A Comparison of the Biblical God vs Allah
#21
No, I am not an atheist.  I definitely believe there is a God.  I hope that deism is true and fear that Christianity is true.

I don't think you are correct about Jephthah's daughter.  Jephthah said he would offer whatever came out of his door first as a burnt offering.  A burnt offering was very specific.  Other burnt offerings were usually cakes, birds, or occasionally rams.  Further, when Jephthah's daughter came out of his house, you can feel the anguish that he felt when he realized the vow he made.  Given the culture of the time, any of her offspring would not have been counted towards him, but rather towards their father's father.  So he is not merely upset at the loss of progeny, and his anguish would have been disproportionate to that end.  He was grieved because he knew he must kill his daughter in order to keep his vow.  Perhaps most importantly, there is nothing in the text to indicate that she was merely going to make a vow of perpetual virginity.  This is speculation, and it is a result of people knowing how horrible what they are reading is and trying to find a way to rationalize what is obviously evil.


For my top 3 contradictions, or I guess contraindication would be a more accurate word, I would say 1) the documentary hypothesis, 2) original sin and 3) the logical problem that, with the present world, God can be omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving in any combination of 2, but cannot be all 3.

1) Biblical scholars, both secular and Christian (fundamentalists are usually the only objectors) agree that the Old Testament as a whole, and the Pentateuch in particular, were not written by an original author as they proclaim, but are a hodge-podge that was edited and re-edited over several centuries.  This re-editing took place as Israel gradually moved from polytheism, to monolatrism, to eventual monotheism.  In Genesis, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob interact with El by performing venerations as the Canaanites of the time would have done to their gods.  El was the monarch of the Canaanite pantheon, which was called Elohim (Elohim is a plural word).  The various references to the sons of God in the OT, and El being El Elyon - God Most High, make sense in the context of polytheism but are confusing if read in the context of Abraham being the first monotheist.  Abraham may have been the first Semitic monolatrist, but for centuries after, the Israelites believed that the other gods still existed.  So the Patriarchs were merely making El their God, and he wasn't referred to Yahweh until later, after Moses returned with the Jews from Egypt.  The stories in Genesis were redacted at a later date, to include Yahweh in them.  The evidence for all of this that really made it hit home for me was the linguistic evidence.  I'm a linguist, so it made it personal and relatable for me.  The various parts of the OT were written in forms of Biblical Hebrew that existed hundreds of years a part from each other.  Deuteronomy in particular was written in the form of Hebrew used at the time of King Josiah, and the story itself of Josiah finding the "lost book of Moses" that supposedly no one knew of before, strongly suggests with the linguistic evidence that Deuteronomy was actually political propaganda from Josiah's court.  At the very least, it is impossible that the Torah was written by one person, or at the same time.

https://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514833688&sr=1-9&keywords=the+history+of+god

2)This isn't so much a textual contraindication for me as it is a worldview one.  Everyone has a sense in them that the world isn't the way it ought to be.  The explanation Christianity gives of why evil exists in the world is original sin.  Because of original sin, all of humanity is corrupted, and all of creation as well, or at least, all of creation on earth.  The primary consequence of original sin is death.  But we know that death pre-existed humans as a species.  In fact, there are multitudes of creatures that God created specifically to clean up after death.  Vultures, blackbirds, various bacteria and fungus - any scavenger helps get rid of carrion, preventing to some degree the spread of illness and more death.  Scavenging is a niche in the overall ecosystem that cannot be dispensed with - it is an ordered part.  An ordered part that depends on death being a natural part of the natural order.  In fact, no living organism - plant, animal, fungus, bacteria, whatever - with the possible exception of some algae and plankton, can live unless something else dies to nourish them.  Life depends upon death, and death depends upon life.  If all of this were the result of a sin that took place at a singular moment in time, after it already existed in the world for millions of years, then that one sin of Adam not only changed the physical nature of all reality - something no sin has ever done since - but, of necessity, must also have done so retroactively, extending back to the moment God created the universe.  This is logically incredulous, if not completely impossible.


3) This one is kind of simple.  Evil exists, and people are hurt by it.  If God is all-loving, then he doesn't want anyone to commit evil, nor does he want anyone to be hurt by it.  If he is omnipotent, he can do anything and everything necessary to stop it.  But clearly, he doesn't.  So either he doesn't know how to stop it, so not omniscient, or knows how but isn't capable of bringing it about, so not omnipotent, or he knows how and can, which can only mean he doesn't want to.  If he doesn't want to, then he doesn't love his creation, or at least not enough to prevent them from being hurt by evil.  You will probably object that God wants people to be able to choose him and good freely, and one can only do that if they are free to choose evil and hate.  This is true, however, Christianity teaches that God can and does step in and prevent bad things from happening sometimes.  If God never prevented the course of original sin from playing out, the argument would already be over.  But he sometimes does, which means the other times - most of the time - he could but didn't want to.  So he may be omnipotent, he may be omniscient, and he may be all-loving, but logically, he cannot be all three.
Reply
#22
(12-31-2017, 07:00 PM)Melkite Wrote: Sorry, Zedta, I liked your comment by mistake.

