Deeper Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 DUDE! the strong animals WERE IN LABAN'S FLOCK the passage (40-43) never states that Jacob placed the tree rods in front of speckled sheep, but in front of Laban's Strong sheep and they produced strong sheep. You see, strong sheep produce strong sheep, and speckled, speckled. Jacob put the stimuli in front of his sheep, then put it in front of Laban's sheep. Two completely different sheep (lol) Jacob separated the sheep. His in one pile (which he had used the stimulus on) and then Laban's which he was about to use it on. It's apparent he wanted the strong sheep to mate and the lesser to just sit and be lame. So he put the stimuli in front of Laban's strong sheep. The strong sheep never came out spotted from Laban's pure white sheep. It never says that. you are making an assumption. I would draw a diagram if I could to show you this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrax Volk Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">Confirmed by many practical animal raisers since? Where did the writer get that ridiculous assumption from? His uncle, the farmer? I won't allow loose statements like this to go unchallenged because in my experience, it's the unchallenged ridiculous ideas that get circulated within Christian circles until atheists laugh at us till they are blue in the face. And it's not that our faith is wrong. It's the crazy defence of something that God never even bothered about. The Bible is not a science book and stop treating it like it were. </span>[/b] You seem to be losing control of yourself. Cool off, or the mods may shut this thread down. Jacob lived in an area with a society that raised and bred animals as a matter of necessity. It is a matter of historical fact that he would have had experience tending sheep/goats, etc. (as the Bible itself says--another point toward Biblical historicity and accuracy). It is known that natural substances can be aphrodisiacs--even in animals. Other sources believe that Jacob put the branches in the water to disperse the aphrodisiac. The "practical animal raisers since" confirms my point about artificial breeding--it isn't a point of contention, and it's effects can be casually observed and even manipulated by people who raise animals for a living. Mendel was simply the first to codify these effects in his observations of pea plants (which he performed through artificial breeding). God created the Natural world--I would say that it is crazy to think He didn't bother about it anywhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Sent Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 But you can't refute Collins because you haven't got a degree either and besides, all of us can't talk theology because we haven't got theological degrees either (if your strange reasoning is right). Which is just right because I have to go now for dinner now. Have no fear - the beamishboy will return!!!![/b] Actually, now that you mention it, though I wasn't going to bring it up, I am in a university and I am also currently working on getting a degree in Bible & Theology with a minor in Youth Ministries. So now say what you have to say seeing that your statement is apparently not so true after all being that I will soon have mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrax Volk Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">But you can't refute Collins because you haven't got a degree either and besides, all of us can't talk theology because we haven't got theological degrees either (if your strange reasoning is right). Which is just right because I have to go now for dinner now. Have no fear - the beamishboy will return!!!! Cheerio folksies!!!!!!! </span>[/b] I can, and do draw on resources written and hosted by scientists with degrees--who are more than capable enough to refute Collins--and yes, technically, none of us can argue theology--because none of us has the necessary degrees. Actually, now that you mention it, wasnt going to bring it up. I'm currently working on/ the middle of getting one in Bible & Theology with a minor degree in Youth Ministries. So now say what you want. I'm in a University.[/b] Hey! Me too! Majoring in Biblical Studies! Concentration in Philosophy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeper Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 You do not need a degree to debate theology. It's not a requirement in the Bible, yes it may make you credible in the public's eye, but it's not required. Hey! Me too! Majoring in Biblical Studies! Concentration in Philosophy![/b] I'm taking Biblical Counseling. It's a hardcore class. Most of it is theology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Sent Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Confirmed by many practical animal raisers since? Where did the writer get that ridiculous assumption from? His uncle, the farmer?