100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You dont see the contradiction? Genesis 1:3-5 (King James Version) King James Version "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Compared to: Genesis 1:14-19 (King James Version) King James Version "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." I went ahead and actually put the complete Vs. there for member's to read. Aside from photons and your rationalizations for the discrepancy. Can you tell me was it the first day, or the 4th? That is the question. The sun was not created until the 4th day. What gives? Im holding with Abras feeling. It is OUT OF ORDER to some degree. No, it doesn't work like that. You can't just ignore my arguments and repeat yours. Refute my arguments. Does light HAVE to come from the sun? If yes, then explain why. What about the meaning of the words are you going to skip right over that? If so, then argue for why they aren't relevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Sat 08/02/08 02:46 PM
|
|
Quote from Spider: 5) The first side to get three wins will be declared the winner.
I contend that Abra's position is tenable. So, Im going to vote with Abra. Aye that makes the first 3 votes. The lady with the heavyweight champion belt is wrapping it around Abras waist. Congratulations you are the winner! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote from Spider: 5) The first side to get three wins will be declared the winner. I contend that Abra's position is tenable. So, Im going to vote with Abra. Aye that makes the first 3 votes. The lady with the heavyweight champion belt is wrapping it around Abras waist. Congratulations you are the winner!  Do you know that words have meanings? win != vote I encourage you to look up both words in a dictionary. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 08/02/08 02:53 PM
|
|
Read what I wrote spider I clearly refuted your argument which was silly and about "photons". You just go off on tangents every time you are frazzled and become snippy like an ill behaved beagle dog. Its been noticed by a couple members thus far. Lets just put it that way. Its your "tell".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote from Spider: 5) The first side to get three wins will be declared the winner. I contend that Abra's position is tenable. So, Im going to vote with Abra. Aye that makes the first 3 votes. The lady with the heavyweight champion belt is wrapping it around Abras waist. Congratulations you are the winner! Do you know that words have meanings? win != vote I encourage you to look up both words in a dictionary. winner for that round! Abra 1 Spider 0 Round 2 begins! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read what I wrote spider I clearly refuted your argument which was silly and about "photons". You just go out on a limb every time you are frazzled and become snippy. Its been noticed by a couple members thus far. Lets just put it that way. Its your "tell". The sun was created on the 4th day. No question. On the first day, the Bible does not say the sun was created, it says that light was created. If light can exist aside from the sun, then there is no contradiction. Since light can exist aside from the sun, there is no contradiction. It's not hard logic to follow, but you will have to try. For there to be a contradiction, the Bible would have to say that the sun was created on day 1 and day 4, it doesn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Sat 08/02/08 02:56 PM
|
|
Read what I wrote spider I clearly refuted your argument which was silly and about "photons". You just go off on tangents every time you are frazzled and become snippy like an ill behaved beagle dog. Its been noticed by a couple members thus far. Lets just put it that way. Its your "tell". It's not a tangent, it's directly related to the argument. For you to be correct, one of two things must be true. 1) Light cannot exist without the sun. 2) The Bible must say that the sun was created on day 1 and day 4. Since neither of those propositions are true, there is no contradiction. I'm frazzled?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 08/02/08 03:15 PM
|
|
Spider you already lost anyway...how many times do I need to explain this? Look at those quotes. Read them. You probably already know them yourself. First it says on day one and then it says on day 4. You can’t really get away from that. Can you tell which day they meant to say? When was the sun created? Day 4. No wait, day one. We have already asked you to explain which day they are referring to exactly and you refuse to answer. Also, I already pointed out to you in my counter argument that it’s highly unlikely that these writers were really speaking in terms of photons. The bible is not "science heavy" in most cases, nor is it logical in all of its claims either. Besides, quantum physics and the like were not even invented yet. Not in terms of how we understand them today and how you are attempting to relay them. The common man or pheasants would not have been privy to such concepts. He would have understood "day and night" and it is explained in the bible itself in those terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider you already lost anyway...how many times do I need to explain this? Look at those quotes. Read them. You probably already know them yourself. First it says on day one and then it says on day 4. You can’t really get away from that. Can you tell which day they meant to say? When was the sun created? Day 4. No wait, day one. We have already asked you to explain which day they are referring to exactly and you refuse to answer. Also, I already pointed out to you in my counter argument that it’s highly unlikely that these writers were really speaking in terms of photons. The bible is not "science heavy" in most cases, nor is it logical in all of its claims either. Besides, quantum physics and the like were not even invented yet. The common man or pheasants would not have been privy to such concepts. He would have understood "day and night" and it is explained in the bible itself in those quotes. Krimsa, Turn on the lights in the room you are in. That light exists seperately from the sun. The Bible says that light was created on day 1, not the sun. The text doesn't say the sun. The Bible says that the sun was created on day 4. Before day 4, the light suffused the universe, but then God created light sources to make the light. If you wish to be the winner, then you are.  Krimsa It was nice talking to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faith is believing in the knowledge you have, when common sense tells you not to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 08/02/08 03:24 PM
|
|
Spider, I dont care about that crap. This contest you came up with is silly. Besides I didnt win, Abra did and fairly so. I understand the argument you are attempting to make but its really not based in anything that would make sense in the context of the time period we are talking about here. Im sorry but thats the truth. It appeared to me at least that in those quotes, they are not really taking into account what one author said before another picked up the pen, if indeed that is what took place. It doesnt mean the rest of the bible is incorrect or unreliable but so far, that Genesis needs an assistant editor...