It always makes me laugh whenever this "Biblical God and Allah are not the same" bs makes its rounds.  Anyone who thinks they're not the same hasn't read the OT.  Yahweh and Allah both behave as war gods.  The God of the OT and the God of the NT act as if they are not the same being.

That's okay. It was obviously a "Freudian Slip". :D
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

All War is Deception
Gen. Sun

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis

Political Correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners.
George Carlin

“In a time of deceit…truth is a revolutionary act”
George Orwell
Reply
#23
My top 3 objections are probably 1) God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, 2) the covenant of circumcision, and 3) the genocide of the Canaanites.

I think I have already stated why 1 and 3 are difficult for me.  I recognize the allegorical nature of God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.  What makes it problematic for me is if it is also an historical event.  If it was an historical event, it was plainly cruel of God to ask that of Abraham, just to set up a foreshadowing of Christ.  As far as Abraham believing that he would return with Isaac, I think that is again Christians trying to rationalize away what is plainly horrible - and they know it's horrible, or they wouldn't try to rationalize it.  All Abraham knew was that God was telling him to sacrifice Isaac.  He told the people that were with him that he would return with the boy, but if he had been honest and said what he was really up to, would the people he was with have allowed him to?  He was probably lying to avoid that altercation, and he has a biblically recorded history of lying.  He lied to Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister, because he was afraid.  He also was probably lying to the men because he was afraid of what they would do to him otherwise.  But at least, in this text, there is something concrete to suggest that he really believed God would provide the sacrifice, so maybe there is some truth to it.  I just don't think it is the simplest explanation.

Regarding the covenant of circumcision, it is non-sensical that God would create a part of the body with as many specialized functions as the foreskin has and require it to be cut off to be pleasing to him.  And not only asking it of the believer himself, but asking the believer to force it on someone else who cannot choose for or against God's covenant.  This is more of an emotional than rational objection for me, but rationally, I believe it makes no sense for God to require an amputation of any part that he specifically designed and created.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the OT, as it is, is allegory designed to foreshadow the NT.  That is, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that God would use something so abhorrent, even if it is just a fictional story, to foreshadow what was to come in the New.  It doesn't seem compatible with the character of an all-loving Father as Christ presents him.  But I find intolerable the idea that God would have literally, historically commanded all these things in order to foreshadow the coming of Christ.  If a human were to orchestrate a bloody massacre in order to symbolically represent the coming of some future event, like an eclipse or an earthquake, all of human society would rightly recognize that man as a psychopath.  But when God does it, we're supposed to think it is beautiful and be thankful?  No, if God truly did all of this in history, and did so to foreshadow Christ, then God himself is a psychopath.
Reply
#24
(01-01-2018, 03:32 PM)Mel kite Wrote: No, I am not an atheist.  I definitely believe there is a God.  I hope that deism is true and fear that Christianity is true.

I don't think you are correct about Jephthah's daughter.  Jephthah said he would offer whatever came out of his door first as a burnt offering.  A burnt offering was very specific.  Other burnt offerings were usually cakes, birds, or occasionally rams.  Further, when Jephthah's daughter came out of his house, you can feel the anguish that he felt when he realized the vow he made.  Given the culture of the time, any of her offspring would not have been counted towards him, but rather towards their father's father.  So he is not merely upset at the loss of progeny, and his anguish would have been disproportionate to that end.  He was grieved because he knew he must kill his daughter in order to keep his vow.  Perhaps most importantly, there is nothing in the text to indicate that she was merely going to make a vow of perpetual virginity.  This is speculation, and it is a result of people knowing how horrible what they are reading is and trying to find a way to rationalize what is obviously evil.


For my top 3 contradictions, or I guess contraindication would be a more accurate word, I would say 1) the documentary hypothesis, 2) original sin and 3) the logical problem that, with the present world, God can be omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving in any combination of 2, but cannot be all 3.