[/b] "And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods." (Genesis 30:37) Interesting what science has told us about these three plants: Hazelnuts: Hazelnut General Information In Irish legend, the Hazelnut, was the fruit of wisdom and was used in meditation, and in England, was once a symbol of fertility. For hundreds of years, Hazel branches were used as divining rods for locating buried treasure, valuable ores, or water. Native American women made brushes from the twigs for cleaning the earthen floors of wigwams. They boiled the bark and used it in a poultice for wounds, cuts, and tumors. The nuts have tonic, stomachic, anodyne, sedative, and aphrodisiac properties. The bark is astringent. Hazelnut oil contains oleic acid, vitamin E, and carotenoids. http://www.herbalremedies.com/hazelnut-information.html Chestnut & Hazelnut: Aphrodisiac is a word derived from the name of the ancient Greek goddess Aphrodite, goddess of love, fertility and sexual rapture. As sexual appetite and fertility are both linked to nutrition; so if a person is properly fed he or she will more likely to be able to conceive successfully, whilst a malnourished person will be not only less fertile, but less libidinous. Basil, clove, tomato, oats, asparagus, fresh onion, chestnut, hazelnut, pistachio nut, coconut, radish, celery, egg, carrot, red pepper, cucumber, oyster, caviar are main foods to improve your sexual desire. Foods containing vitamin E like pistachio, almond, hazelnut and walnut are also natural boosters for impotence and erectile dysfunction. http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Natural...ale_Libido.html Chestnut Blossom Chestnut blossom contains a combination of chemicals also found in the seminal secretions of the male. This will trigger an amorous mood, specifically in the female but can be used for either persuasion.[/b http://www.selfsufficientish.com/index.php...ogist?showall=1 Poplars .... This Unasylva issues conveys the diversity of benefits from poplars and willows. Unfortunately it is impossible to cover everything. A report by D. Charlton in the August 2004 issue of New Zealand Tree Grower, for example, suggests that feeding sheep with fodder from poplars increases conception rate and number of lambs born. Could this be the result of an aphrodisiac effect? Who says poplars aren’t sexy? http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0026e/a0026e01.htm#TopOfPage Another tasty treat are cuttings from the farm's poplars. Mr King says the sheep come running as soon as he starts up his chainsaw. ,p> "I've even had them try to come up the ladder after me. They put their front feet on the bottom step and look up at me with open mouths as if to say 'Hurry up, I'm hungry'. They can completely strip a 60-foot poplar in an hour and a quarter." The poplars, and pasja turnips, add protein to the ewes' diet and also bring a subtle flavour to their milk. http://www.waikaretu.co.nz/news/example2.p...amp;ucat=2& How's that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeper Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 nice bro ^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrax Volk Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 You do not need a degree to debate theology. It's not a requirement in the Bible, yes it may make you credible in the public's eye, but it's not required.I'm taking Biblical Counseling. It's a hardcore class. Most of it is theology.[/b] I agree--I like the fact that you don't need to know absolutely everything about the Bible to understand it, usually. Part of what I meant was that when you have the degrees necessary, it means you have taken the time and money necessary to learn advanced positions and nuances of the Bible--this sometimes means you can provide greater insight than someone who has not. These aren't impossible for a layman, but they are more difficult without the theological base an education in the Bible will give you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Sent Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 What a ka-winky-dink that he happen to put those aphrodisiacs in there and the one that is attractive to! yeah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrax Volk Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 "And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods." (Genesis 30:37) Interesting what science has told us about these three plants: Hazelnuts: Hazelnut General Information In Irish legend, the Hazelnut, was the fruit of wisdom and was used in meditation, and in England, was once a symbol of fertility. For hundreds of years, Hazel branches were used as divining rods for locating buried treasure, valuable ores, or water. Native American women made brushes from the twigs for cleaning the earthen floors of wigwams. They boiled the bark and used it in a poultice for wounds, cuts, and tumors. The nuts have tonic, stomachic, anodyne, sedative, and aphrodisiac properties. The bark is astringent. Hazelnut oil contains oleic acid, vitamin E, and carotenoids. http://www.herbalremedies.com/hazelnut-information.html Chestnut & Hazelnut: Aphrodisiac is a word derived from the name of the ancient Greek goddess Aphrodite, goddess of love, fertility and sexual rapture. As sexual appetite and fertility are both linked to nutrition; so if a person is properly fed he or she will more likely to be able to conceive successfully, whilst a malnourished person will be not only less fertile, but less libidinous. Basil, clove, tomato, oats, asparagus, fresh onion, chestnut, hazelnut, pistachio nut, coconut, radish, celery, egg, carrot, red pepper, cucumber, oyster, caviar are main foods to improve your sexual desire. Foods containing vitamin E like pistachio, almond, hazelnut and walnut are also natural boosters for impotence and erectile dysfunction. http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Natural...ale_Libido.html Chestnut Blossom Chestnut blossom contains a combination of chemicals also found in the seminal secretions of the male. This will trigger an amorous mood, specifically in the female but can be used for either persuasion.