3 edits
Originally posted by thorvoOk, smartarse. Let's start at the start:
... And it does not have contradictions. if u think it does, then please find one.
1)Plants Created (& visibly appearing) on day 3
Gen 1:12-13
"The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
There was evening and there was morning, a third day."
2)Animals Created on day 5
Gen 1:20-25
"And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."
3) Man Created on day 6
Gen 1:26-31
"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
But, in the next chapter, the Bible contradicts itself by stating now that Man was Created before plants:
Gen 2:5-7
"In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
And now that Man was Created before animals:
Gen 2:18-19
"The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."
So if there's no contradiction please explain to me the correct order, Mr Thorvo?
Originally posted by thorvoYes as others have pointed out, there is definitely a logical contradiction in the genesis passage - the site you reference uses similar catholic logic of the host actually becoming the body of christ during the eucharist, even though it is blatently still just a wafer. the argument it gives about "two different accounts of the same thing" is, frankly, rubbish - if i wanted to know what happened at a football game and one said well there were 89 minutes of play with no scoring, and then two goals were scored, and the other said, well, one goal was scored early on, and the other right at the end - well, i wouldn't know what to believe - what the site does is turn the story into a metaphor for meaning.
Ok i think I see now what you meant about the language. As for the contradictions, I foudn a website that explains it pretty well. It would take me too long to write it all out and the site does a good job at explaning things. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401sbs.asp ... etc.
as nemesio said, the RCC is not the place to go for this kind of evidence - rome is a very intellectual place and it doesn't take much intellect to see all the contradictions, which is why the concept of having a place to go and look for definitive spiritual guidance (rome / the pope) in the catholic church makes so much sense - because the uneducated lay people could never understand the bible by themselves, they were told what it meant; the modern free-church concept of any uneducated person picking up the bible and taking life changing decisions from it is ridiculous, if you do not understand the social context each bit was written in, the audience it was written for, the chronology of the texts, the other accounts from the time, as rome does - then it is difficult to sift relevant stuff from the irrelevant. the modern low-church interpretation of the bible is a shallow one at best - "it contains absolute literal truths" - because then you need to say things like "there are no contradictions" when plainly there are. the RCC would not deny that it is "truth" as such, but argues that it is metaphorical, though they would never use that word. but i digress...
as for translations - i do not believe that there are any faithful translations, there are too many discrepancies between old and new, and different languages. even the ones we have in old languages are translations of texts we do not have, and remember that a lot of the early church used the au/oral tradition, not to mention the changes made to the bible to suit the current theology, e.g. in the councils of the time.
even the originals were contorted - when jesus rides into jerusalem in one of the accounts i think it is, he is aparently on two animals at the same time - just to fit in with the prophesy of the OT (which the writers of the NT had access to).
my extra books not only fit in with the rest of the bible, some of the books in your bible apparently make reference to them - see the wikipedia article on the apocryopha. here are some of the dependencies:
"examples: James 1:19-20 shows dependence on Sirach 5:13-14, Hebrews 1:3 on Wisdom 7:26, Hebrews 11:35 on 2 Maccabees 6, Romans 9:21 on Wisdom 15:7, 2 Cor. 5:1, 4 on Wisdom 9:15, etc."
you bible is incomplete. but, then again, so is mine - the bible as we know it is only a selection of books arranged that way because they seem to make the most sense. there are other gospels too (the gnostic gospels)
the NIV is a loose translation of the bible, used mainly by american evangelicals, as some of the contradictions are smoothed out, and some words added in to change possible problems. i use the jerusalem bible, which is a catholic one - and fortunately it is well annotated.
why do you believe that the bible has no contradictions in it? i mean, you imply that you believe in "creation" - if that is the case, can you tell me the sequence of events which occurred when the world was created?
Originally posted by FMFI can only go by your post to ascertain your beliefs. If you are a believe that the only way to salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, then yes, I have ascertained your doctrine to be correct. If not, then I have rightly determined that you follow false doctrine, and again, more power to ya. And IF you do not believe in Christ as Savior, then I can (and do) call it false doctrine, and God DID tell me through His Word, and yes, I am AbSoLuteLy sure.
And what doctrine would that be, I wonder? You haven't even bothered to ascertain what my doctrine is, and yet you've already pronounced it false. How assertive of you. OK, I won't condemn you for your faith if, in return, you don't condemn me for my faith by calling it false. Unless, of course, God has personally told you to denigrate my faith. And only if you are absolutely sure it was Him who told you to do it.
Any more questions?