1) Biblical scholars, both secular and Christian (fundamentalists are usually the only objectors) agree that the Old Testament as a whole, and the Pentateuch in particular, were not written by an original author as they proclaim, but are a hodge-podge that was edited and re-edited over several centuries.  This re-editing took place as Israel gradually moved from polytheism, to monolatrism, to eventual monotheism.  In Genesis, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob interact with El by performing venerations as the Canaanites of the time would have done to their gods.  El was the monarch of the Canaanite pantheon, which was called Elohim (Elohim is a plural word).  The various references to the sons of God in the OT, and El being El Elyon - God Most High, make sense in the context of polytheism but are confusing if read in the context of Abraham being the first monotheist.  Abraham may have been the first Semitic monolatrist, but for centuries after, the Israelites believed that the other gods still existed.  So the Patriarchs were merely making El their God, and he wasn't referred to Yahweh until later, after Moses returned with the Jews from Egypt.  The stories in Genesis were redacted at a later date, to include Yahweh in them.  The evidence for all of this that really made it hit home for me was the linguistic evidence.  I'm a linguist, so it made it personal and relatable for me.  The various parts of the OT were written in forms of Biblical Hebrew that existed hundreds of years a part from each other.  Deuteronomy in particular was written in the form of Hebrew used at the time of King Josiah, and the story itself of Josiah finding the "lost book of Moses" that supposedly no one knew of before, strongly suggests with the linguistic evidence that Deuteronomy was actually political propaganda from Josiah's court.  At the very least, it is impossible that the Torah was written by one person, or at the same time.

https://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514833688&sr=1-9&keywords=the+history+of+god

2)This isn't so much a textual contraindication for me as it is a worldview one.  Everyone has a sense in them that the world isn't the way it ought to be.  The explanation Christianity gives of why evil exists in the world is original sin.  Because of original sin, all of humanity is corrupted, and all of creation as well, or at least, all of creation on earth.  The primary consequence of original sin is death.   In fact, no living organism - plant, animal, fungus, bacteria, whatever - with the possible exception of some algae and plankton, can live unless something else dies to nourish them.  Life depends upon death, and death depends upon life.  If all of this were the result of a sin that took place at a singular moment in time, after it already existed in the world for millions of years, then that one sin of Adam not only changed the physical nature of all reality - something no sin has ever done since - but, of necessity, must also have done so retroactively, extending back to the moment God created the universe.  This is logically incredulous, if not completely impossible.


3) This one is kind of simple.  Evil exists, and people are hurt by it.  If God is all-loving, then he doesn't want anyone to commit evil, nor does he want anyone to be hurt by it.  If he is omnipotent, he can do anything and everything necessary to stop it.  But clearly, he doesn't.  So either he doesn't know how to stop it, so not omniscient, or knows how but isn't capable of bringing it about, so not omnipotent, or he knows how and can, which can only mean he doesn't want to.  If he doesn't want to, then he doesn't love his creation, or at least not enough to prevent them from being hurt by evil.  You will probably object that God wants people to be able to choose him and good freely, and one can only do that if they are free to choose evil and hate.  This is true, however, Christianity teaches that God can and does step in and prevent bad things from happening sometimes.  If God never prevented the course of original sin from playing out, the argument would already be over.  But he sometimes does, which means the other times - most of the time - he could but didn't want to.  So he may be omnipotent, he may be omniscient, and he may be all-loving, but logically, he cannot be all three.

Thanks for the post. On Jephthah's daughter I never said for sure one way or the other I gave links to some arguments for both sides, I would say it is inconclusive. However what i did state is many bad things happen in the book of Judges and 

“there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes” 
-Judges 17:6; 19:1; 21:25

I would also add God agrees child sacrifice is wrong. 

Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,                          -Deuteronomy 18:10

you must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
-Deuteronomy 12.31

 And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech,
-Leviticus 18

They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them. 37 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to false gods. 38 They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.
-Psalm 106 36-38



1]  I dont see this as a contradiction and admit it has been some time since I got into this but  I assure you need to understand the documentary hypothesis has been refuted long ago and is not believed by any bible believing christian, it is a theory built on atheistic assumptions. There is a great debate with william lane craig were he destroyed this opponent on this i will search for it. A great book for this would be here

https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That...0785242198

I will try off hand to answer you objections you raise. You claim isreal went from polytheism to monotheist, any evidence to support this? this is not the biblical record that teaches monotheism through the bible beginning in genesis. You said Abraham, Issac and jacob worshipped  as the Canaanites had. This is false. Can you support this? It is clear you have not read the bible either. As those books of Moses you hate so much spend most of their time saying do not worship as the Canaanites do. This is repeated many times. 

You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods
Dut12.31 

eyou say Yahweh was not used, yet it is used in genesis 2 v 4 . You than claim Abraham referred to the sons of gods as gods. and isreal before moses believed in multiple gods. can you support this? have you read the creation account? you than claim "The stories in Genesis were redacted at a later date, to include Yahweh in them." please support here. this is not based on the bible or  logic but presuppositions without evidence. F 