[/b http://www.selfsufficientish.com/index.php...ogist?showall=1 Poplars .... This Unasylva issues conveys the diversity of benefits from poplars and willows. Unfortunately it is impossible to cover everything. A report by D. Charlton in the August 2004 issue of New Zealand Tree Grower, for example, suggests that feeding sheep with fodder from poplars increases conception rate and number of lambs born. Could this be the result of an aphrodisiac effect? Who says poplars aren’t sexy? http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0026e/a0026e01.htm#TopOfPage Another tasty treat are cuttings from the farm's poplars. Mr King says the sheep come running as soon as he starts up his chainsaw. ,p> "I've even had them try to come up the ladder after me. They put their front feet on the bottom step and look up at me with open mouths as if to say 'Hurry up, I'm hungry'. They can completely strip a 60-foot poplar in an hour and a quarter." The poplars, and pasja turnips, add protein to the ewes' diet and also bring a subtle flavour to their milk. http://www.waikaretu.co.nz/news/example2.p...amp;ucat=2& How's that? Amen brother!!!!! Scripture is literally true once again!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Sent Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Amen brother!!!!! Scripture is literally true once again!!![/b] When did it stop being true? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beamishboy Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">Folksies, read the Bible (taken from the NIV) above again. If you still come up with your aphrodisiac theory, fine. As my Vicar once told me, people will believe what they want to believe and God did not say it's wrong to believe in a 3000 year old dinosaur. But I won't waste time arguing with you on this if you still hold on to the aphrodisiac theory. I will go on to the THIRD ERROR. There are thousands to go through so we'd better not take up too much time. </span> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeper Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 now that we've solved this <strike>error</strike> let's move on to the next! Oh and BTW, the NIV is a poor translation, try Geneva. Maybe that's why you are on this "error-in-the-bible" trip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beamishboy Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 now that we've solved this <strike>error</strike> let's move on to the next! Oh and BTW, the NIV is a poor translation, try Geneva. Maybe that's why you are on this "error-in-the-bible" trip.[/b] <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">My dear folksies and blokesies!!! The THIRD ERROR (out of a few thousand that I can find). In ancient times, any keen observer would think that the snail or the slug melted as it moved. That's what a child of 4 might conclude when he watches a moving snail. The psalmist thought that way too. PLEASE NOTE: It's not God who made this mistake but the psalmist. It's quite normal. Psalm 58:8: Like a slug melting away as it moves along, like a stillborn child, may they not see the sun. Come on folksies!!! Search the net for some straws to grab on to. There are a few thousand more to come. </span> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossDefender Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Must jump in and say...Why beamishboy and second that is cool God-Sent, I will be majoring in Psych with minors in English and Theology. And beamish, that above said scripture is allegorical as you should know, and is figurtive language. So in the end it is not an error, just at an attempt to see an error when there was none, saw that as soon as I read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeper Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 ^ what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beamishboy Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Must jump in and say...Why beamishboy and second that is cool God-Sent, I will be majoring in Psych with minors in English and Theology.And beamish, that above said scripture is allegorical as you should know, and is figurtive language. So in the end it is not an error, just at an attempt to see an error when there was none, saw that as soon as I read it.