100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 01/09/09 06:13 PM
|
|
The bible is wrong, man was not first woman was.
Moses was telling the Israelites to never demand proof of God's existence. Moses did not tell the Israelites to never ask God for evidence of his will. That is irrelevant to the discussion which is does the bible make conflicting statements. Yes I have shown you twice where it has. When you insisted that the word "tempt" actually meant "test" I then gave you the example of Gideon testing god. Yet we are NOT to test god.  Moses was basically telling them to ignore "the man behind the curtain." This actually comes up again in the bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. Like the great and powerful Wizard of Oz, nobody can see God and live. Not nobody. Not Nohow.
Exodus 19 19:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps we are witnessing just how evolution and the Bible are compatible.
The Bible began as this, and then evolved to that, which later evolved to something else. Just like the current theory of evolution, genes more often become recessive; they don't necessarily disappear when a new gene takes over. It seems, in the Bible, we see this recessive quality. At least in humans the recessive gene can lay dormant with no empirical sign of ever having been. Unfortunately, it's difficult to determine the recessive qualities of the Bible.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. Like the great and powerful Wizard of Oz, nobody can see God and live. Not nobody. Not Nohow. Exodus 19 19:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish.  The One will be revealed. Thats why the final book of the bible is called "Revelation".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Fri 01/09/09 07:18 PM
|
|
Krimsa seems to be a very difficult person and not worth the time arguing with. But here's an answer. Isaac was the "promised" son, his "only" son with Sarah - his "real" wife. The son with the handmade was not a "lawful" son. In the OT it was written in the "code of Hammarabi" (Babaloynian King) that it was OK to have children with a handmade, not in the Torah. I've always found it hard to imagine this practice myself until I found this in my appendix. Then again, don't we follow a lot of the laws of land that go against scripture - like paying taxes to this Beast Government. Abraham was leaving the land of Babalyon, just like we must do. "Come out of her my People" According to the Old Testament, Isaac, Abraham's son, had an older brother called Ishmael. Genesis 16:15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. Genesis 21:3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac. In several places in the Old Testament, however, Isaac is referred to as Abraham's only son. Genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. What happened to Ishmael? This was my question. Please dont start fights here. I have not been difficult This is an open forum and I can ask as many questions as I like. There is no reason to make personal attacks on one's character. That is also against forum rules as far as I understand. His information is inaccurate Krimsa. I dont know what the heck he is talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did answer your question. Under the Torah he had 1 son. Under the Code of Hammarabi, he had 2 sons.  The bible says he has 2 sons. Thank you very much
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think whoever was telling the story basically just confused the two sons. That’s possible right? Ishmael was the older. I think Abraham actually went to kill Ishmael and not Isaac.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Fri 01/09/09 07:14 PM
|
|
I think whoever was telling the story basically just confused the two sons. That’s possible right? Ishmael was the older. I think Abraham actually went to kill Ishmael and not Isaac. The accounts vary but what happened is there were some angels that visited Abraham.They said he would have a child.His wife was elderly and she laughed at this.But to fullfill the angels prophecy,she brought her servant girl to Abraham. He concieved a child with her.This was Ishmael.Then later, suprisingly Abrahams wife became pregnant although she was extremely old.There was jealousy between the two women and Ishmael and his mother were banished.But God protected Ishmael and his mother.And just like Isaac,in time the descendents of Ishmael became as numerous as the sands of the sea. In a nutshell, this is the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The people of Israel and Palestine are descended from these 2 brothers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well the argument here was whether or not the bible contradicts itself and it would appear to in regards to whether or not Abraham had one son, Isaac. Or two sons, one by his actual wife Sarah and another by Hagar, the hand servant.
Genesis 25:1-2 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. Thats clearly contradictory even without the Ishmael/Issac issue Galatians 4:22 Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well the argument here was whether or not the bible contradicts itself and it would appear to in regards to whether or not Abraham had one son, Isaac. Or two sons, one by his actual wife Sarah and another by Hagar, the hand servant. Genesis 25:1-2 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. Thats clearly contradictory even without the Ishmael/Issac issue Galatians 4:22 Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman He had one son with his wife. Shortly before that he had a child with a servant woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is what we are working with here.