Let us consider this in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The word ’Elohim is used for God 25 times in Genesis 1:1–2:4a.11 It has the idea of an awesome and faithful Being, having creative and governing power, majesty and omnipotence, who is above the material world He created. It is a lofty title (= ‘God’) and is the appropriate word for Moses to have used for the first factual report of God’s creative activities.12
In Genesis chapter 2 from verse 4, the Hebrew uses the letters YHWH to refer to God. Sometimes translated ‘Jehovah’, it is more often translated ‘LORD’ (in small capitals), and is the most commonly used term for God in the Old Testament (6,823 times). It means ‘the One who always was, now is, and ever shall be’ and is the deeply personal name of God. It is therefore used in His personal and covenant relationshipswith people. Genesis 2:4b ff is the detailed account of how God made Adam and Eve, and of the setting He prepared for them.13 Here they were meant to live and work in loving covenantal fellowship with Him14 and with each other. It was entirely appropriate therefore that Moses should have used YHWH in writing this section of Genesis. In Genesis 2, YHWH is joined to ‘Elohim to form the compound name YHWH-’Elohim(= the Lord God). This identifies the covenant God YHWH as being one and the same as ’Elohim, the almighty creator. There is no logical reason (particularly any based on the term used for God) to ascribe this account to any other author(s).
The same principles apply in the rest of Genesis and throughout the Old Testament.
T
he JEDP system is self-contradictory, as its proponents need to break verses into sections and even credit parts of sentences (that use more than one term for God) to different writers. Such a hotchpotch would be unique in ancient Middle Eastern literature.
The ‘scholarship’ used to promote the documentary hypothesis would be laughed out of court if applied to any other ancient book!
Computer agrees: Genesis had only one author
The following quote comes from Omni magazine of August 1982:
Quote:‘After feeding the 20,000 Hebrew words of Genesis into a computer at Technion University in Israel, researchers found many sentences that ended in verbs and numerous words of six characters or more. Because these idiosyncratic patterns appear again and again, says project director Yehuda Radday, it seems likely that a sole author was responsible. Their exhaustive computer analysis conducted in Israel suggested an 82 percent probability that the book has just one author.’


Some Assumptions you make 

  1. hey assumed their conclusion. They assumed that the Bible is not a supernatural revelation from God and then manipulated the biblical text to arrive at that conclusion. They were implicitly deistic or atheistic in their thinking.
  2. They assumed that Israel’s religion was simply the invention of man, a product of evolution, as all other religions are.
  3. Based on evolutionary ideas, they assumed that “the art of writing was virtually unknown in Israel prior to the establishment of the Davidic monarchy; therefore there could have been no written records going back to the time of Moses.”13 This claim not only attacks the intelligence of the ancient Israelites, but also the Egyptians who trained Moses. Were the Egyptians incapable of teaching Moses how to read and write? Since the time the documentary hypothesis was first proposed, archaeologists have discovered scores of written records pre-dating the time of Moses. It is hard to believe that Israel’s ancient neighbors knew how to write, but the Jews could not.
  4. Liberal Bible scholars allegedly based their theories on evidence from the biblical text and yet they evaded the biblical evidence that refutes their theories. Theirs was a “pick and choose” approach to studying the Bible, which is hardly honest scholarship in pursuit of truth.
  5. They arbitrarily assumed that the Hebrew authors were different from all other writers in history — that the Hebrews were incapable of using more than one name for God, or more than one writing style regardless of the subject matter, or more than one of several possible synonyms for a single idea.
  6. Their subjective bias led them to illegitimately assume that any biblical statement was unreliable until proven reliable (though they would not do this with any other ancient or modern text) and when they found any disagreement between the Bible and ancient pagan literature, the latter was automatically given preference and trusted as a historical witness. The former violates the well-accepted concept known as Aristotle’s dictum, which advises that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the document itself, rather than the critic. In other words, the Bible (or any other book) should be considered innocent until proven guilty or considered reliable until its unreliability is compellingly demonstrated.
  7. Although many examples have been found of an ancient Semitic author using repetition and duplication in his narrative technique, skeptical scholars assume that when Hebrew authors did this, it is compelling evidence of multiple authorship of the biblical text.
  8. The skeptics erroneously assumed, without any other ancient Hebrew literature to compare with the biblical text, that they could, with scientific reliability, establish the date of the composition of each book of the Bible.14
  9. To date, no manuscript evidence of the J-document, E-document, P-document, D-document, or any of the other supposed fragments have ever been discovered. And there are no ancient Jewish commentaries that mention any of these imaginary documents or their alleged unnamed authors. All the manuscript evidence we have is for the first five books of the Bible just as we have them today. This is confirmed by the singular Jewish testimony (until the last few centuries) that these books are the writings of Moses.

some online articles


http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/201...px#Article
https://creation.com/debunking-the-docum...hypothesis
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-chara...esis-jedp/
https://www.jashow.org/articles/guests-a...ypothesis/
https://creation.com/did-moses-really-write-genesis


Your conclusion

t is impossible that the Torah was written by one person, or at the same time.

Well if that is your objection me and the bible agree. How could moses have written genesis when he was not yet alive?




2]/3]That is why I am a biblical creationist.  All your objections are true if evolution is true, if the earth is billions of years old and thus the bible would be false. I will eventually do creation vs evolution and the age of the earth on this forum so hang around for that. But if you are looking for the proper biblical understanding, i think it will give you the anwser.

