The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Briefly:

"2. The Animal Passengers. In Gen. 6:19ff. Noah is instructed to bring mated pairs of every kind of bird, every kind of animal, and every kind of creature that moves along the ground. In Gen. 7:2ff. He is more specifically instructed to bring seven mated pairs (14) of clean animals and seven pairs of all birds.

I specifically asked you to define "kind" and show where you get this definition from.

a. The Number of animals. Only air-breathing animals needed to be included on the Ark.

Right, like whales and dolphins.

Authorities on taxonomy estimate that there are less than 18,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in the world today.

What is your source on that? I got this

Scientists who study animal life are called zoologosts. They have recorded 20,000 species of fish, 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals. And, although there are a million named species of insects, scientists estimate that there could be another million waiting to be discovered and named!

worldhistory.net

Not even close

My sourc We might double this to allow for extinct species. This would gives us 36,000 species times 2, or 72,000 animals. Adding for the clean animals, we might say there were as many as 75,000 animals. Earlier we said there was room enough in the Ark for 125,000 sheep, but most animals are smaller than a common house cat. There appears to be plenty of space for the preservation of the animal life. However, some creationists believe there may have been far fewer animals if Noah only took on board pairs of "kinds" as the word is used in Genesis 1. God created these "kinds" with potential for rich genetic diversity. For instance, at the time of Christ there existed only two types of dogs. All the diversity we see in the modern breeds of dogs came from these two! "


Here

Where are you getting this? Your numbers are so far off it is insane. You have not defined "kind" and given a source. You also seem to forget these animals each needed 40 days worth of food which for many animals is OTHER ANIMALS.

Was actually thinking of this earlier today, now here comes a thread on it, great! I believe that man has written and re written the bible and also has lost it's original meaning from the first time it was translated. So now we will never know if it is what it is.

Again your ignorance to the story is astounding. It did rain for 40 days, why do you assume Noah and the animals were on the ark for only 40 days??

A dog and it's "kind" is any 4 legged dog-like creature. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes are all dog kinds. Is this still difficult for you to grasp?

Don't you think it would be easier for Noah to take adolescent animals on the ark instead of full grown ones??? That would make sense to me, for one they would be smaller and thus requiring less food, and secondly animals are much better at reproducing in their youth as apposed to old age.

I think it's comical you're getting all puffed up and ranting because I simply pointed out that NOWHERE in scripture does it say that Noah was to take two of 'every animal on Earth.' That's a bogus statement.



[edit on 6-7-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Again your ignorance to the story is astounding. It did rain for 40 days, why do you assume Noah and the animals were on the ark for only 40 days??

OK, how many days worth of food did they need to have then, and please cite your source.

A dog and it's "kind" is any 4 legged dog-like creature. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes are all dog kinds. Is this still difficult for you to grasp?

Nope, it is just that you are making it up. I asked where you get your definition of "kind." Show me your source. How do I know what you call "kind" is what the bible meant by "kind" since it is not a scientific term used to categorize any animals.

Tell me, how many times would a family of Coyotes have to mate before they had hyena and fox babies?

Don't you think it would be easier for Noah to take adolescent animals on the ark instead of full grown ones???

Sure, it would also make more sense to not flood the whole planet when god could have just saved them a plot of land. Sense left a long time ago.

That would make sense to me, for one they would be smaller and thus requiring less food, and secondly animals are much better at reproducing in their youth as apposed to old age.

No they are not. Animals need to reach a certain age before they can breed successfully just like humans do. Kittens do not have kittens.

I think it's comical you're getting all puffed up and ranting because I simply pointed out that NOWHERE in scripture does it say that Noah was to take two of 'every animal on Earth.' That's a bogus statement.

I am not at all puffed up nor did I think I was ranting.

Tell me, do you think it is as funny as what you claim the number of species on Earth is cuz that was HILARIOUS!

Are you going to even address my numbers and source as compared to your numbers and no source or is that a sore spot. Besides, what part of the boat was set aside for the Nephilim lineage?

Can you answer my questions or do you just keep saying things and pretending real questions were never asked? Do I need to try and go more slowly?