[/b] <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Of course it is metaphorical. But a metaphor accords with reality. For example, you say "as fast as a gazelle". That's because a gazelle runs fast. All I want to say is obviously, the psalmist saw a snail "melting" and he uses that as a metaphor. You can't blame him because he's an ancient man. I have thought about all these errors and I think the trouble is with such things, people can argue either way. Your way will surely sound preposterous to non-believers but when you have a lot of fundamentalists agreeing in a forum, it's hard to counter that. My main concern is not believers however wrong they may be about the science of the Bible. My main concern are non-believers. That they should know that our faith is not anti-science and anti-evolution. That we do not believe all the animals entered the ark literally. That we do not believe the origin of languages is in the Tower of Babel literally. But there is a class of biblical errors that will appeal to you more because it did appeal to me more. I will show you the apparent cruelty of God and I will go into details. I say "apparent" because I don't believe God did those things. The Bible writers were WRONG to attribute it to God. They were perhaps influenced by their culture, harsh living conditions, etc. Right now the beamishboy has to go to bed. Cheers folksies!!!!!!!!!!!! </span> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusRocks4Me Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Well....beamishboy... Wow. First off, why do you not believe the Bible is literal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beamishboy Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Well....beamishboy...Wow. First off, why do you not believe the Bible is literal?[/b] <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">Hi JesusRocks4Me, I started off believing in everything in the Bible. I suppose most young children would. I believed everything I read from the Creation story to the Flood to the Tower of Babel. Then I came to the horrific killings and even rape. Of course at that time, I didn't know it was rape. Then someone showed me how "God" ordered a she-bear to tear up children who had teased a prophet for being bald. And I saw how a general's daughter was sacrificed for God and unlike God's intervention to save Isaac from being sacrificed to Him, He was silent with this poor girl. Then I read a different story of Jesus and I asked myself can this be the same God. Of course He is. Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever. I then asked myself one PERTINENT question. Why the 66 books in the Bible (it's more for RCs and Greek Orthodox and even more for Oriental Orthodox)? I was dismayed when I discovered that most of the books are anonymous. It's worse for the OT. How they came about is even more of a mystery. But for the NT, it should be better right? No! I read books on the Canon - and I don't mean Josh McDowell's white-washed books that glosses over everything and simply concludes that the Bible that we have has been accepted all along which is totally nonsense. As early as Papias, he wrote that he HEARD that Mark wrote a gospel in the HEBREW tongue and he heard there were all kinds of translations into Greek but he could not be certain. You see, at that time, publication of a book was simply writing it out in long hand. Copying a book was writing a second book in long hand. Everybody now agrees that the last part of Mark should not be in. It wasn't there in the earlier and better manuscripts. We know a few sections that shouldn't be there. There are other sections that we know nothing about. Today, we know that we do not have the autograph copies of ANY book. What we have are copies of copies of copies. We also know that our earliest Gospels today are in Koine Greek. What happened to the original ones in the Hebrew tongue, possibly Aramaic (as some scholars say)? Scholars say that some parts of the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus could not have taken place because the pun only worked in Koine Greek and not in Aramaic or Hebrew and Jesus and Nicodemus almost certainly spoke Aramaic. Nobody knows who wrote the four gospels. They are only attributed to the four evangelists by tradition. These are anonymous books!!! Next, for a long time the church was divided. One half didn't accept Hebrews. The other did because they felt it was written by Paul. Later, even in the early church, they discovered it could not have been written by Paul and yet, both sides agreed to accept Hebrews anyway. They chose Hebrews over Shepherd of Hermas because they said the Shepherd was of more recent origin whereas Hebrews' origin is unknown. When in doubt, choose an anonymous book! Right! There are serious problems with Hebrews which I can trace if I have the time. I can go on and on but I soon felt I had to come to a decision. I spoke to my Vicar who told me that my problem was not unusual among the clergy. Fundamentalist churches do not go behind the Bible. They don't examine how each book came about, the origin of the books, the errors and corruptions in transmission, etc. They don't do what's called textual criticism. They go on the assumption that the Bible (66 books) is totally correct and you don't go behind it. That's wrong because what makes them decide that? Nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of