Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inerrant Bible?
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 31 of 81 (8672)
04-17-2002 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by TrueCreation
04-14-2002 5:47 PM


I don't know, but I think hieroglyphics are textual/historical evidences, not C-14 material. Naturally the ego-crazed Pharoah will want to have his terrible name plastered in as many different places as possible and with an edited and rather biased historical description of his reign. I should probably look into this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 04-14-2002 5:47 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by TrueCreation, posted 04-19-2002 5:58 PM gene90 has not replied

  
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 81 (8704)
04-19-2002 3:06 AM


[QUOTE][b]Genesis 30
30:36 And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.
30:37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chestnut tree; and pilled white streaks in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
30:38 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.
30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstreaked, speckled, and spotted.
30:40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstreaked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
30:41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
30:42 But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
30:43 And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
So please correct me if I'm wrong but...
Jacob took some fresh-cut branches from hazel and chestnut trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white wood of the branches (calls these rods).
Then he placed the peeled branches(rods)in the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the animals when they came to drink. When the animals came to drink, they mated in front of the branches (rods). They had offspring that were speckled, streaked and/or spotted.
He had made separate flocks for himself and didn't put them with Labans animals. Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob placed the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches. If the animals were weak, he would not put them there. Therefore the weak animals went to Laban and the strong animals went to Jacob. Jacob was a smart man!
I'm sure this has shown up before...But how would a Creation Scientist explain this? Since Creation Scientists are constantly explaining "The Great Flood and Noahs ark" story, then they should also be able to explain other stories like the one above.
If Genesis is meant to be taken literally, then maybe someone could give me a reasonable explanation to how this happened?

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 04-19-2002 6:06 PM no2creation has replied
 Message 37 by w_fortenberry, posted 04-21-2002 12:36 AM no2creation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 81 (8710)
04-19-2002 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by gene90
04-17-2002 1:18 PM


"I don't know, but I think hieroglyphics are textual/historical evidences, not C-14 material."
--I would agree there.
"Naturally the ego-crazed Pharoah will want to have his terrible name plastered in as many different places as possible and with an edited and rather biased historical description of his reign. I should probably look into this."
--Even though history isn't one of my favorite subjects, and I rather have a dislike for it out of its almost complete bordom it offers me, it would be interesting to see what you find. In Joz's words, "off you go..."
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by gene90, posted 04-17-2002 1:18 PM gene90 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 81 (8711)
04-19-2002 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by no2creation
04-19-2002 3:06 AM


"If Genesis is meant to be taken literally, then maybe someone could give me a reasonable explanation to how this happened?"
--Sounds like Population genetics, that is, the use of dominant and recessive alleles in segregation of the lambs/goats, keep in mind a previous verse:
35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons.
36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban's flocks.
--The classic Mendel experiments seemingly contrasts this effect.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by no2creation, posted 04-19-2002 3:06 AM no2creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by no2creation, posted 04-19-2002 8:49 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 81 (8718)
04-19-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TrueCreation
04-19-2002 6:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"If Genesis is meant to be taken literally, then maybe someone could give me a reasonable explanation to how this happened?"
--Sounds like Population genetics, that is, the use of dominant and recessive alleles in segregation of the lambs/goats, keep in mind a previous verse:
35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons.
36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban's flocks.
--The classic Mendel experiments seemingly contrasts this effect.

How many days did this take? Three?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 04-19-2002 6:06 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by TrueCreation, posted 04-20-2002 12:56 PM no2creation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 81 (8727)
04-20-2002 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by no2creation
04-19-2002 8:49 PM


"How many days did this take? Three?"
--How many days did what take? What might you be refering to?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by no2creation, posted 04-19-2002 8:49 PM no2creation has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6106 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 37 of 81 (8755)
04-21-2002 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by no2creation
04-19-2002 3:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by no2creation:
So please correct me if I'm wrong but...
Jacob took some fresh-cut branches from hazel and chestnut trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white wood of the branches (calls these rods).
Then he placed the peeled branches(rods)in the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the animals when they came to drink. When the animals came to drink, they mated in front of the branches (rods). They had offspring that were speckled, streaked and/or spotted...
If Genesis is meant to be taken literally, then maybe someone could give me a reasonable explanation to how this happened?
The answer to your question is found in chapter 31.
quote:
And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock, And said unto them, I see your father's countenance, that it is not toward me as before; but the God of my father hath been with me. And ye know that with all my power I have served your father. And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me. If he said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the cattle bare speckled: and if he said thus, The ringstraked shall be thy hire; then bare all the cattle ringstraked. Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me. And it came to pass at the time that the cattle conceived, that I lifted up mine eyes, and saw in a dream, and, behold, the rams which leaped upon the cattle were ringstraked, speckled, and grisled. And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I. And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred. (Genesis 31:4-13 KJV)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by no2creation, posted 04-19-2002 3:06 AM no2creation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 05-25-2002 3:08 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 81 (10042)
05-20-2002 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by gene90
02-21-2002 4:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Here's a "new" inconsistency I noticed. Compare Luke 23:39 to Matthew 27:32. In Luke, one of the robbers crucified with Jesus reviles him, the other rebukes his fellow and is promised by Jesus that he will have eternal life. In Matthew, both give Jesus a hard time.
Then again, does anyone here believe the Bible is inerrant?