Are you going to tell every poster that its possibly to meet the writer in this current age?

There are far many books that are easy to remember then the books of the bible.

What if Plato and the other writers of the bible chilled for ten minutes talking about chicken?

What a sad attempt to know who wrote any of the bible and the story's not in them.

Very sad and pathetic attempt for something to talk about!

Originally posted by K J Gunderson


OK, how many days worth of food did they need to have then, and please cite your source.

My 'source' has ALWAYS been the scriptures you're attempting to refute by incorrectly repeating them. (Straw man)

"How long was Noah on the ark? Noah entered the ark in the 600th year of his life, on the 17th day of the 2nd month (Genesis 7:11-13). Noah left the ark on the 27th day of the 2nd month of the following year (Genesis 8:14-15). Therefore, assuming a lunar calendar of 360 days, Noah was on the ark for approximately 370 days."

HERE

Nope, it is just that you are making it up. I asked where you get your definition of "kind." Show me your source. How do I know what you call "kind" is what the bible meant by "kind" since it is not a scientific term used to categorize any animals.

Again, my 'source' is the Word of God. YOU erroneously stated that Noah had to take 'one of every animal on Earth'. Which is absurd and completely incorrect. the Bible said he was to take two of every "kind". You're going round and around and refusing to admit you were talking out your rear end when you stated that previously.

Tell me, how many times would a family of Coyotes have to mate before they had hyena and fox babies?

Seven? No wait 39.76 times?? Stop asking absurd questions that are irrelevant. there are hundreds of different dog breeds today but even secular scientists will tell you they all originated from a single set of dog with the codes for every variation already in their DNA. Same with horses, cats, bears, et cetra et cetra.

No they are not. Animals need to reach a certain age before they can breed successfully just like humans do. Kittens do not have kittens.

Nice, did I say "baby" animals could breed or did i say "adolescents"??

Tell me, do you think it is as funny as what you claim the number of species on Earth is cuz that was HILARIOUS!

What's 'HILARIOUS' is you read an ESTIMATE of the number of LAND ANIMALS alive during the time of the FLOOD and somehow when it entered your brain you comprehended "total number of all animal species including sea creatures TODAY..."

Are you going to even address my numbers and source as compared to your numbers and no source or is that a sore spot. Besides, what part of the boat was set aside for the Nephilim lineage?

Sore spot?? No, you apparently can't read. And seriously? The Nephillim? The same giants the Bible speaks of BEFORE the flood??:

"Genesis 6:1-7

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

The Bible speaks of them in Genesis chapter SIX and the flood comes in Genesis chapter SEVEN.




[edit on 6-7-2010 by NOTurTypical]

[edit on 6-7-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
My 'source' has ALWAYS been the scriptures you're attempting to refute by incorrectly repeating them. (Straw man)

"How long was Noah on the ark? Noah entered the ark in the 600th year of his life, on the 17th day of the 2nd month (Genesis 7:11-13). Noah left the ark on the 27th day of the 2nd month of the following year (Genesis 8:14-15). Therefore, assuming a lunar calendar of 360 days, Noah was on the ark for approximately 370 days."

HERE

So he needed more than a year's worth of food? How does that help your case at all? You are still ignoring the fact that much of that food would be other animals.

Again, my 'source' is the Word of God. YOU erroneously stated that Noah had to take 'one of every animal on Earth'. Which is absurd and completely incorrect. the Bible said he was to take two of every "kind". You're going round and around and refusing to admit you were talking out your rear end when you stated that previously.

No, you are going round and round because you have not shown where the bible defines "kind." It is a simple question. I am going to stop here and break these up so you can do this more easily.

Show me from your source the definition of "kind."


[edit on 6-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


You're starting to bore me...


"Species" and "Kind"

Now can we move to the meat and potatoes?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It really is too much that you can tell me James became a 'born again' in later life.....are you trying to tell me he was an evangelist. I still live in the lands given to his family and I know the history of the church in my own country...and being 'born again' simply doesn't enter the equation.