the 66 books. They wrongly take "Scripture" to mean their current canonical Bible but there's no evidence that's what is meant in Timothy. Besides, evidence shows that many books were accepted long after Paul had died. Revelations for example was hotly contested way up to the 4th century. I think the Oriental Orthodox still have problems with Revelation. The right approach is the centrality of Jesus. The Bible should only help us to understand Jesus and His teachings. Whatever the origins and corruptions, the Bible is still the best document we have of Jesus and His teachings. Now you have my answer to your question why I don't take the Bible literally. </span> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Sent Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Folksies, read the Bible (taken from the NIV) above again. If you still come up with your aphrodisiac theory, fine. As my Vicar once told me, people will believe what they want to believe and God did not say it's wrong to believe in a 3000 year old dinosaur. But I won't waste time arguing with you on this if you still hold on to the aphrodisiac theory. I will go on to the THIRD ERROR. There are thousands to go through so we'd better not take up too much time.[/b] Just for the sake of it in case you still wouldn't beleve I talked to my atheist friend who I let see the discussion to see what he thinks about the "error you were trying to show us. Thankfully, he said I could use his response and post it her since you like talking about atheist so much. As for those of you who know him I'm referring to FreeThinker. me: ok he's talking about the Bible It makes no pretension that it's accurate in science, history, geography, etc. FT: well some of all three is accurate in the bible ... FT: i mean you arent going to REALLY look for problems with the bible at least not from an atheist perspective but not many atheists will read the bible and study it for years what if i did? i like the idea it would be like studying a fairy tale for years =D... well ancient people were stupid =p... me: i have another question FT: k me: lets say a person before genetics was popularized and before Medel Mendel* FT: ? raised fully black sheep and fully white sheep a flock FT: ok keep going me: of each if they kept tract of the flock for around 50yrs do you think at some point they'd realize there is some kind of pattern to the color? as in when breeding FT: well yes for thousands of years humans have noticed the patterns thats how they bred the best plants and livestock and how they bred different dogs but they didnt know it was the result of a gene me: so do you think they could have breeded the animals to produce a certainb color? FT: yes... glad i could help me: Jacob was over ninety years old at this time, that he was a very intelligent and [a] careful observer, and that he had spent most of his long life raising and studying cattle, sheep, and goats. Ft: good 4 him me: no he's trying to say Jacob would not have known how to breed sheep to produce a certain color offspring FT: well he's dumb it was very simple oh my gosh WOW a BLOOO SHEEEP me: "And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods." (Genesis 30:37) FT: how bout we make it screw one of our other sheep ...oh my gosh WOW me: And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. FT: BLOO SHEEP BABIES me: he's saying that... that is an error FT: dork now if Jacob said genetic stuff me: lol FT: then Mendel doesn't deserve credit me: well you know the three plants mentioned ...FT: oh yea me: there known to be aphrodisiacs me: WOO nice me: he doesnt believe thats why it says that he set the rods..came to drink..that they should conceive when they came to drink. FT: SHEEP ORGY![/b] Folksies, read the Bible (taken from the NIV) above again. If you still come up with your aphrodisiac theory, fine. As my Vicar once told me, people will believe what they want to believe and God did not say it's wrong to believe in a 3000 year old dinosaur. But I won't waste time arguing with you on this if you still hold on to the aphrodisiac theory. I will go on to the THIRD ERROR. There are thousands to go through so we'd better not take up too much time.[/b] Too bad my atheist friend believe in evolution and doesn't believe dinosaurs are 3,000 years old. Since you won't argue it anymore though I won't proceed to show you how the version you used even shows that it's not because they "looked" at it that got them to mate and that actually he cut them so that the chemicals would be released. Of course it is metaphorical. But a metaphor accords with reality. For example, you say "as fast as a gazelle". That's because a gazelle runs fast. All I want to say is obviously, the psalmist saw a snail "melting" and he uses that as a metaphor. You can't blame him because he's an ancient man.[/b] Ps. 