Contridictions and such in the bible

..And the hare, because he cheweth the cud. Leviticus --11:6 (rabbits don't chew cud:duh

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus --11:20 (so, tell me more about those 4 legged birds)

For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind.--3:7 (try telling that to Roy of Sigfreid and Roy)

these and other strange passages, bible contradictions and just plain outright bull#, please work your way over here:

Skeptics Annotated Bible

and beware of those quadraped birds.

Hey Juan,

Try reading a REAL bible, instead of getting crap off of an anti-bible website.

"the hare - although it chews the cud, it has no true hoofs: it is unclean for you;" Leviticus 11:6 HELLO! RABBITS CHEW CUD...WHICH PART DO YOU NOT GET, THE CHEWING OR THE CUD?

THE ACTUAL TEXT OF LEVITICUS 11:20:

"All winged swarming things that walk on fours shall be an abomination to you."

hmmm...best I can see it doesn't mention a bird anywhere. Wonder what you're talking about?

READ BEFORE YOU POST!

Originally posted by JuanBond
..And the hare, because he cheweth the cud. Leviticus --11:6 (rabbits don't chew cud:duh

But dont they eat their own crap? thats gross enough for me

I'm not touching this one with a 20 foot pole, I dont want to invoke anyones anger (valhall). Especially about touchy subjects like the bible.

Matthew 13:15 - 17:
15"For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.
16But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;
17 For assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men diesired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it."

You read the words and see nothing but nonsense and contradiction, but I propose to you, present contradiction, valid contradiction, and it will be explained to you, and hopefully you will be willing to hear, rather than immediatly run off to try to find another example, and not learn from the lesson presented to your face.

Originally posted by JuanBond
..And the hare, because he cheweth the cud. Leviticus --11:6 (rabbits don't chew cud:duh

The Hebrew phrase for �chew the cud� simply means �raising up what has been swallowed�. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification, at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed �raise up what has been swallowed�. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus --11:20 (so, tell me more about those 4 legged birds

)

All flying animals were classified as fowls, including bats which walk on four legs. There were also many animals that existed back then that are now extinct. This is a rather poor example of Biblical untruth.

For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind.--3:7

The next verse says, "But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison"
James 3:7 is pointing out the fact that while we can exert control, by force and/or by training, over animals, we cannot control our own tongues. The verse is simply comparing our ability to control the world around us, to our inability to control ourselves.

While perusing links AGAINST the Bible, it would be advisable to compare what you read on those to information contained on links that refute these claims, or maybe have the biblical text stated correctly:

Here are a few apologetic links:

www.tektonics.org...

www.christian-thinktank.com...

www.yfiles.com...

www.carm.org...

www.apologeticsindex.org...

Originally posted by Valhall
Hey Juan,

Try reading a REAL bible, instead of getting crap off of an anti-bible website.

"the hare - although it chews the cud, it has no true hoofs: it is unclean for you;" Leviticus 11:6 HELLO! RABBITS CHEW CUD...WHICH PART DO YOU NOT GET, THE CHEWING OR THE CUD?

THE ACTUAL TEXT OF LEVITICUS 11:20:

"All winged swarming things that walk on fours shall be an abomination to you."

hmmm...best I can see it doesn't mention a bird anywhere. Wonder what you're talking about?

READ BEFORE YOU POST!

grew up in church, I have read the bible, have one on my bookshelf.

My thing on this is:

the bible is susposed to be a divinely inspired book, correct? the 4 legged birds probally are bats (I was well aware that bats, when grounded, take to all fours well before this post). then why are they called fowls? that term is for birds. if god told them that the 4 legged flying creatures are unclean, he wouldn't have called them birds, would he. after all, he made them right? he'd know they were mammals.

its funny no one realized this for what it was intended to be. (perhaps I should've been clearer, and I will in future) I meant it to be a discussion, but it suddenly turned into valhall more or less calling me an idiot.

thank you for the links valhall, I will look at them (but with a skeptics eye, of course).

[Edited on 12/5/2003 by JuanBond]

Well, now, Juan. I didn't call you an idiot.

BUT, I was snappy. And I apologize. I think it's cause I feel bad...(the flu). Anyways, sorry for snapping at you. And I look forward to reading your thoughts in the future.

You also need to remember that the calssification of bird or mammal is something that has been labelled by more modern scientists. God simply made creatures of land sea & air. Man has named them as he has.

Another thing is the difference in the languages the Bible was written in .. compared to modern day language... (example: the hebrew language at that time had no words for comparison ... one ycould not saY I like this more than that... you would say I like /love this. I hate that)

in reference to abominations, Most likely it means that man will find them to be an abomination. (my opinion there)

not get in anyone's debate here, but I have seen many rabbits in my time, and they do make a simular Chewing" like motion with the mouth, I thinks it's related more to stimulating the sense of smell, but what do I know? anyway, I did a Google search and nearly fell off my chair-
this subject has been a matter of debate for quite a huge amount of people-

dig this...
www.google.com...

