It's fun. You'll see how I bow out now having sown my seeds. See, bible parlance.
This is not an inaccuracy. If you were to describe yourself as an honest man, and in the future, you tell a lie, does it mean you were inaccurate when you described yourself?
We are human, and we have free will. We may be humble today, behave differently tomorrow.
Numbers 12:3 was saying that, at the time, Moses was meek, humble. A future action does not change that he was meek at the time.
Ram, have you ever studied the history of Hinduism, Buddism, etc just for the sake of cultural understanding or just because you are interested?
You were just proven wrong. You posted a supposed "biblical inaccuracy" and were proven wrong. It is not an inaccuracy.
Do you not admit when you are wrong?
addressing only the opening post's line of questioning....
The Coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) has been around for *360+ million years and has pretty much remained unchanged. Its current psysiology matches that of coelacanth fossils from that era (fossil coelacanths have been found in all continents with the exception of Antartica). By no means is this fish at the top of the food chain in the Indian Ocean, where the two (known) prominent populations live. It is not too terribly fast, nor is it poisonous. It can reproduce every year, reaching sexual maturity by age 5, give live birth to over 20 pups, and can live as long as 80 years (though its colonies are still very rare)... Yet we are led to believe that this fish didn't change much in that extensive span of time? (of course, before being led to believe that it was all but extinct for over 70-85 million years).
Before its recent re-discovery (1938) it was believed that this fish was a transitional species between other fishes and amphibians... yet it displays little desire to come close to land. The coelacanth inhabits deep ocean waters (400 - 2500 feet deep), where there are submarine caverns, deep reefs and volcanic slopes...
Why haven't we found Coelacanth-derived progeny from the observed Coelacanth populations???... as in we've found coelacanths remarkably close to the original species (again from fossil comparisons). Yet we see no other variants around. After 360+ million years no less? Why doesn't it keep spawning variants that want to crawl on land? Those are all tougher questions.
I heard the one on the right in the new defensive coordinator in waiting
Yeah, he's only allowed one visit now. Too bad. He was Mack's ace in the hole.
This is not an inaccuracy.
Mark is giving you more detail, whereas the others just tell you the punchline. They do not contradict each other. One is merely more in detail.
Sure. God told more to Mark. Or Mark sniffed more glue that day. Or more .
So then, once again, the myth that the Word of God contradicts itself has failed again.
May the Light of the Almighty shine in our hearts. Amen.
So sayeth MiamiHeat. Local , who has done nothing to disprove anything.
It does not only have to be that "God spoke" to the writers.
Remember, oral tradition. This was passed down until it was written down.
So, the Lord could have chosen specific people who had kept the accurate Word of God, virtuous men, men who served God.
So, perhaps one man chose to write down "twice" and the rest just told you about the punchline. The Word of God does not change it's meaning either way.
Claim CB930.1:
The coelacanth, thought to have been extinct for seventy million years and used as an example of a fish-tetrapod transition, is found still alive, unchanged in form, today.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 82-83,89.
Response:
The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."
Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.
Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html
This is because of the way the Jewish Levirite Law works.
Both of those passages are correct, but need to be explained so you may understand.
In Jewish law, if a man dies without having created any children, his brother is to marry his widow, and the first son that is born would legally be the dead man's heir (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).
In the story of Ruth, we see that this was not limited to brothers; the nearest male relative willing to take on the responsibility would marry the widow.
The logical (and traditional Roman Catholic and Orthodox) understanding is that Joseph's mother was originally the wife of Heli, but that he died without offspring. His kinsman Jacob then took the widow as his wife, and she bore Joseph. So, while "Jacob begat Joseph", legally Joseph was the son of Heli. Both were descendants of Zerubabel, and apparently Jacob was the nearest kinsman to Heli willing to fulfill the Levirite duty.
Matthew follows the natural line of descent, while Luke follows the legal line of descent.
Nonetheless, the Word of God is accurate.
i have and have taken college courses on them too... still not very interested in religion.
evolution never happened
end of story, you ignorant s
stop regurgitating your man.