Do you want another contradiction? Im making a list here. Im getting headache though because the bible print is too dam small. I got one of those motel ones... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider, I dont care about that crap. This contest you came up with is silly. Besides I didnt win, Abra did and fairly so. I understand the argument you are attempting to make but its really not based in anything that would make sense in the context of the time period we are talking about here. Im sorry but thats the truth. It appeared to me at least that in those quotes, they are not really taking into account what one author said before another picked up the pen, if indeed that is what took place. It doesnt mean the rest of the bible is incorrect or unreliable but so far, that Genesis needs an assistant editor... Do you want another contradiction? Im making a list here. Im getting headache though because the bible print is too dam small. I got one of those motel ones... You can use "http://www.blueletterbible.org/", you should be able to scale it up a bit if you have trouble seeing the words. I'll attempt to refute any contradictions you wish to post. If Abra believes himself to be the winner, then who am I to question that? I would like to point out one thing to you. I understand the argument you are attempting to make but its really not based in anything that would make sense in the context of the time period we are talking about here. You are committing a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question". Basically, you are assuming that the Bible couldn't have been written by God and using that as proof that God didn't write the Bible. The Bible says that "light" (not a light source) was created on the first day and that "physical light sources" were created on the fourth day. That sounds contradictory, but if an omnipotent God exists, it would be possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are reaching. It was decided and Abra just had a more convincing argument. He didn’t really argue, but debated. It is different. You tend to argue and sometimes become mean and very snippy in your responses. You should not direct things to your opponents personally (especially on a site like this) It can be misinterpreted.
Yeah I have bad eyes so thanks for the site. I mean small print is hard for me and bibles cram everything together. I also don’t really think it was written by God. I always assumed it was written by many men. So therefore, a lot of mistaken logic and grand, lofty assertions that don’t really hold up under scrutiny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are reaching. It was decided and Abra just had a more convincing argument. He didn’t really argue, but debated. It is different. You tend to argue and sometimes become mean and very snippy in your responses. You should not direct things to your opponents personally (especially on a site like this) It can be misinterpreted. Oh, I agree. I do have a bad temper, it's something I'm working on. I do disagree, I believe that my arguments and evidence trumped anything offered so far in this thread. For instance, Abra suggested that the people before the flood had been repentant and sought salvation. That's a great piece of logic and would have completely refuted my argument. The problem is, there is no evidence in the Bible to support that position. In a debate, every argument must be supported by evidence. To prove a contradiction within the Bible, the only evidence that would be acceptable would be from within the Bible. Personal experiences and personal beliefs are without merit in a discussion of "if the Bible contradicts itself". Since his argument was without evidence, it should have been thrown out. But due to the fact that those who did the judging were biased, the lack of evidence was ignored. I was in debate when in High School and I wasn't defeated once. I am logical to a fault and meticulous with my research. But I have to deal with the fact that not all judges are as unbiased as those I debated in front of in High School. So if the judges say that Abra won, then Abra won. I guess they need to vote on the contradiction that you posited. Then we can move on to more contradictions and more voting. If I lose each one, that's acceptable to me, I'm fine with only being the winner in my mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
davidben1
on
Sat 08/02/08 04:34 PM
|
|
We need a referee and a sexy woman who holds up those number signs also in here! and don't forget a bell that rings very loud!!! I'm preposing a debate, with rules and decorum. Not the childish insult matches which are so popular here. Rules which would include throwing out gratuitous assertions and strawman fallacies. Wouldn't it be nice for everyone to use their brains and articulate their positions with logic and evidence? Wouldn't that be nice instead of "Your religion is stupid" "No it's not" "Yes it is" "No it's not" ad infinitum? rules and decorum......which perception is one that will be the one that decide all other perceptions be as flawed? what rules are needed to be laid down if one has risen above personal feelings in their quest for the truth? childish insults......would not one have to believe others are as childish, therefore themself as more adult, to call others as childish? wouldn't it be nice ff all the world believed as I, and only questioned I in my PREFERRED MANNOR...........does not this show a demogog self pro-claiming way of seeing all things? does this match any wisdom ever seen as profitable for learning? wouldn't it be nice for all to use their brains and articulate........does not this show a perception of all others as brainless and having no articulation, or as stupid? is not this the biggest complaint of the poster? has not the professor done all that is said to be done by others, lol........ how is this perception better than another's? exactely what show that if the conscious mind stop at an accusing thought, and make an accusation, it cannot have found MORE truth than those that it accuse....... