Posted on 02/03/2003 3:53:13 AM PST by kattracks
1 Sam.23:6 -- "Abiathar the son of Ahimelech."
So Abiathar is Ahimelech's son. It says so twice. Or is he?
2 Sam.8:17 --"Ahimelech the son of Abiathar."
1 Chr.18:16 -- "Ahimelech the son of Abiathar."
1 Chr.24:6 -- "Ahimelech the son of Abiathar."
I wonder if Abiathar might have named one of his sons after his dad?
That's not the only contradictory lineage. How about:
Gen.26:34 -- "And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite."
Gen.36:2-3 -- "Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and ... Bashemath Ishmael's daughter."
Odd, Bashemath, Esau's wife, has two different fathers.
Wonder if Elon the Hittite had a daughter named Bashemath, oh and Ishmael had a daughter named Bashemath who had an unnamed daughter who married Esau. Different Bashemaths.
Elsewhere, Lot is either Abraham's brother (two passages) or his nephew (three passages) -- the Bible can't seem to make up its mind.
Lot was an extension of Abraham's brother. Abraham's brother’s son. Sometimes ancient cultures used these types of attributions. Attributing brother status to nephews when they represented their fathers house.
Or, when was the earth dried after the Flood?
Gen 8:13 -- And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
Gen 8:14 -- And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
Oookay, which is it?
Could be Noah was starting a new Calendar after the flood then clarified what the old calendar date would have been to start off a new beginning. Funny how he starts with the first month on the first day of the month.
And for the rest of your assertions: John 8:58-59
58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
When Jesus appeared to men before his birth (in the Old Testament) He was God who only appeared as a man. When Jesus was born unto Mary He was fully man and fully God (necessary to fulfill the requirement of death for Adam and our sin).
The Jews knew Jesus was claiming to be God and took up stones. The Father is Spirit (invisible to natural human eyes) and is perfect (therefore unapproachable by imperfect man), but the perfect man Jesus (who makes the Father approachable) died for our sins.
Jesus' blood cleans away our imperfections, which restored spiritual fellowship to the Father. All one needs to do is claim the one who paid the ransom unto yourself and that God shaped void in your life will be filled.
No they didn't do that, did they?
1Ch 6:7 Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, 1Ch 6:8 And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz, 1Ch 6:9 And Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan, 1Ch 6:10 And Johanan begat Azariah, (he [it is] that executed the priest's office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem:) 1Ch 6:11 And Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, 1Ch 6:12 And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum, 1Ch 6:13 And Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, 1Ch 6:14 And Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak
Strange days, indeed.
I suppose I'll go to Hell for pointing out that the four Gospels give different wordings for the sign that was hung on the cross.
As for pi, quite clearly it's an approximation; any talk of inner circumference vs. outer diameter is Clintonian "is"-ism. But Biblical literalists can't admit any approximation in the Bible, so they have to bend over backwards to make the slightest sense of a very straightforward verse. I've literally seen people invoke non-Euclidean geometry in an attempt to explain it.
Only in the sense that biology keeps disproving the assumptions of evolution.
1. The disproof of Darwin's racist claim that the brachycephalic index showed what races were superior and which were inferior. While some may dismiss this as a minutae, it is a strong refutation of evolution because it shows that there has been no 'evolution' in the human species and according to evolutionists evolution is always going on.
2. Mendelian genetics showed that the transfer of new traits was very difficult indeed because a new trait, not being in the gene pool of other individuals had a 50% chance of being passed on to the next generation until there was sufficient spread of the new genes for it to be passed on regularly by both parents.
2a. Mendelian genetics also showed the concept of alleles - duplicate genes in every organism which performed the same function but a bit differently. This allows the adaptation of a species to the environment without the need to wait for a chance mutation to occur. It shows that transformation of organisms is not necessary for survival.
3. DNA - a Nobel Prize winning discovery - showed the utter complexity of the cells in every organism. It laid to rest forever the concept that just a little mutation could transform an organism or a species.
4. Genome Project - showed the utter interrelatedness of every single gene, cell, part of the body. It has shown that it is impossible for any new trait to evolve by chance occurrence (or at random, or without design or whatever you wish to call how evolutionary changes to the genome are supposed to occur according to evolution). For any change, for any transformation to occur, there would need to be the coevolution of the new trait together with a complete support system to make it work. This of course is totally ludicrous, especially in view of 2 and 3 above.
If they cannot understand what you say, even after you repeat yourself several times, how can they understand the theory they try to defend?
Thank you for my first big laugh this a.m.
I'm not sure how a persons personal belief system in anyway imparts itself onto a scientific theory. This is why the professor has every right to give out letters of recommendation based on SCIENCE, not theology.
As I read many of the post of the creationists, I see a tremendous amount of credence given to a single Biblical verse or an interpretation from a particular scholar. The rub is how does anyone know if that verse is really the correct one. Is it argued from an imprinted engram, or is it argued from a personal revelation? From many observations, I have come to the conclusion that the environment directly influences the worldview taken on by the individual that this individual grew up in. This also includes the fundamental belief systems imprinted into the brain over the years. So people end up taking a particular stance on a many thousand year old writing colored by personal experiences and or a long-term environment that was inhabited.
I constantly hear from the various churches, “baby steps”. Why is this? It is because we learn this way. We have to allow the brain to build those neural interconnects to over a period of time. It’s not unlike flying an aircraft. What was so terribly difficult at first becomes absurdly simple as our brains adapt to the new directives we are imprinting on it. This is the same with the different religions. Over time people imprint the “truth” that is then defended vehemently because it’s “known to be true”.