Why is There Death and Suffering if God is all Loving- A Christian Response
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread....n-Response

If this does not satisfy you please bring up any question you have.
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
Reply
#25
(01-01-2018, 03:32 PM)Melkite Wrote:  created specifically to clean up after death.  Vultures, blackbirds, various bacteria and fungus

Sorry missed this. Here is a list I have been compiling on these questions of the function of these animals pre flood and what caused the changes. 

Before the Fall Animals/Disease etc
origin of predators based on behavior changes
origin of carnivores poison germs viruses chapter 16 the greatest hoax on earth
parasite that cause African sleeping syndrome comes from descendant of helpful organism that does not cause disease.
How does biblical Christianity explain the origin of poisons and pathogenic bacteria and viruses?
If the original creation was ‘very good,’ why do many living things have features for attacking others?
viruses help fight cancer
origin of predators based on behavior change
snakes
king cobra with the Burmese python and other vertebrates reveals that the snakes have duplicate copies of lots of genes that ordinarily produce nontoxic products. Biologists think that mutations such as duplication of these “good” genes led to the production of toxins now found in snake venom.
kinkajou (Potos flavus), or ‘honey bear
Vegan dog
crocodiles regularly eat vegetation
Reporting in the Journal of Zoology, a group of U.S. scientists studied alligator diets from Florida's Everglades National Park.4 Their review of published studies added to new observations finding that 13 of 18 crocodylian species eat fruit from 34 different plant families.
Gators often eat fleshy fruit. Some fruit falls into their mouths while they are pursuing animal prey; "however, there is little doubt that on occasion, fruit is deliberately consumed, often in large quantities," according to the study authors.4
For example, "Last year a researcher working in south-east Asia reported seeing a wild Siamese crocodile tucking into a watermelon," according to New Scientist.
  1. For example, The [Charleston] Post and Courier reported in 2007 how snorkeler Bill Hedden lost his left arm to a 12-foot alligator in South Carolina. "Man's Arm Salvaged from Alligator's Belly," September 17.
  2. Obligate carnivores are supposed to eat only meat.
  3. Criswell, D. 2009. Predation Did Not Come from Evolution. Acts & Facts. 38 (3): 9. 
  4. Platt, S.G. et al. 2013. Frugivory and seed dispersal by crocodilians: an overlooked form of saurochory? Journal of Zoology. Published online before print, Jul 16, 2013.
  5. Barras, C. Crocodiles may need their fruity five-a-day. New Scientist. Posted on newscientist.com on July 30, 2013, accessed July 31, 2013.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
http://www.icr.org/article/7665/
The fearsome piranha’s vegetarian version uses its teeth to shred plants, not meat.
Piranhas cousin vegetarian
Meet Florence, the world's first vegetarian shark who prefers celery sticks and cucumber to fish Florence’s mouth is filled with razor-sharp, serrated teeth designed for demolishing fish and crustaceans.
Instead she uses them for pulping broccoli and cabbage and any other greens she can steal from fellow ocean tank resident Molokai the green turtle.
monitor lizard species eats only fruit
new scientist 10 april 2010 p7
Skeptics challenge: a ‘God of love’ created a killer jellyfish?
fire ants dance or die david cathpoole creation 36 [4] 2014
the origin of mosquitoes ans malaria.
“Crithidia easily converting from blood- to plant-based food  “
Odd Saber-Toothed Beast Discovered—Preyed on ... Plants?
anteaters eat fruit as well, love avocados honey etc ants also may not be part of “death” in bible, so may have been eaten before fall.
Arrdvarks [ant eaters]-insects may not be part of nephesh life [pre fall no death] eat cucumbers subterranean fruit, seeds, zoos today feed them with mix of plant materials.
also
Fierce, Grass-Eating Monkeys?



Parasitic Worms
Carnivorous plants
Giant meat-eating plants prefer to eat tree shrew poo
also


immune system original purpose/function


all carnivorous plants have chlorophyll, enabling them to make their own food,just like conventional plants.
Certain pitcher plants,instead of trapping insects get supplemental nutrition from dead leaves and bird experiment that has fallen on their pitchers
darwins island by steve jones little ,brown,london 2008
Thorns and Thistles Defense and Survival Adaptationshttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/thorns-thistles
venom from a snail used to fight pain,cancer aids,certain nervous system disorders.
U of Utah 2011 feb 17 venom of marine snail provides new drugs physorg





Mosquitoes and the Fall
Did Lions Roam the Garden of Eden?
Acts and facts july 2013 Dr. Jeanson is Deputy Director for Life Sciences Research and received his Ph.D. in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard University
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
Reply
#26
(01-01-2018, 03:51 PM)Melkite Wrote: My top 3 objections are probably 1) God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, 2) the covenant of circumcision, and 3) the genocide of the Canaanites.

