What Do You See?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
chansen said:
That's hilarious. It just dismisses arguments by saying that science can't be trusted to say that stars came before the Earth, among other things.

http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/gen/1.html

And here is an online conversation between this guy and the creator of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.ca/2014/10/guest-post-apparent-contradictions-part.html
Click to expand...


You must realize chansen that gods point is fixated on crazy ... so that people cannot mentally process linearly ... thus bent space ...
 
What I don't get is why more Christians themselves aren't fighting back against the missionaries of crazy.
 
chansen said:
What I don't get is why more Christians themselves aren't fighting back against the missionaries of crazy.
Click to expand...

The enigma goes on ... as the religious would rather not know solutions ...

Love is like that ... good only in small bits and respites !
 
Pontifex Geronimo 13 said:
Not sure what you are talking about, but your answer should be here:
http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/
Click to expand...
HOw many animals did Noah take on the ark? THere are two descriptions, one is the two of each (GEn 6:19-20), another has 7 pairs of some animals (Gen 7:2-3). Simply because there are (at least) two different versions of the story that have gotten edited together into the final text.

Or another place where Scripture disagrees with itself (let's stay in Genesis). Was humanity created last (male and female together -- Genesis 1) or was the male human created first, then all the other animals brought before him and then the female created (Genesis 2)?

Or another (let's go NT this time) did Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth and have to travel to Bethlehem for the census then return to Nazareth (Luke's version) or did they live in Bethlehem then fled out of fear of Herod then moved to Nazareth to avoid Herod's successor (Matthew's version)?

These are discrepancies in writing that are considered holy. Can both accounts be right?
 
Perhaps all scripture is given to inspire and inform dialogue? A shared quest for common ground rather than a war zone with all sides claiming the inside perspective. Where there is respect we may find our way out of this mess and into a new possibility. It may mean letting go of what we have deemed essential and necessary.

Is it not written: "Behold, I am making all things new?"

George
 
GordW said:
Admittedly timelines in Genesis are difficult to follow (it was only after many times looking at the story that I realized IShmael was 13 (the age of Bar Mitzvah in Jewish custom) when Isaac was born and Sarah convinced Abraham to toss HAgar and Ishmael out on their ear -- which makes the story of Hagar leaving Ishmael under a bush seem a little odd) but I don't see anything in the text to suggest ISaac was that old. More than an infant most assuredly, but not a full adult.
Click to expand...
At the time of Isaacs birth, Abraham was 99 years old, Sarah was 90 and Ishmaal was 13. Genesis 17:1, 17 and 25.

Ishmaal was put out of the house around the time that Isaac was weaned, typically between 2 and 5 years of age

Sarah died when she was 127 years old. Genesis 23:1 a few years after the near sacrifice of Isaac.
Isaac would have been around 37 years old at this time, although the Book of Genesis does not give Isaacs age at the time of his binding.
Not everyone buys into this from what I understand, but the age of someone in their 30's is significant in the Bible.
 
Waterfall said:
At the time of Isaacs birth, Abraham was 99 years old, Sarah was 90 and Ishmaal was 13. Genesis 17:1, 17 and 25.

Ishmaal was put out of the house around the time that Isaac was weaned, typically between 2 and 5 years of age

Sarah died when she was 127 years old. Genesis 23:1 a few years after the near sacrifice of Isaac.
Isaac would have been around 37 years old at this time, although the Book of Genesis does not give Isaacs age at the time of his binding.
Not everyone buys into this from what I understand, but the age of someone in their 30's is significant in the Bible.
Click to expand...

According to one of my seminary profs, Isaac was a young man in his thirties.
 
Waterfall said:
At the time of Isaacs birth, Abraham was 99 years old, Sarah was 90 and Ishmaal was 13. Genesis 17:1, 17 and 25.

Ishmaal was put out of the house around the time that Isaac was weaned, typically between 2 and 5 years of age

Sarah died when she was 127 years old. Genesis 23:1 a few years after the near sacrifice of Isaac.
Isaac would have been around 37 years old at this time, although the Book of Genesis does not give Isaacs age at the time of his binding.
Not everyone buys into this from what I understand, but the age of someone in their 30's is significant in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. So he definitely was not a kid as often pictured. Makes the story all that more interesting since a guy that age would be able to fight back.
 