So here is the rub. How can we determine on a pure faith based belief system, which is the correct model or “truth”? When I ask this question I get answers like; the Bible told me, my pastor stated it, or I prayed and God himself told me. Well, if there were immutable truths, wouldn’t everyone get the same answer when they prayed or read the same book? Since there is an ongoing fierce argument between the different religions, obviously this is not the case.
Now we will throw another monkey wrench into the equation. There have been a number of councils that have determined what is “truth” in scripture and what is not: i.e. the Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the council of Nicea, etc. So here is another rub, if the word of God has been handed down, why the requirement for the councils?
There also seems to be contradictions in the Bible. For example, the resurrection stories from each of the different Gospels. They are different enough that just to say they were seen from different perspectives does not wash. I always have wondered which is the correct one or the “truth”. If there is that kind of discrepancy in the very thing that defines Christianity (the resurrection itself), how can we not suspect the other verses in this same book? I get answers like the Bible is divine because God stated it was. Well where did he state that but in the Bible. This is not unlike me writing a letter and then stating in that letter that it’s divine because God says so. Would you take that seriously? This is in effect what you are doing with the Bible.
For example:
Matthew 28: Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulcher. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled the stone back and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his rainment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.
Mark 16: Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they were saying to each one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. .
Luke 24: But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel; and as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” .
John 20: Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “they have taken the lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went towards the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. .
So were there one or two angels, did an angel sit on the rock, was there an earthquake, were there guards, were there two men, did the disciples run to the tomb? Etc.
The resurrection is the very linchpin of all Christianity! And yet the stories in each of the Gospels for this single most pivotal event in the entire Bible are a far cry from each other. If these verses have this kind of disparity, how is it possible to argue the fine nuances of the others?
Now we will throw a final monkey wrench into the works. There is a body of knowledge that has been painstakingly complied over thousands of years we refer to today as science. Unlike a belief system, science is a series of models that describe the universe we inhabit from both observation and experimentation. Again unlike an immutable text such as the Bible, science will revise its models as new evidence comes to light. This also gives rise to the false belief that science is shiftless sand that has no firm foundations. This is far from the case. Over the millennia we have made discoveries that we continue to build on as we obtain further knowledge and understanding. Do old ideas get thrown out? Of course! However, not without coming up with a better model to fit the observed phenomena in question. Take gravity for instance. It is a theory and no matter how much evidence accumulates, it will always remain a theory. One of my problems is that we don’t revise (or at least re interpret) the Bible as new facts come to light.
Now if an atheist looks at this, he will see a group of individuals or a church blindly following a faith system that has been handed down over thousands of years that ignore the basic findings of science. For example, there is not one shred of Geologic evidence for a word wide flood approximately 4-6 thousand years ago. However, there are groups that vehemently will defend such to their dying breath just because the Bible told them so. No wonder he/she (the atheist) sees the religion as a foolish waste of time.
So the question is where is the line drawn? Parts of the Bible already have been modified or rejected from what once was considered scripture via the councils. So why not take into account the findings from the scientific community?
Its too bad that Albert Einstein, who believed in a creator, would not have met the professor's standards. As limitating as you may think it is to believe in a creator, it is even more limitating to believe in every current scientific theory without question. A different point of view is always neccessary for advancement even if you fail to understand why.
You contradict yourself. If you are convinced that scientific = atheist, then why do you care if "science" has proven that "faith heals"? And why are you screaming about "religious discrimination" when you are also stating that atheists should not practice medicine?
You are making a few assumptions here that hurt, not help, your argument. One is that the opposite of Christian is atheist. There are plenty of religions that are not opposed to the concept of evolution (and plenty of Christian demoninations which are not opposed). To say that because this professor requires that the students he recommends believe in one of the fundamental tenets of science is not to discriminate against religious folk. It is (for the sake of this argument) to "discriminate" (your words, not mime) against those adherents to a uniquely American, Protestant sect of Christianity.
In short, the posters on this thread make themselves laughable when they presume to speak for all Christians.
No. The effect of the test for Dini is whether or not to write a letter. The court would have to conclude that the relevancy of evolution to biology is a reasonable test for writing a letter.
Absolutely ridiculous. These students weren't denied a recommendation because they are religious. They were denied recommendations because they reject science. Show me the slightest evidence that Einstein rejected evolution or thought that the universe is 6,000 years old, and I'll admit you have a point.
I cannot believe this would even be considered by a court.
From the article:
"There's no problem with Dr. Dini saying you have to understand evolution and you have to be able to describe it in detail," said Kelly Shackelford, the group's chief counsel, "but you can't tell students that they have to hold the same personal belief that you do."
I am appalled at the way "belief" is used! Evolution is not a belief system. It is a scientific theory. I hate the term belief when talking about evolution. It puts it in the category of a "faith" system. The real question is, does the person accept the scientific evidence that has supported evolution for more than 100 years. If new data come to light (credible and peer reviewed) that overturns or modifies this theory, the current model will have to either be scrapped or modified to take the new data into account. However, over the years, the data uncovered is continuing to support and further strengthen this theory, not undermine it.
Why was the guy being a jackass? Why do you think it better for him to not say anything and just quietly and methodically eliminate creationists after they have asked for a letter of recommendation? So he should have waited until the student took his class, got the "A," asked for a letter of recommendation, then turned him (the student) down without saying why?
It seems to me that Christians here on this so-called Conservative site are very happy with the idea that Christians should be a special, protected class, with unique privlidges and carte blanche to do what they will. Funny, but it is quite alright to give a small segment of the population unequal, special rights, so long as it is your own pet cause. Of course, you will be screaming bloody murder when it is used against you, and it will be.
> With the lifespans and prolific childbearing of that time, it could have been a niece. I wouldn't bet on her being an ape.
A niece by whom?
Consider that Ashcroft is a creationist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.