I think I have already stated why 1 and 3 are difficult for me.  I recognize the allegorical nature of God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.  What makes it problematic for me is if it is also an historical event.  If it was an historical event, it was plainly cruel of God to ask that of Abraham, just to set up a foreshadowing of Christ.  As far as Abraham believing that he would return with Isaac, I think that is again Christians trying to rationalize away what is plainly horrible - and they know it's horrible, or they wouldn't try to rationalize it.  All Abraham knew was that God was telling him to sacrifice Isaac.  He told the people that were with him that he would return with the boy, but if he had been honest and said what he was really up to, would the people he was with have allowed him to?  He was probably lying to avoid that altercation, and he has a biblically recorded history of lying.  He lied to Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister, because he was afraid.  He also was probably lying to the men because he was afraid of what they would do to him otherwise.  But at least, in this text, there is something concrete to suggest that he really believed God would provide the sacrifice, so maybe there is some truth to it.  I just don't think it is the simplest explanation.

Regarding the covenant of circumcision, it is non-sensical that God would create a part of the body with as many specialized functions as the foreskin has and require it to be cut off to be pleasing to him.  And not only asking it of the believer himself, but asking the believer to force it on someone else who cannot choose for or against God's covenant.  This is more of an emotional than rational objection for me, but rationally, I believe it makes no sense for God to require an amputation of any part that he specifically designed and created.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the OT, as it is, is allegory designed to foreshadow the NT.  That is, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that God would use something so abhorrent, even if it is just a fictional story, to foreshadow what was to come in the New.  It doesn't seem compatible with the character of an all-loving Father as Christ presents him.  But I find intolerable the idea that God would have literally, historically commanded all these things in order to foreshadow the coming of Christ.  If a human were to orchestrate a bloody massacre in order to symbolically represent the coming of some future event, like an eclipse or an earthquake, all of human society would rightly recognize that man as a psychopath.  But when God does it, we're supposed to think it is beautiful and be thankful?  No, if God truly did all of this in history, and did so to foreshadow Christ, then God himself is a psychopath.

Thanks for these objections they should be interesting and thanks for the honesty. 

1] First I would like to say I agree, I would rather not God have asked either. Think of God sending his son to actually die on the cross. He actually went through with his sons sacrifice. God also asked me not to lie when it would help me, not to commit adultery when i would much rather do so, there is allot in the bible i dislike about what is asked of me. But I dont conclude he is evil or not true. Abraham was blessed  by God and did not stop loving god and willingley followed him, he had no issues. Abraham was given Isaac as a miracle from god and a promise.

But even so,  I also dont see how we can avoid what Abrham thought of what was asked.

V 2 Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering [not sacrifice or kill] on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

v 5 And Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the lad[a] and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.”

v 8 [Abraham] “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together.

So i find it not a valid objection, and even if true, i dont see it as valid either. Your claim he was lying is not based on the text so it becomes a created sort of idol in your mind. To make god in your mind seem evil, so you can than reject him. It would be like me saying you have lied so therefore everything you are posting must be a lie. 



2] A very interesting objection. I am not sure how much i can help here i agree it is odd. Does it make me think god is not true? no.  I would think this was not done pre fall in gods original creation. Biological change and environmental has occurred. I know there is health benefits to it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-cdc-says/
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedu...c-20013585
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot...d-than-not



3] Well we differ here. I dont see the OT as allegory but historical. I also know god is just and hates sin and will punish it. not because he is evil but because he is love. Think on these 2 quotes.

I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming the perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love”
-Miroslav Volf Harvard Theologian quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192

[i]'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'"
-Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11[/i]


But the conquest must be put in its context. What if I told you god did not command genocide? what if you saw it in context would you still object? please read my thread and if you still do, than we can further the discusion. 

Did God Command Genocide During the Conquest of Canaan?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread....-of-Canaan
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
Reply
#27
(01-01-2018, 03:51 PM)Melkite Wrote: No, if God truly did all of this in history, and did so to foreshadow Christ, then God himself is a psychopath.
Melkite, I'm going to put you on ignore.

I don't get on FishEaters to read (or skim over) this kind of garbage.

I genuinely hope you repent and reform your life and find healing for those deep wounds I know you carry, but in the meantime, this is not appropriate at all.
Reply
#28
Vermont, I think you are misguided on the status of the documentary hypothesis.  It is true that the documentary hypothesis, as specifically laid out by Wellhausen, has flaws and, by itself, no longer is in favor.  However, the documentary hypothesis is still the generally preferred understanding among biblical scholars.  While it was the primary opinion in the 20th century, and because of some things that it doesn't explain well, there is now sort of a juggling act between the documentary, supplementary and fragmentary hypotheses.  However, none of three hypotheses explains everything that Biblical scholars are looking at, and as such, the documentary hypothesis is still what they fall back on when the fragmentary or supplementary hypotheses don't explain something better.  It is simply not true that Biblical scholars believe that the books of the Pentateuch were written as a single source or by a single author.  However, because Biblical scholars acknowledge that the documentary hypothesis itself is insufficient to answer everything, fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants outright lie and say that the documentary hypothesis has been completely debunked and that scholars now admit a single author.  This is just not true.  Further, the general consensus among archaeologists is that, based on what they are seeing, the Biblical narrative is not an accurate representation of what religious life was like in the Levant, outside of a very small group of Canaanites, during the time that the OT stories took place.