Abraham had only one son. Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, ... his only begotten son. Genesis 22:2 Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering. Abraham had more than one son. Genesis 16:15 And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. Genesis 21:2-3 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age .... And Abraham called him Isaac. Genesis 25:1-2 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. Galatians 4:22 Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is what we are working with here. Abraham had only one son. Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, ... his only begotten son. Genesis 22:2 Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering. Abraham had more than one son. Genesis 16:15 And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. Genesis 21:2-3 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age .... And Abraham called him Isaac. Genesis 25:1-2 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. Galatians 4:22 Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman Its referring to his "heir". His "lawful" son by his wife. The one that was foretold by the angel. This was (and still is) the dispute between the two mothers. Who was the heir?The oldest son by the servant woman?Or Abrahams younger son by his wife?The Torah and most bibles say it was Isaac.The Koran (and most Arab people)says it was Ishmael.This is the root of the conflict in Israel/Palestine.It is often used by Christians and Jews as an excuse for rascism against the people of Palestine (descendents of Ishmael).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would buy that. Its also a contradiction. At least in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would buy that. Its also a contradiction. At least in my opinion. Well, which was his heir?This is the question.You had a married man that had a child with his lawful wife and an older child with another woman.Who gets the inheritence(the land)?I see a mess but I dont see quite see the contradiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Fri 01/09/09 08:34 PM
|
|
I see the contradiction in the actual passages. Not to mention that he is described as having other kids with another woman.
Or what is most likely is that the Jewish scribe corrupted the text and inserted the name Isaac because it is a known fact that the Jewish nation does look down upon Ishmael and his descendents, so therefore they simply put the name Isaac to make it seem that all blessings were for them and very little for Ishmael. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or maybe in the English language, a word can have more than one meaning, depending upon the context?
Add to the different meanings of words in modern English, the changes in language over time, and it becomes more difficult to understand a single sentence, or even a chapter from an old book. I remember reading Chaucer (or whatever his name was) in English literature, and I must admit that it was challenging to understand what I was reading, and I know I did not have 100% complete comprehension. I find it ironic that it is often people, who do not believe in the truth of the bible, whom insist that their interpretation of the words is the one and only possible meaning. Even Christian theologians do not all agree about all of the meanings of an individual passage in the bible, yet we are supposed to believe that only the definition given by one who does not believe can be accurate and correct? This silly debate is one of the reasons why I no longer spend effort arguing in forums like this, about the meaning of the bible, in whole or part. To answer the original question, the bible does not specifically exclude the possibility of evolution. The bible does not give us a step by step instruction manual regarding how man was created, but rather we are given a brief overview of our creation. Did God snap his fingers, and poof man exists, or did God create a universe, and set in motion a series of events which resulted in the creation of man? This is a question that I do not know the answer to, and one which I do not need to have answered. While science has not yet proven evolution, the theory does seem to be very popular. Someday we may learn enough to know with certainty that an evolutionary process has shaped life here on Earth. Then again we might never have complete certainty about the accuracy of evolutionary theory. Either result will not prove, or disprove the bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Were you addressing me at all or the OP? If you care to offer a different opinion as far as these contradictions specifically be my guest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was speaking in general terms, not about any one individual.
I have seen many discussions like this in the past, and I do not have an interest in getting into a detailed debate with any one individual. I wish all of those who do want to argue the semantics of this thread a fun and enjoyable discussion. Just because I do not want to put forth the energy and effort to debate the issue, does not mean that others should not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was speaking in general terms, not about any one individual. I have seen many discussions like this in the past, and I do not have an interest in getting into a detailed debate with any one individual. I wish all of those who do want to argue the semantics of this thread a fun and enjoyable discussion. Just because I do not want to put forth the energy and effort to debate the issue, does not mean that others should not. No problem. I was not looking down on you at all. If you don’t care to step in or if you don’t feel strongly about this particular topic, that’s fine. I just wasn't certain as it was somewhat ambiguous. |
|
|
|
|