Mendalla said:
Very interesting. So he definitely was not a kid as often pictured. Makes the story all that more interesting since a guy that age would be able to fight back.
Click to expand...
Jesus didn't seem to fight back either as he carried the wood for the cross on his back.
 
Mendalla said:
Very interesting. So he definitely was not a kid as often pictured. Makes the story all that more interesting since a guy that age would be able to fight back.
Click to expand...

Yes - suggests that Isaac voluntarily went to the sacrifice in a similar way to how Jesus voluntarily went to the cross.
 
Pontifex Geronimo 13 said:
We are:
Click to expand...
The Qu'ran is no more ridiculous than the bible. And the people hurting Islam are a lot like the people hurting Christianity. I don't agree with blindly accepting and making excuses for Islam, no more than for Christianity. But the crazies who take each of these religions literally are literally killing their own religions. Fear and distrust can not be allowed to win, and that's what people like you are selling.

But many other Christians can't say that. Too many try to make themselves look impartial and criticize "both sides". And that's bulls**t. Literal religious beliefs are dangerous and stupid, and even Christians understand that, but they can't be seen agreeing with atheists.

Normally, I just mock these beliefs, because it's a good public service and it's fun. But every now and then the seriousness of the situation hits me.
 
And everyone seems to all together ignore the seriousness of the situation involving believers that are 'literally' and 'ritually' on the 'Anti-Christ Side' of the religious debates.
 









GordW -----interesting article-below -- you can read all at link below if your interested

unsafe says --
This is just a paragraph below that I picked as it reflects your post above about the animals ------Many claim there are discrepancies in the Bible but for the many that claim there is-- there are many who say there isn't ---if your reading the text properly and putting it into perspective --

There is one thing for sure ---without the Holy Spirit's guidance in scripture we are unable to put scripture in the right perspective and if we think we can do it on our own then we are deceiving ourselves -----

Alleged Discrepancies and the Flood
by

Eric Lyons, M.Min.-----http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=602

The biblical text, however, is rather easy to understand without giving up on the inspiration of Genesis, or the authorship of Moses: the clean beasts and birds entered the ark "by sevens" (KJV), while the unclean animals went into the ark by twos. There is no contradiction here. Genesis 6:19 indicates that Noah was to take "two of every sort into the ark." Then, four verses later, God supplemented this original instruction, informing Noah in a more detailed manner, to take more of the clean animals. If a farmer told his son to take two of every kind of farm animal to the state fair, and then instructed his son to take several extra chickens and two extra pigs for a barbecue, would anyone accuse the farmer of contradicting himself? Certainly not. It was necessary for Noah to take additional clean animals because, upon his departure from the ark after the Flood, he "built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar" (Genesis 8:20). If Noah had taken only two clean animals from which to choose when sacrificing to God after departing the ark, then he would have driven the various kinds of clean beasts and birds into extinction by sacrificing one of each pair. Thus, after God told Noah to take two of every kind of animal into the ark, He then instructed him to take extras of the clean animals. Similar to how Genesis chapter 2 supplements the first chapter of Genesis by giving a more detailed account of the Creation (see Lyons,2002), the first portion of Genesis 7 merely supplements the end of the preceding chapter, "containing several particulars of a minute description which were not embraced in the general directions first given to Noah" (Jamieson, et al., 1997).


This is what is included in the article -----
HOW MANY ANIMALS OF EACH KIND DID NOAH TAKE INTO THE ARK?
HOW DID NOAH’S ARK REST ON THE MOUNTAINSOF ARARAT?
WHERE DID ALL OF THE FLOOD WATERS GO?


 
I still enjoy the mental image of an angry and vengeful God trying to kill ducks with rain and flooding.
 
chansen said:
I still enjoy the mental image of an angry and vengeful God trying to kill ducks with rain and flooding.
Click to expand...
--Hi Chansen--So what's your point hear? The rain lasted 40 days and nights. The same time are Lord Jesus wandered in the wilderness 40 days and forty nights. The water stayed on the earth 150 days , as the Bible states. I believe as GOD said in His word , the ducks that wear not on the ark died.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top