I did not look at the plethora of sources you cited to address my questions, as the overwhelming majority of them are from Answers in Genesis, Creation.com or ICR.  No person in their right mind would expect to find an unbiased presentation of the issue from those sources.  Arguing that there is no contradiction between a creationist, original sin model and what biologists are merely observing, using information from sources like these, is a bit like arguing the Bible is true and citing passages from the Bible as your proof.  If you have something unbiased that explains it in your favor, I'd be interested in reading that.

Two of the books you suggested look interesting, though, so I will probably buy them and read them over the next couple of months.

I'm bowing out here out of respect for In His Love.  If you wish to continue, feel free to send me a private message.
Reply
#29
(01-02-2018, 10:31 AM)Melkite Wrote: Vermont, I think you are misguided on the status of the documentary hypothesis.  It is true that the documentary hypothesis, as specifically laid out by Wellhausen, has flaws and, by itself, no longer is in favor.  However, the documentary hypothesis is still the generally preferred understanding among biblical scholars.  While it was the primary opinion in the 20th century, and because of some things that it doesn't explain well, there is now sort of a juggling act between the documentary, supplementary and fragmentary hypotheses.  However, none of three hypotheses explains everything that Biblical scholars are looking at, and as such, the documentary hypothesis is still what they fall back on when the fragmentary or supplementary hypotheses don't explain something better.  It is simply not true that Biblical scholars believe that the books of the Pentateuch were written as a single source or by a single author.  However, because Biblical scholars acknowledge that the documentary hypothesis itself is insufficient to answer everything, fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants outright lie and say that the documentary hypothesis has been completely debunked and that scholars now admit a single author.  This is just not true.  Further, the general consensus among archaeologists is that, based on what they are seeing, the Biblical narrative is not an accurate representation of what religious life was like in the Levant, outside of a very small group of Canaanites, during the time that the OT stories took place.

I did not look at the plethora of sources you cited to address my questions, as the overwhelming majority of them are from Answers in Genesis, Creation.com or ICR.  No person in their right mind would expect to find an unbiased presentation of the issue from those sources.  Arguing that there is no contradiction between a creationist, original sin model and what biologists are merely observing, using information from sources like these, is a bit like arguing the Bible is true and citing passages from the Bible as your proof.  If you have something unbiased that explains it in your favor, I'd be interested in reading that.

Two of the books you suggested look interesting, though, so I will probably buy them and read them over the next couple of months.

I'm bowing out here out of respect for In His Love.  If you wish to continue, feel free to send me a private message.

Yes i think we do agree. I see the hypothesis, as built on assumptions and imagination not supported by actual text or historical evidence. It takes place solely in the mind. If one reads the bible at face value than of course it is false. I think your belief about biblical scholars is false  and even if true, it does not make it so. I have to say as well i am not sure you have read conservative scholars or heard their viewpoints in all honesty as you dont portray them as accurate. Also as i recall the dh was destroyed among scholars in debates. To me it is once more not based on evidence but worldview.  I would hope for you to search and find some debates on this subject. My guess, your author has never defended his views against a bible believing scholar on the subject


You are very vague in your claim about archaeologist but given your liberal influence i am not surprised. I dont care one bit if some people believe something, other believe the opposite, I have read a great many archaeologist who became christian because of their profession. i believe what is true and wont can be shown to be true or not. I was very excited to talk with you because i saw a man who seemed to be after truth and had an interests, i think i am starting to think these are just excuses to deny god. I hope you consider these passages. 

1 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
-1 Thessalonian 5.21 

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going.  
-Proverbs 14.15

 The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him 
-Proverbs 18.17 


I am left scratching my head at this statement "No person in their right mind would expect to find an unbiased presentation of the issue from those sources."  Yet you read athistic, liberal authors who hold the biases assumptions and falsehood with no evidence to support the DH and see no problems with them? and yes those groups are Christians and thus refute claims against the bible, what matters should be truth . Is the Dh true? or not? who cares of bias all are bias. you need to compare biases and have them go head to head to decide where truth is, rather than run from truth or beliefs that might contradict your own. Once a poster said of catholics

The OT has some very real problems in it that the majority of Christians, and every one I have come into contact with, do not know how to deal with.  That they do not know how to deal with them makes them uncomfortable, it makes them feel vulnerable about the authenticity of their faith, and confronting that discomfort makes them lash out, the way you did a few posts ago.  I completely understand that feeling because I've felt it myself in the past.