Everyone in my country, and i mean everyone attended church in one form or another....they had to. James like everyone else had christian doctrine shoved down his throat all his born days. His mammie was roman catholic, as was his predecessor. Church of England (not protestant0 was formed when his great uncle Henry viii wasn't allowed to get a divorce by the Pope....so he started his own church of which he made himself the head. A tradition which still stands today.

"James' twenty-nine years of Scottish kingship did little to prepare him for the English monarchy: England and Scotland, rivals for superiority on the island since the first emigration of the Anglo-Saxon races, virtually hated each other. This inherent mistrust, combined with Catholic-Protestant and Episcopal-Puritan tensions, severely limited James' prospects of a truly successful reign. His personality also caused problems: he was witty and well-read, fiercely believed in the divine right of kingship and his own importance, but found great difficulty in gaining acceptance from an English society that found his rough-hewn manners and natural paranoia quite unbecoming. James saw little use for Parliament. His extravagant spending habits and nonchalant ignoring of the nobility's grievances kept king and Parliament constantly at odds. He came to the throne at the zenith of monarchical power, but never truly grasped the depth and scope of that power.

Religious dissension was the basis of an event that confirmed and fuelled James' paranoia: the Gunpowder Plot of November 5, 1605. Guy Fawkes and four other Catholic dissenters were caught attempting to blow up the House of Lords on a day in which the king was to open the session. The conspirators were executed, but a fresh wave of anti-Catholic sentiments washed across England. James also disliked the Puritans who became excessive in their demands on the king, resulting in the first wave of English immigrants to North America. James, however, did manage to commission an Authorized Version of the Bible, printed in English in 1611.

The relationship between king and Parliament steadily eroded. Extravagant spending (particularly on James' favourites), inflation and bungled foreign policies discredited James in the eyes of Parliament. Parliament flatly refused to disburse funds to a king who ignored their concerns and were annoyed by rewards lavished on favourites and great amounts spent on decoration. James awarded over 200 peerages (landed titles) as, essentially, bribes designed to win loyalty, the most controversial of which was his creation of George Villiers (his closest advisor and companion) as Duke of Buckingham. Buckingham was highly influential in foreign policy, which failed miserably. James tried to kindle Spanish relations by seeking a marriage between his son Charles and the Spanish Infanta (who was less than receptive to the clumsy overtures of Charles and Buckingham), and by executing Sir Walter Raleigh at the behest of Spain.

James was not wholly unsuccessful as king, but his Scottish background failed to translate well into a changing English society. He is described, albeit humorously, in 1066 and All That, as such: "James I slobbered at the mouth and had favourites; he was thus a bad king"; Sir Anthony Weldon made a more sombre observation: "He was very crafty and cunning in petty things, as the circumventing any great man, the change of a Favourite, & inasmuch as a very wise man was wont to say, he believed him the very wisest fool in Christendom."

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by K J Gunderson


OK, how many days worth of food did they need to have then, and please cite your source.

My 'source' has ALWAYS been the scriptures you're attempting to refute by incorrectly repeating them. (Straw man)

"How long was Noah on the ark? Noah entered the ark in the 600th year of his life, on the 17th day of the 2nd month (Genesis 7:11-13). Noah left the ark on the 27th day of the 2nd month of the following year (Genesis 8:14-15). Therefore, assuming a lunar calendar of 360 days, Noah was on the ark for approximately 370 days."

How many more animals than those called for were required to feed that animals onboard for 370 days?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

You're starting to bore me...


"Species" and "Kind"

Now can we move to the meat and potatoes?

Your answer is pretty boring. Why do you refuse to just provide what I ask for? Do I need to ask you the same questions 5 or 6 times? SHOW ME THE BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF KIND!!!!!!

Can you read that now?

Remember, the bible is your source. That is what you said. So I asked, from your source, where does it DEFINE KIND.

I really dislike people who push Christian nonsense and yet cannot be honest or polite.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Seven? No wait 39.76 times?? Stop asking absurd questions that are irrelevant. there are hundreds of different dog breeds today but even secular scientists will tell you they all originated from a single set of dog with the codes for every variation already in their DNA. Same with horses, cats, bears, et cetra et cetra.