If this is due to Death I would need to find more harmony here as to the requirement of a literal understanding gene90, but rather it seems to me that the exception is confused with a aposteriori error because the aprioriness is not usually (philosophically) suppor()ted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by gene90, posted 02-21-2002 4:41 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 39 of 81 (10356)
05-25-2002 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by w_fortenberry
04-21-2002 12:36 AM


I had asked a question about this to some dispensationalists in Lewiston not Auburn ME (Known as LA down-east) and they could not the dividing of the word back to this conversation. Maybe I will try it some day. Still reading Jerimiah after Isiah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by w_fortenberry, posted 04-21-2002 12:36 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Philip, posted 05-26-2002 9:48 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 40 of 81 (10383)
05-26-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Brad McFall
05-25-2002 3:08 PM


Brad mentioned the 'dispensationalist' approach to the Bible (perhaps understanding it). The expository scriptures do harmonize under such an approach, for the most part, albeit, without the poetic Halleluia's, etc. which are way beyond any literalist's approach.
[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 05-25-2002 3:08 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 05-28-2002 11:24 AM Philip has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 41 of 81 (10471)
05-28-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Philip
05-26-2002 9:48 PM


I still prefer litterally approaching the reading of the text. The reason is that the IMAGE of organisms with horns I have never been able to remmeber back to my reading of living herps DIFFERENT than the pictures of dino bones. When reading the Bible More literally I find that as I do not really know the dispensationalist techinique I do think now of references in the books and though this may not be my duty to have so divided it I rather once I gain a better literal comprehension THEN go to the Gospels. My feeling is that many Christians tend often than not to Start their. A result is that I am more familiar with Jude than Paul though I read more Paul than Luke for any narrative other i read OT not object technology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Philip, posted 05-26-2002 9:48 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Philip, posted 05-29-2002 3:13 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6106 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 42 of 81 (10483)
05-28-2002 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by gene90
02-21-2002 4:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Here's a "new" inconsistency I noticed. Compare Luke 23:39 to Matthew 27:32. In Luke, one of the robbers crucified with Jesus reviles him, the other rebukes his fellow and is promised by Jesus that he will have eternal life. In Matthew, both give Jesus a hard time.
I think the verses you are trying to compare are Luke 23:39-42 and Matthew 27:41-44. Is it not possible that both accounts are correct? Could not both thieves have reviled Christ at first with one continuing to do so while the other repented? Such an interpretation would be without inconsistencies.
quote:
Then again, does anyone here believe the Bible is inerrant?
Yes. I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by gene90, posted 02-21-2002 4:41 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Peter, posted 05-28-2002 7:18 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 43 of 81 (10515)
05-28-2002 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by w_fortenberry
05-28-2002 1:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Yes. I do.
Why ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by w_fortenberry, posted 05-28-2002 1:12 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 44 of 81 (10535)
05-29-2002 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Brad McFall
05-28-2002 11:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
I still prefer litterally approaching the reading of the text. The reason is that the IMAGE of organisms with horns I have never been able to remmeber back to my reading of living herps DIFFERENT than the pictures of dino bones. When reading the Bible More literally I find that as I do not really know the dispensationalist techinique I do think now of references in the books and though this may not be my duty to have so divided it I rather once I gain a better literal comprehension THEN go to the Gospels.
--The literal is often poetical and vice-versa. When you read "Halleluiah", you may praise God literally and/or poetically to varying degrees. Dispensations (I agree) are biased and biasing, yet useful at times to rationally 'transend' this cursed reality, though not as 'resurrecting' as the raw biblical words themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 05-28-2002 11:24 AM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Philip, posted 05-29-2002 3:24 AM Philip has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 45 of 81 (10536)
05-29-2002 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Philip
05-29-2002 3:13 AM


I believe the Bible is inerrant, if only due to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Christ for a sin-cursed creation. For this gospel is extremely conspicuous (as devised by God Himself) throughout those scriptures alone. Science also bears witness to such a gospel via the appearances of ID (think Honda-Civic), a manifest multi-tiered ‘curse’, and observed ‘redemptive’/’restoring’ events.
Care to hear more, anyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Philip, posted 05-29-2002 3:13 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 05-29-2002 4:37 AM Philip has replied
 Message 57 by nator, posted 06-04-2002 6:46 AM Philip has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024