Many Christians balk when apparent contradictions are brought up about their God, yet they don't hesitate to bring up the same contradictions when talking about gods that they don't believe in.  That's perfectly understandable, but not being able to grapple with those contradictions rationally or to have some answer as to why the same contradictions that apply to pagan gods don't apply to their own destroys any potential for evangelism.  It makes you look like a hypocrite.  The original post in this thread was balking at how Allah is not the same God that Christians worship because Allah does not love everybody, as one example.  I bring up several examples of how the same can be applied to Yahweh, and all of a sudden I'm arrogant, proud, and somehow have proclaimed myself to know more than God.  You cannot logically say that your God is beyond question, beyond testing, beyond examining but demand everyone else's god submit to it, and then throw them out when they inevitably fail, just as Yahweh does when he's submitted to the same examination.


this is what you have done in your own way when confrornted with those who will defend the bible against your own beliefs. Plus on top of it its a logical fallacy. I will post next thread your logical fallacies used in above post. 


well sir evolution is my favorite subject and hope indeed you stay around. You do not notice it, but you have given a falsehood and examples of indoctrination in your small statement alone. what biologists are merely observing, so it should be fun. 

Ill be around.
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
Reply
#30
So i just wanted to point to some faulty logic in your last post. And give you a few things i hope to consider. This was the first fallacy i noticed. 


In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge 

“He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.” 
- Albert Einstein  

“The exact opposite of what is generally believed is often the truth”
Jean De La Bruyere 1645-1696  

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” 
― Mark Twain 


Of course the majority do not agree with your position but even if they did, it would not make it true. The Second one I noticed was


An appeal to bias is a fallacy that occurs when an assertion is discredited because of the asserter's (supposed) bias.The fallacy is an ad hominem fallacy and thus an informal fallacy; often, it is a form of poisoning the well.


Of course I was shocked you did not notice a bias in the position you had or its author, but it is much harder to see our own biases. So for example, if evolution were true, and an evolutionist wanted there to be no god, for example


“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It inset just that I dont believe in god and naturally, hope there is no god, I dont want there to be a god, I dont wont the universe to be like that.
-Philosopher Thomas nagel the last word,oxford university press new york 1997 p 30


"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever."—

-Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.

“I suppose the reason we why we lept at the orgin of species was that the idea of god interfered with our sexual mores-
-sir julien Huxley head of the unesco one of the worlds leading evolutionist 


‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
-Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270 ff. 


That does not make evolution false. 


I also wanted to add a few quotes from archaeologist

"I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen. 
-Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004Dr. Clifford Wilson His Ph.D. is from the University of South Carolina, and included ‘A’s for field work in archaeology undertaken In association with Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem. 

“There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest man cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon irrational fear”
-Dr Clark Pinnock Pinnock, C., Set Forth Your Case, Moody, Chicago, p. 85, 1971.


"Through the wealth of data uncovered by historical and archaeological research, we are able to measure the Bible's historical accuracy. In every case where its claims can thus be tested, the Bible proves to be accurate and reliable."
 - Dr. Jack Cottrell, The Authority of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 48-49. 

"In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Biblical record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Bible, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc. -- not with the Bible." 
- Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research 

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries."
 - Dr. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, (New York: Farrar, Strous and Cudahy, 1959), 136. 

"Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts......Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges.....are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy.....We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong." - 
Dr. Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History. Scripture Press, Wheaton, IL, 1969, pg. 1 

"The reader may rest assured that nothing has been found [by archaeologists] to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. We no longer trouble ourselves with attempts to 'harmonize' religion and science, or to 'prove' the Bible. The Bible can stand for itself." -                            Dr. William F. Albright, eminent archeologist who confirmed the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls following their discovery

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." - Dr. -William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1956, p. 176.

"On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown, in a number of instances, that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized." -                                                                      -Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University, What Mean These Stones?, Meridian Books, New York, NY, 1956, p. 1

"The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural." -                                                                              -Professor Millar Burrows (Professor of Archaeology at Yale University), What Mean These Stones?, Meridian Books, New York, NY, 1956, p. 176.

 " It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disinteg rating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish it s authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background  and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved co nf irm  what faith would suggest – that  the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge." -                                                                                                                                                Sir Frederic Kenyo n,  a former director of the British Museum, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Brothers, 194 0), page  27  9               .

"I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment."                                                                                                                                                  -Sir William Ramsey (eminent archaeologists who changed his mind regarding Luke after extensive study in the field), (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint), page 89.

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense...In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."                               -Sir William Ramsey (archaeologist), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915, pages 81, 222

While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Word of God is better informed than its critics. In fact, while thousands of finds from the ancient world support in broad outline and often in detail the biblical picture, not one incontrovertible find has ever contradicted the Bible.
-DR Norman Geisler
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)