Show me one scientist that says that all breeds of dogs came from a pair of coyotes 2000 years ago. Your answer does not even really ANSWER what I asked. Surprise surprise. What kinds of dogs were on the boat? How many were there, 2 or 7 or 14? How did coyotes turn into foxes in 2000 years?




[edit on 7-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Nice, did I say "baby" animals could breed or did i say "adolescents"??

Then apparently you know very little of animals because they are usually 90% to 100% full grown by breeding age.

I will give you some time to address those. I know how these threads work. I ask lots of questions and you respond in one rambling distraction so please, take your time and address these all at once.

Don't you want to bring me closer to Jesus by enlightening me?

[edit on 7-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by NOTurTypical


And by the way...these 'lands' i keep referring to, ie where I live being the land given to the Stewarts....its not big. About 20 square miles of the West of Scotland.

I do believe that the Bible has some fairly interesting stuff in it....but not comprehensible by simply reading the narrative and looking no farther. e.g. Elohim = Gods and Goddesses. Male and Female. To take it at a literal level does it no credit whatsoever and is a spiritual dead-end.

Or 'the trinity' which is to be found in almost every culture around the globe. e.g. Isis, Osiris and Horus for the Egyptians
Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva for the Hindu's

Daddy, Mummy and Child - the act of creating a child reflects the creative power of God.

A mysoginistic world has denied the Goddess and has used twisted Bible interpretations to oppress women - whereas even in the opening lines of the Bible it is recognised that God is both male and female.

Epic K J,

It's funny how no matter how many times you ask the hardcore faithful, they still just shadowbox. I had the same discussion with my fiance's father and he did the same thing, except he got more creative and pulled out the universal cop out: "God did it"

I asked the same questions:

How did he fit all those animals on the boat?
-God did it

What did the animals have to eat for over a year?
-God took away their hunger.

How did Noah deal with the overwhelming amount of animal Poo that accumulated over the course of that year?
-God took away their bowel movements

How did one man live to over 600+ years old?
-God did it

How did Noah, his son, his wife and his wife's family re-populate the earth?
-No answer from him by this point. (But we all know it's incest)

I'm sorry K J, as much as I enjoy reading your posts of you intillectually demolishing him, I am afraid all you will do is succeed in adding fuel to the same revolving door arguments that all theists use. You are probably better off just quitting while you're ahead, and trust me buddy, you are WAAAY ahead of this guy.

Good luck. Interesting read both from you and the OP. Took forever to get through it all though, about three days. Geesh.

King

reply to post by Kingalbrect79


I know you messaged KJ but I have to agree with you whole heartedly. When my child was 4 yrs old and would ask me awkward questions that I couldn't technically answer in simple enough language I used that response 'God did it'....basically out of my own laziness.

Theists are cultists....cults brainwash their adherents to believe that e.g. doubt is the devil. They absolutely wipe out independent and/or critical thinking.
Can you imagine what primitive state the human race would be in now if we all thought like that? Thank God we don't. lol

reply to post by K J Gunderson


God I hate to do this , jump into a thread that I have not yet read in it's entirety as I have done this to Mr ? Gunderson once before and it caused a bit of a miss understanding between the two of us

But to answer your question as to what " kind " means , as per the bible , I offer this ...

מין . miyn . kind

Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

Source

Edit to fix link



[edit on 7-7-2010 by Max_TO]

My purpose for the post was not to provoke his opponent, to which if I follow stereotypical christian dogma, I'm sure he will be ranting and raving at me, quoting scripture or calling me out on my belief system and asking me to prove he's wrong.

I don't believe in god, I'm an atheist, but I don't care if someone wants to believe. It is with complete and utter nonsense that most theist post replies quoting scripture because they are not speaking from their own perspective, they are quoting stories from a 2000 year old version of the "Telephone game".

I do get entertainment value out of the posts sometimes however because theists vs. atheists or non-theists as it were usually offer up the same arguments.

Non-Theists: Here are the contradictions in your source, I.E. the bible: X,X,X,X,X,X
Theist: The Bible is true, despite your points
Non-Theist: Why?
Theist: Because it's his word
Non-Theist: How do you know it's his word?
Theist: Because god wrote it.
Non-Theist: How do you know God wrote it?
Theist: Because it's true.