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun. What have we here -- a sort of fantastic creature-feature idea of a snail which slowly dissolves in the heat? Not exactly. The Hebrew word here is temec, and this is the only place where it appears in the Bible. Strong's says that the main meaning here is liquefaction, with a root in a word referring to dissolution. All agree that slugs and snails leave a trail behind as they move -- this is not something that is hard to observe or unknown. And of course, it is obvious that this liquid comes from their own bodies -- and presumably, especially in a hot, desert climate like Palestine's, a snail that doesn't find a source of moisture to replenish itself is going to eventually shrivel away: hence the comparison to the "untimely birth of a woman." For this objection to work, it would have to be assumed that temec means "dissolve" in the sense that snow, for example, melts -- but there is no point of comparison, and no reason why this word cannot refer to the dehydration process we describe. I have thought about all these errors and I think the trouble is with such things, people can argue either way. Your way will surely sound preposterous to non-believers but when you have a lot of fundamentalists agreeing in a forum, it's hard to counter that. My main concern is not believers however wrong they may be about the science of the Bible. My main concern are non-believers. That they should know that our faith is not anti-science and anti-evolution. That we do not believe all the animals entered the ark literally. That we do not believe the origin of languages is in the Tower of Babel literally.[/b] Well, you mean you don't. I believe God's word aka the Bible 66 books to be inspired by God and perfectly accurate. I believe God is intelligent enough to get everything in His book right and I have faith enough to believe what He says and not try to rationalize it away into something else. I believe it happened as God said it happened. Yes, I believe the animals literally went into the ark. Yes, I believe the origin of languages is the tower of Babel. But there is a class of biblical errors that will appeal to you more because it did appeal to me more. I will show you the apparent cruelty of God and I will go into details. I say "apparent" because I don't believe God did those things. The Bible writers were WRONG to attribute it to God. They were perhaps influenced by their culture, harsh living conditions, etc. Right now the beamishboy has to go to bed. Cheers folksies!!!!!!!!!!!![/b] <span style="color:#FF00FF"> Just because I want to make sure you read EVERY WORD of it. The funny thing is while your saying that it is what the Bible writers mean your saying that it is suppose to be taken literally, as did the writers, but you just don't believe and have enough faith to because of this IMAGE of how your "God" should be and if "He" doesn't line up with your view in scripture instead of saying that your view is wrong you like to go and say the scripture is wrong. I think that's more pitiful than anything if I do say so myself. We don't try to change God because we feel He should be this way or that. This has nothing to do with the Bible but all to do with your not being able to get over the fact you can't accept God for who He is in scripture. 1. God is good and just. 2. God commanded something you don't think is good nor just in His word( You somehow define what is good and just). 3. Therefore, it is not God who but it is His Law, His Prophets, and His writings. (based off your opinion of what is good and just). However, it is God, because He is the absolute authority, that determines what is good and just- not us. Hope you view God does not make the Law, The Prophets, and His Writings wrong because you don't think He'd do that. HE decides what is good and just not you. God-Sent thinks it's time for another Revolution</span> I then asked myself one PERTINENT question. Why the 66 books in the Bible (it's more for RCs and Greek Orthodox and even more for Oriental Orthodox)?...[/b] So Jesus is a liar? He quoted from the Old Testament as if it were true. He quoted the creation of man, Abraham, and many other refernces. When did God become a liar? because Jesus IS God. Also, You forgot the most important group of people who accept the Old Testament: The Jewish Bible The same one Jesus would have used and quoted from. The Law (Torah) - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy The Prophets (Neviim) - Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel (one volume), 1 & 2 Kings (one volume), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets (one volume) The Writings (Kethubim) - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (one volume), 1 & 2 Chronicles (one volume) Jesus said: "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44) Jesus referred to Psalm 82:6 as "Law": "Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?" John 10:34. