Is it this simple to prove the bible inaccurate?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
A human is unable to flap their arms fast enough in order to produce enough thrust to have the lift needed to stay aloft. Or maybe Icarus was just superhuman able to defy the laws of Physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps he was simply the Paul MacCready of his time.

Stu

[etgryphon]

I don't know if someone has written this already, but the direct calculation of the genealogy is not a very good calender estimate because there is a Hebrew tradition of ignoring unimportant or less important generations.

For example:

[ QUOTE ]
Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.
Matt 1:4

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't always mean Ram was the biological father of Amminadab because your offspring in can include people in your line of descent that either thought the same way as you or did something of great importance that should be noted. If you didn't really do anything that was impressive you can be ignored in these types of geneology lists. The Hebrew/Jewish writers also like to use symbolic numbers in their writing and to prove a point. So a lot of these list will be in groups 12 numbers or add up to certain values and so forth. Incidentally, they also use these numbering systems to preserve the written integrity of works when it is copied from text to text. The Jewish Alphabet can be coresponded to numbers to a page fo a document would be added on a line by line basis and a page by page basis to verify that the page was copied correctly...but this is beside the point.

So there can be many more actual generations in between the ones that are listed. Another example is John 8:39:

[ QUOTE ]
They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus *said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not saying that they are in *fact* Abrahams children just that they have a lineage to him.

So any such counting schemes is weak at best. Incedentally it doesn't make it wrong just written a certain way.

-Gryph

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if someone has written this already, but the direct calculation of the genealogy is not a very good calender estimate because there is a Hebrew tradition of ignoring unimportant or less important generations.

For example:

[ QUOTE ]
Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.
Matt 1:4

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't always mean Ram was the biological father of Amminadab because your offspring in can include people in your line of descent that either thought the same way as you or did something of great importance that should be noted. If you didn't really do anything that was impressive you can be ignored in these types of geneology lists. The Hebrew/Jewish writers also like to use symbolic numbers in their writing and to prove a point. So a lot of these list will be in groups 12 numbers or add up to certain values and so forth. Incidentally, they also use these numbering systems to preserve the written integrity of works when it is copied from text to text. The Jewish Alphabet can be coresponded to numbers to a page fo a document would be added on a line by line basis and a page by page basis to verify that the page was copied correctly...but this is beside the point.

So there can be many more actual generations in between the ones that are listed. Another example is John 8:39:

[ QUOTE ]
They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus *said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not saying that they are in *fact* Abrahams children just that they have a lineage to him.

So any such counting schemes is weak at best. Incedentally it doesn't make it wrong just written a certain way.

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best post in the thread so far. Thanks Gryph.

[vulturesrow]

Those are good points, many of which were made in the links I provided you.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
Those are good points, many of which were made in the links I provided you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only 50% of your links even worked.

[vulturesrow]

Hmmm, I usually check them in the preview. I'll try again. My apologies.


Geneaology of Christ

[CollinEstes]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible says mankind is ~5,000 years old. However, they have found evidence of a settlement in Chile that is 12,000-12,500 years old, and projective points in North America that are 11,000 years old. National Geographic talking about 12k year old settlement and projectile points

I realize this argument comes up with dinosaurs and geological issues, dealing with the earth being millions or billions of years old. People normally defend the Bible by saying that the 1st week was extra long. This does not apply here. (Since Adam did not start breeding until after Creation Week.)

What defense do Bible believers have for this? This seems like such a blatant error, that I must be missing some key defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well once defense for this is that the Bible states that God created the Earth in 7 days. However it also states that a day in Heaven is like a 1000 years on Earth. So since the second statement is obviously not an exact measure of how a day would be calculated by God but rather that 7 days of creation could in fact mean alot more time than just a 24 hour period or day as we think of it. I believe in the Bible but I do not take it literally, and I don't think it supposed to be taken like that rather it is a guide and collection of parabales that help you to lead a righteous life as defined by Christian beliefs.

This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read your Bible. Start with Genesis chp. 2 v. 7:

"Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live". (Good News Bible)

Follow that with Genesis Chp. 2 v. 21-22 (Good News Bible):

"Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.


-The Lord God.

[Greg J]

Tom Paine: Age of Reason does a pretty fair job too.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is also why the theory of elvolution doesn't rock my belief in God because the Bible says God created man in his own image, but it doesn't say how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read your Bible. Start with Genesis chp. 2 v. 7:

"Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live". (Good News Bible)

Follow that with Genesis Chp. 2 v. 21-22 (Good News Bible):

"Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.


-The Lord God.

[/ QUOTE ]

TEH PWN3D