Revolving door. Scientists are the only party in the scientist vs. theist debate who ever ADMIT to theory and will be the FIRST ONES to revise their statements should they find EVIDENCE that their previous conclusions are false. Theists on the other hand form the same circle I showed above and quote only one source: The bible.

The Bible in itself is contradictary, unreliable, has over 2,400 different versions worldwide which have each been edited for content over the course of 2,000 years. If God is so just and true, then how come there are so many different contradictions in the bible that show in one passage that he's just and kind, then in the following book show that he slaughters children, promotes slavery, incest, torture and various other acts that supposedly violate the "ten commandments" (Which in themselves are contradictary), and expect everyone to take it at face value at truth?

In any case the burden of proof does not lie within the negative, but with the positive. You have to prove to me that God exists, I do not have to prove that God doesn't exist. Using this LOGIC I could claim any number of fantastic stories to be true, write a book about it that is cryptic and fanciful and call it the "Great Flying Purple Super Mario Brothers"

My savior has two sky daddies.

I find humor in the fact that theists try so hard to convert atheists or non-theists, yet atheists do not try and convert theists to not believe, they merely ask questions for which they require proof to beleive. So which is more hypocritical to you?

Personally I find that theists are more aggressive than anyone else on the planet. Terms like "Oh my god" or "God Damn it!" do not come from birth, they come from current social language. I find myself saying the latter two sometimes even though I don't believe; it is simply because we have been programmed from birth to be theists. Lucky for me I grew up not having religion forced upon me, nor any of it's teachings required by my parents. I CHOSE to go to church for two years during the teenage years of my life when I was struggling for acceptance and understanding of the world, and I realized that the teachings were outdated, dogmatic and just plain harmful to the human psyche. I did this of my own accord, not by any one's suggestion.

So I say to the theist response to my post (which I'm expecting) that I have personally seen the social stigma and psychological effects that early childhood religious teachings have on the development of the human mind. If you get a foothold on reality early on your own, not much will shake you. Strong sense of self reliance, a general sense of good and evil, positive moral standing and following the only rule that has not been written down, "The Golden Rule", Treat others as you wish to be treated and you will lead a long and happy life.

And just in case I get the "I get my morals from God, where do you get yours from?" question, I have this to say:

I know right from wrong, I am a morally good person because I was TAUGHT by my parents that the things I do have reprocussions, and not in hell for the slightest mistake. In America is is wrong to treat women with disrespect and belittlment, but if you go to the middle east, women are expected to walk behind their man and wear full face covering in public. They are second class citizens and that is perfectly NORMAL AND MORALLY CORRECT there.

Society chooses your morals, not God. One hundred and fifty years ago it was perfectly acceptable to kill a man for cheating you at poker or calling you a name. If you did that now you would end up in prison for your entire remaining life. Morals are a product of society and the time in which we live in coupled with the demographic location for which we were raised.

Besides, even christians were born atheists.

King

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Kingalbrect79]

As for the quoted bible reference

" Briefly:

"2. The Animal Passengers. In Gen. 6:19ff. Noah is instructed to bring mated pairs of every kind of bird, every kind of animal, and every kind of creature that moves along the ground. In Gen. 7:2ff. He is more specifically instructed to bring seven mated pairs (14) of clean animals and seven pairs of all birds. "
I personally speaking would not except that as an accurate translation of the earlier Hebrew ."


Personally I disagree with that translation ...

Speaking for myself I would translate it as ...

Two shall enter into the ark of every species , birds , cattle , & land crawling animal i.e creeping things .

My reference , the concordance and the online blue letter bible .







[edit on 7-7-2010 by Max_TO]

reply to post by Kingalbrect79


I am a " Christian " but I will star that post none the less , it was well written and well said .

To me its an issue of faith and my personal perception of the world . I try , the best I can , to find my own truths and personally I would never try to convince anyone to see or believe as I do , who the heck am I anyway to be that presumptuous ?

You have pointed out a very big issue that plagues many different communities where trust , belief , and faith are required and the message you offer should not draw criticism but rather each firm believer looking at them selves , there faith , and see just what they are doing with it .

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Max_TO]