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17 "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. Matthew 11:13 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. Luke 16:16 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." John 1:45 After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, "Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it." Acts 13:15 "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; Acts 24:14 P.S I got a song for you! Lyrics to Remember by Cross Movement: We're Gonna bring reverence back to the name of the Lord The High ad lofty One He rules eternity Jehovah Elkaborge A.k.a. the God of war, God of flesh/ Who could tear you to pieces like carnivores/ The blessed, majestic one who's glorious/ Was known to other nations as notorious/ Cause of His terrible acts/ Battles didn't last a half a days length/ Not the way the Lord God parade strength/ It didn't make sense < How he'd crush his enemies/ In His mercies have the strongest man/ On bended knee/ Relentlessly, exposing human shame/ Making a mockery of human fame/ The consuming flame/ Showering brimstone, men thrown,/ Cause they refuse the rule of the one seated on gem stones/ Enthroned with power and majesty/ It was tragedy to face God's armies/ The result was casualties and pillage/ But men had to feel this holy spillage/ On who's god was the realest/ The God of Israel be the illest [Chorus] Who owns cattle on a thousand hills? Who can slay any army on the battle field?[x2] The Lord [x8] Peep His splendor ya'll/ Wave the white flag, surrender all/ To the one who makes top contenders fall/ Snatching crowns off kings/ Cutting short their off springs/ He's shocking/ More than what a thousand volts brings/ Ask the king of Egypt/ How deep is the ocean floor/ Ask Isaiah about when he saw the Lord/ Ask king Neb who put him on all fours/ To eat with the beasts until his pride was no more/ It's clear, We don't know who we're dealing with here/ For years He's taken fools and filled them with fear/ Jesus, the underdog is Judge of all/ Keeping tabs on the deeds of men like number logs/ When the Son strikes watch thunder fall/ And cut asunder all/ Who rejects the one who makes the winter spring and the summer fall/ All judgement belongs to the Son/ He can also save you from the wrath to come [Chorus] Reject Christ you'll regret it/ Truth is what your getting/ Off is how we set it/ Off is how we let it/ Narrows the path I travel The ways been made clear/ The father's given supervision/ To his children like daycare/ Serenade the one/ Who I revere like Paul/ But the redcoats ain't coming/ It's God the Son coming through/ With His glory thundering/ He'll cut asunder men spill the blood of men/ For their love of sin/ And the rejection of the blood covering/ Which is through the new covenant/All hail the God ruled Government/ How much are Jewels worth?/ They can't match the true worth of the new birth/ Bow to my God and Creator of the Universe http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/cross_mo...ics_418487.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beamishboy Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Hi Isaiah, First, let me say this. I totally ignored what your friend said. I don't care much for the opinion of an "atheistic" teenager who knows nothing and can only examine what you tell him. That sort of conversation would not be accepted in a court of law. It's hearsay unless you claim your friend is an expert witness in which case what are his credentials? He's only a teenager, for crying out loud! He does not speak for atheists. I can show you REAL atheists who think Genesis 30 is oh so laughably silly. Richard Dawkins is one. He says so in his book, God Delusion, which according to the news, a 20-year-old Christian in University, majoring in Biology, shot himself dead after reading the book and losing his faith. He wouldn't have done that if he read the Bible the way the beamishboy does. We'll come to God's justice soon enough. Then we can see what stand you take. In the meanwhile, I didn't read your song, etc. I'm sorry to say this. It's too juvenile for the beamishboy. </span> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Sent Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Hi Isaiah, I can show you REAL atheists who think Genesis 30 is oh so laughably silly. Richard Dawkins is one. He says so in his book, God Delusion, which according to the news, a 20-year-old Christian in University, majoring in Biology, shot himself dead after reading the book and losing his faith. He wouldn't have done that if he read the Bible the way the beamishboy does....We'll come to God's justice soon enough...Then we can see what stand you take. In the meanwhile, I didn't read your song, etc. I'm sorry to say this. It's too juvenile for the beamishboy.[/b] So i take it that means your not going to read the rest of the post where I refuted your 3rd "error" and proved it wrong? Also, I like the The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath better. First, let me say this. I totally ignored what your friend said. I don't care much for the opinion of an "atheistic" teenager who knows nothing and can only examine what you tell him. That sort of conversation would not be accepted in a court of law. It's hearsay unless you claim your friend is an expert witness in which case what are his credentials? He's only a teenager, for crying out loud! He does not speak for atheists.