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t really care, its fine either way. I think abra put on a better debate (more classically trained) than you did simply because he didn’t lose his temper. You have a tendency to do that and at least now you admit it which is good to hear. It’s also okay to be wrong and learn from someone else. You can never lose focus nor insult others personally or drag their character into it. You will lose credibility that way EVEN when you are making the superior points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The book asserts that the world was formed and inhabited with all that it was inhabited by in 6 days, do you take this to mean that it was 6 literal days of equal 24 hour periods of time? If so and your answer is yes we will proceed from there, if not, then what do you believe the 6 time periods said to be days, to consist of as to time meant by the writer?? I will not address this. You didn't follow any of the rules or process I presented for this debate. I am not going to attempt to prove that the earth was created in six days, the evidence to support that position isn't strong enough right now. Please follow the rules and process so that we can do this fairly. Present a contradiction and I will attempt to refute it. that is the easy way out of the fundies who believe the Bible literally, but they don't have the logical answers to prove their point. That is when SOLA SCRIPTURA fails. I will answer as far as I understand the creation of the universe in six days: It's an allegory used by the sacred author to teach us that the Almighty God created the universe out of nothing. But ofcourse it was not done is six days. The intention to use the 7 days period was to teach that God rested the last day, and therefore the seventh day is the Lord's day, thus we also need to rest in that day, and offer that day to the Lord in gratitude for His love to us. or it was spoken as truth, and all other truths must be put with this one to make the whole picture, which cannot possibly be found by any one person alone, lol..... it was said that one day to god is as a thousand years to man...... this would be the same then as to say the time difference ratio between "mortal time" and "immortal or god time", and as such depicts "speed of accomplishment" as well..... if what "god" make in one day happens at the ration described within text, then each day of immortal time create at 10,000 times faster then men "percieve time" as, which certainally tend to prove what science believes to be as true about the age of earth and the length of time creation took, and if god was said to have no beginning and no ending, then this would allow the possibilitity that creation is still in progress even now, as there is no where it was ever stated that it was a process that ended, but rather even more implies that the ways of god do not change, and are never ending............ |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Sat 08/02/08 05:04 PM
|
|
Personally, without siding with anyone, I never saw the controversy of the two light sources as being anything other than what is stated in this debate as the light given off by the heavens in stage 1 [ meaning the light of the stars and galaxies and the rest of the universe] - and the light of the 4th stage of development of creation as being the 2 primary lights aka: our solar sun and the moon's reflection of that solar light. i don't care which you believe - just stating i, personally, have never taken it the way it's being debated here.
but then again i really don't believe in the two creation story theory either. I see that as only a retelling of the first account in a more detailed way, not a creation of everything again. i personally think there are no winners no matter which you believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and I must state (I’m probably dooming myself in this forum) that I am not a believer in Christianity. I tend to lend more credibility to science, evolution and not so much the bible itself. For one thing, I don’t really know anything about it. I’m reading it now just to offer up some kind of debate. So to me, it kind of looks brand new and I’m trying to understand what they are saying. The language is hard. Things are always "good" or they "cometh" or “creepeth". But I have found a few more inconsistencies. If anyone is interested? So bear in mind a contradiction or inconsistent statement to me might be because I do not fully understand what they are trying to convey or they just plain say one thing, then in another vs. say another. I’m sticking with the more obvious problems or illogical statements. Genesis is somewhat problematic to the untrained eye lets just put it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
krimsa,
Here's an English translated Bible you might find helpful. It gives the verses in plain English. It also gives nice summaries in boxes describing the major points of each chapter in a given book. http://www.easyenglish.info/booklist/frontend.htm Then if you want to see the King James version of the same book you can crosscheck it here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/ Christians love these debates because it gets eveyone reading the bibles. That's their secret mission behind debates. 
|
|
|
|
|