I was talking with an orthadox jew friend of mine, specifically about this segment. He was showing me info on a rabbit which now is extinct, but lived in the middle eastern areas in the past. There are several accounts, both religous and other historical documents. I wish he was here now, so I could ask him for the sources again, but there is evidence that a specie of rabbit chewed it's cud.

Originally posted by Valhall
Hey Juan,

Try reading a REAL bible, instead of getting crap off of an anti-bible website.

"the hare - although it chews the cud, it has no true hoofs: it is unclean for you;" Leviticus 11:6 HELLO! RABBITS CHEW CUD...WHICH PART DO YOU NOT GET, THE CHEWING OR THE CUD?

THE ACTUAL TEXT OF LEVITICUS 11:20:

"All winged swarming things that walk on fours shall be an abomination to you."

hmmm...best I can see it doesn't mention a bird anywhere. Wonder what you're talking about?

READ BEFORE YOU POST!

actually on that site it says what you did but in different words, juan obviously didnt read it...

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

www.godsaidmansaid.com...

[Edited on 5-12-2003 by forsakenwayfarer]

'wayfarer, nice site, well done and everything, but it doesn't tell me anything. I'm, and I'm sure there are others on this site who are tired of the explaination provided by these sites. the simple satan v.s. god explaination. to me its bull. it's far too easy. it doesn't make for any kind of debate to back up anything (although this one tried at least.), it just falls back on satan vs god, god vs satan i.e the bible. when their proof is something other than a book that is susposedly written through divine intervention (though it's been edited, mistranslated, and mauled by centuries of editing, but thats a different subject), to me it's mocking us who want solid proof.

exdog, thanks for the link, man.

and to valhall, to answer for myself a little more, it's not that i am actively persuing links AGAINST the bible. I have visited sites for and against the bible with almost equal fervor. its a search for knowlege. I'm an atheist, and in this country of freedom, i find myself constantly having to explain myself to my "believer" friends. it's kinda become a "know your enemy" type of thing, though i never desired it. thats why I opened this discussion. I knew there were many people on both sides here that would voice their opinions.

That said, how did noah get all the millions sf species in the world into a boat? how did they find their way back, if they were indeed from a different continent? this one has bothered me for a while.

From what you said, JuanBond, it is clear that you only want to hear one way, and that is the anti-God way. I appreciate your honesty. But let me tell you this, no matter which direction you want to actively pursue, God can still reach you. The fact that you are actively pursueing means you have a more likely chance of God showing you the light.

In a few years you may be led to a direction and way you never thought possible.

Happy Hunting!

Originally posted by JuanBond
'wayfarer, nice site, well done and everything, but it doesn't tell me anything. I'm, and I'm sure there are others on this site who are tired of the explaination provided by these sites. the simple satan v.s. god explaination. to me its bull. it's far too easy. it doesn't make for any kind of debate to back up anything (although this one tried at least.), it just falls back on satan vs god, god vs satan i.e the bible. when their proof is something other than a book that is susposedly written through divine intervention (though it's been edited, mistranslated, and mauled by centuries of editing, but thats a different subject), to me it's mocking us who want solid proof.

exdog, thanks for the link, man.

and to valhall, to answer for myself a little more, it's not that i am actively persuing links AGAINST the bible. I have visited sites for and against the bible with almost equal fervor. its a search for knowlege. I'm an atheist, and in this country of freedom, i find myself constantly having to explain myself to my "believer" friends. it's kinda become a "know your enemy" type of thing, though i never desired it. thats why I opened this discussion. I knew there were many people on both sides here that would voice their opinions.

That said, how did noah get all the millions sf species in the world into a boat? how did they find their way back, if they were indeed from a different continent? this one has bothered me for a while.

I understand "studying your enemy" Juan, I do that as well . I do not believe this thread was opened up in a manner that further discussion, but let us now bring it to a point that we can discuss.

I have to point out that in another thread about some Christians not believing dinosaurs existed, you were involved in a discussion about how inconceivable it is that these folks think the world is only 5000 years old. But now, you have made a post in which, apparently, you believe the flood depicted in the Bible to have been a few thousand years ago, and global. And from this, you are having a hard time with the account, correct?

forsakenwayfarer the link you provided is hilarious is it run by tim lahaye?

Valhall,

I belive in an old earth, a VERY old earth.
However, I cannot deny the occurance of a "great flood".
there are too many stories outside of the bible for me to deny, that at some point, much of the earth was covered in water.

However, I do not belive it to be a recent event. More like some prehistoric memory, much like the native american stories of bigfoot may be 9 times out of 10.

I simply asked, how could one man possibly fit all the species of the world into one boat, because to me this sounds more like a myth than history.

you could say that I'm having a little trouble taking the account at face value, if you so wish.

Originally posted by thoth
forsakenwayfarer the link you provided is hilarious is it run by tim lahaye?

Tim Lahaye is a genius...I studied with him for a year. What makes you even think that the website is run by Tim?