[/b]I didn't know there were fake atheists or even "professional" atheists. If not can we at least have the fourth "error"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beamishboy Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">I mentioned the literalist Christian who killed himself after he had read the God Delusion. It's only right I give the link to show everything the beamishboy says is true cos the beamishboy is the Knight of Truth: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=81459 Isaiah, tell the truth - you have not read the book. And I don't mean read ABOUT the book from a Christian writer. Before you guys read the God Delusion, keep the beamishboy in mind so that when you're about to lose your faith, you'll remember what I've said. Or you can write to my email. </span> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Sent Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I mentioned the literalist Christian who killed himself after he had read the God Delusion. It's only right I give the link to show everything the beamishboy says is true cos the beamishboy is the Knight of Truth:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=81459 Isaiah, tell the truth - you have not read the book. And I don't mean read ABOUT the book from a Christian writer. Before you guys read the God Delusion, keep the beamishboy in mind so that when you're about to lose your faith, you'll remember what I've said. Or you can write to my email.[/b] I've wanted to read it anyways to deconstruct it's ignorant arguements. I will not lose my faith. Please, don't be so arrogant and prideful. You know how many Christians have read that book and are still Christians? lol. "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist..." - Michael Ruse, author of Darwinianism and Its Discontents "The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. This is, obviously, an odd thing to say about a book-length investigation into God. But the problem reflects Dawkins's cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking. (...) Dawkins has written a book that's distinctly, even defiantly, middlebrow. (...) None of Dawkins's loud pronouncements on God follows from any experiment or piece of data. It's just Dawkins talking." - H. Allen Orr, The New York Review of Books "Dawkins' tone ranges narrowly from strident to snide. (...) Dawkins is deluding himself if he thinks The God Delusion would impress any reasonably informed theist. He seems completely unaware, for example, of the works of the great mystics, or of seminal works such as Rudolf Otto's The Idea of the Holy. His characterization of God and religion amounts to caricature." - Frank Wilson, The Philadelphia Inquirer Anyways can you please get back to my response on the "error"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beamishboy Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 I've wanted to read it anyways to deconstruct it's ignorant arguements. I will not lose my faith. Please, don't be so arrogant and prideful. You know how many Christians have read that book and are still Christians? lol."The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist..." - Michael Ruse, author of Darwinianism and Its Discontents "The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. This is, obviously, an odd thing to say about a book-length investigation into God. But the problem reflects Dawkins's cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking. (...) Dawkins has written a book that's distinctly, even defiantly, middlebrow. (...) None of Dawkins's loud pronouncements on God follows from any experiment or piece of data. It's just Dawkins talking." - H. Allen Orr, The New York Review of Books "Dawkins' tone ranges narrowly from strident to snide. (...) Dawkins is deluding himself if he thinks The God Delusion would impress any reasonably informed theist. He seems completely unaware, for example, of the works of the great mystics, or of seminal works such as Rudolf Otto's The Idea of the Holy. His characterization of God and religion amounts to caricature." - Frank Wilson, The Philadelphia Inquirer[/b] <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Look, it's not like I support the God Delusion. I think atheism is wrong. It's just that your SELECTION of reviews is so unfair and skewed I felt I have to balance it with something more illustrious. The scientist you quoted who didn't like The God Delusion did not like it for a different reason. I've read some of them. They hated the combative style of Dawkins. But that's just Dawkins. I've met him at a book conference in Wales when I went there with my Dad. He said that the beamishboy was a "very brilliant lad". Yoopsies doodles!!!! I'm all happiness by the oodles!!!! You can do a search in youtube to see the whole talk Dawkins gave in one of the American universities. He grilled those from Liberty University very badly until I felt so angry and sorry for the fundamentalist Christians from Liberty. I think the forum rules won't allow me to put a link here. You can search for it yourselves. But it's a very interesting to watch the video. There are many clips and the Questions and Answers were very good. But I really felt very bad for the fundamentalists. It was from that video that I discovered that Liberty "University" has a "museum" that states that dinosaurs were 3000 years old!!! Goodness me!!!!!!! </span> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.