I am sorry, but I do have to step in here. You said that it was the word of god. One could derive that this means, that it is not open to the interpretations or desires of the man holding the pen (i.e. one felt like writing one, the other two). Now, if you allow that the man holding the pen had creative license, then we are back to square one with this arguement (i.e. how do we know that what a man wrote anywhere from 100 years to centuries after the fact was accurate).
You also say that oral traditions were used at first (and used this to explain a discrepancy). Did God divinely inspire the story at the beginning of the oral tradition, or did he inspire the person who finally wrote it down? If the former, then the process of story telling over a period from 100 to several hundered years could cause the story to become full of embellishments. If the latter, then each time it was written should have allowed for no discrepancies.
As far as that father/brother/kinsman thing, this explanation seems to work except for two things. Gods word is supposed to be the absolute truth, not the absolute truth passed through the lens of someone's culture. It would seem that if gods words are subjected to the filter of someone's culture then isn't it more likely that this culture created him, rather than the other way around. If you want to respond that it was written through the lens of the culture, so not necessarily the absolute truth, but very close, and that the reason why god did this was to be able to communicate better with his people, ok, fine. I have to ask two questions, though, how much was the absolute truth changed to the almost absolute truth for cultural preferences, and why, during the 5th century (for example), didn't god intervene in the copying process and switch things back to the absolute truth. "Joseph son of this guy and kinsman of this guy."
Yes I feel dirty for jumping in the fray. Dang it.
That is your own journey. We are all ready at different times.
Sometimes, we need to go through certain experiences, follow our paths, discover ourselves, many things.
May the Lord bless you.
Apparently, Mark records the word 'twice'
the others only record that the ' crew'
They didn't say "once", they simply got to the point.
All of them are correct, and that is not a contradiction or 'creative license'
No the reason I asked this is that he was getting all bend out of shape by Hustle asking some questions about something that Hustle stated he doesn't believe in. Now I gather that you and hustle have your differences (because someone mentioned it earlier in the thread), and you may come back with something along the lines of "hustle acts moronic in other threads, so I am going to get up in arms in this thread." I don't see it that way. To me, he was asking some questions about what the "opposition" thinks. Inquiry is the root of learning, regardless of if it changes your opinion or not. So, I was going to liken it (for RAM), to someone studying hinduism, or any other religion. You don't believe in it but you are studying it to a) better understand the culture, b)because you are just interested, c)any other reason you can think of. Hustle was learning about something with which he doesn't agree, and until BOTH sides started coming in here and made it a this v. that argument as opposed to a Q & A session about one side, hustle conducted himself well, asking questions, and follow up questions.
So... that was the point of the hindu question.
Except for the fact that Coelacanth fossils have been found almost everywhere. Are you considering all of those environments to be non-changing? Especially after 360 million years of geologic activity? Further still, is their current environment considered non-changing? They live in the Indian Ocean off of Africa (and another family around Indonesia) around tectonic plates no less..? If anything, how is the fact that all the other fish species surrounding the coelacanths have drastically changed over hundreds of thousands of generations not considered a change? Have Coelacanths kept the same diet all those years? How did their diet not suddenly become the predator given all those years to adapt? I mean they could have evolved to grow larger than the coelacanths who suprisingly remained fairly unchanged in that same span.
Yet another logical fallacy in your bible's rebuttal (talkorigins.com).
Oh BTW... the coelacanth fossils in Mozambique, Tanzania, and Madagascar are from the same family as those living today. Talkorigins is outright lying by suggesting that they have no fossil record. Just thought you'd want to know that before you tossed away the entire argument...
Seems like they have to work harder.
Yet none of them venture close to land because they live in the depths of the open sea floor.
Mudskippers which are probably the closest fish-to-amphibian species (not including lung-fishes) are so distantly related to Coelacanths that it's not even funny.
Use your own thinking skills blake... sadly, I know you'll just continue to rebuttal with cut&paste jobs... I don't have the time to deal with that.
You'll just end up seeing everything with those Godless lenses of yours.
Been there... done that... x1000 here at SpursTalk.com
What's the point?
-Peace
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)