin air.

and the point i was trying to make with the ark was that science has shown that it was possible. just like the big bang and evolution, it's still just a THEORY. i wasn't saying it definately happened the way the pentagon said it... just saying that scientifically speaking, the flood was possible... and that's all i'll post about the flood.

about those half-species... if evolution happened, and there were all these fish trying to go on land to become amphibians and reptiles (etc) there should be a lot more of them than the ones who actually made it... 'cause the half species still weren't equipped to live in their new environments and woulda died when they left their other one. thus making an abundance of these half-species fossils.

hey zylark, don't think i've forgotten about the gospels thing... i haven't had much time to do any reading, and might not for a while. don't worry though, i'll have a response for that as soon as i can get more time to do some reading. and also, a church that's both charasmatic and fundamental is impossible. charasmatic christian churches preach loads of false doctrine (ie. speaking in tongues, that you can lose your salvation, etc.). fundamental churches take it to the basics.

i just have to laugh at ubik's last response. no offence or anything... here's why i laughed.

and have you ever even considered the option that bible is wrong? no because "you're so deeply commited to believe bible.

a brief history. from as far back as i can remember until i was 15 i was atheist and HATED church and everything that had to do with it. at the age of 15 i got into paganism... was pretty intense, and trust me, it's NOT fake... then i started going to church. thought i was saved for 3 years, then just this summer realized i wasn't. i finally accepted salvation into my heart and not just my mind... so, did i ever consider the Bible to be wrong? yeah! but after seeing so much evidence of it being right i changed my mind. i've seen what God can do in people's lives... and that's one thing you CAN'T deny. no matter how hard you try, you can NEVER deny a changed life.

see, i believe what i believe because it's impossible for me not to. after the things i've seen and experienced there's no possible way that i could ever think what i'm believing is wrong. people can tell me all they want that the Bible is wrong, science says this, science says that, or whatever. but i can promise, had any one of you been in my shoes for the last 3 years, you wouldn't beable to deny the Bible either.