TA1LGUNN3R wrote:universalchiro wrote:@Tailgunner: you made an accusation "the Bible is rife with inaccuracies": Give me your best one and we'll work through it together.
@Pirlo: oh thank you for the drawing, but you get zero credit bringing a made up drawing from the hand of a fully indoctrinated evolutionist. Your drawing has no objective empirical evidence, just subjective propaganda.
Why don't you show other creatures that have similar chromosome count to humans or even a seemingly more evolved chromosome count such as the highly advanced fern. Nice try.
Go look up how many chromosomes a fern has and put that into your evolving drawings.
This is as accurate as Haeckel's embryo drawings, both fabrications of evolutionist.
1.The Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians. At least not en masse.
2.In Matthew, Joseph is listed as the son of Jacob, in Luke he is the son of Heli.
3.In the first chapter of Genesis God creates the beasts first, then man. In the second chapter, it's reversed.
4.Immaculate conception.
5.Multiple pairs of every animal on the Ark.
6.Here's a good one from Leviticus: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." Hares don't chew cud, they aren't ruminants.
I think you see where I'm going with this.
@Pirlo: oh thank you for the drawing, but you get zero credit bringing a made up drawing from the hand of a fully indoctrinated evolutionist. Your drawing has no objective empirical evidence, just subjective propaganda.
Why don't you show other creatures that have similar chromosome count to humans or even a seemingly more evolved chromosome count such as the highly advanced fern. Nice try.
Go look up how many chromosomes a fern has and put that into your evolving drawings.
This is as accurate as Haeckel's embryo drawings, both fabrications of evolutionist.
7.The chromosomes of a fern aren't closely related to a human's. If you compare human chromosomes with those of the other great apes, you'll find that they share many similarities.
-TG
First off, this is a great post and here's why; for some many times evolutionist have only said the Bible is wrong but have not stepped up to the plate and brought support, rarely is this feat attempted by the lay here in CC. So major kudos to you for stepping up to the plate and coming strong!
1."The Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians. At least not en masse": Often creationist are guilty of declaring the Bible truth, because they find an error in evolution. However, disproving evolution does not prove God. Well this is a two edge sword, just because there is no evidence that Israel was enslaved in Egypt for 430+/- years doesn't mean they weren't, though granted, why aren't there evidence of Jews in Egypt during that large time period.
a) one explanation is that the Bible records Israel took their bones with them to be buried in their home land (Ex 13:19)
b) Stalin would wipe a political enemy completely off the earth, kill the person, the family and extended family and burn all pictures and all documents of them, to make it as though they never existed.
c) Egypt hated the Jews, and upon the deaths of all 1st born in their land and the loss of a major labor force 600,000 men which is about 2.5 million Jews left Egypt (Ex 12:37) and when they left, the Egyptians gave them gold and silver to leave (Ex 12:35), when they realized they were a broke nation, their hatred grew even more, it's easy to see they would erase all records of Jewish settlements, monuments, records, etc.
2."In Matthew, Joseph is listed as the son of Jacob, in Luke he is the son of Heli": A married man sees the answer to this quickly, but here is the answer: The prophecy was that the Messiah will be a descendant of King David, however there was a split to the kingdom in two with Israel and Juday, thus both sides would require that an offspring of David be King of the Jews, Hebrew law was that the title of being King was through the father, however on Joseph's lineage there was a king that did evil in the sight of the Lord and God promised his heir would not physically sit on the throne, This is Matthew's genealogy that goes through Joseph, yet Joseph did not sire Jesus, only gave him his name, therefore, this line fulfills the legal line of Jesus to King David. But there is another aspect and that is the blood line, for any man can impregnate a woman, and any man can claim to be the father, however when a woman gives birth it is 100% assured that that mother is the birth mom, So Luke goes in reverse order of the genealogies from Jesus, to King David through the blood line and that is Mary's side.
So Matthew give the Legal line through Joseph, fulfilling the curse, Joseph didn't sire Jesus.
Luke gives the Blood line through Mary, Heli is the father-in-law of Joseph.
Result: Both Kingdoms: Judah and Israel can equally and rightfully claim the lineage through them from King David to Jesus. Luke continues back further going all the way back to Abraham and all the way back to Adam who was begotten by God. And that last line of the genealogy is one of the reasons the Bible doesn't violate the 1st law of conservation of energy because and infinite God begot life, Life begot life, and in Genesis it even says the Breath of Life (chay) breathed into the nostril of man and he became chay (life or living being). Chay is Hebrew for Life, alive, living.
3."In the first chapter of Genesis God creates the beasts first, then man. In the second chapter, it's reversed": Genesis 2:7-25 is a detailed account of Genesis 1:26, Moses finished the seven days of creation with Genesis 2:1-4, then Moses went back and gave details of the creation of Adam, out of the ground, then God says be fruitful to Adam and cultivate the Garden of Eden, this is not the Hebrew for offspring nor reproducing, for that is multiply, But all the creatures God instructs them to be fruitful and multiply, why the difference, because a suitable mate had not been created, God explains that He created all land animals (beginning of 6th day before Adam) from the ground and all birds from the ground (5th day of creation), and God brings the birds and animals to Adam, this is to say, though you have all been created from the same ground, none of these are suitable for you. And that is why the verse right after all the animals and birds are brought to Adam, it says, but there was no helper suitable for him. The whole intent of the verses between Genesis 2:7-25 are details of the middle of Genesis 1:26, and the theme is creating a mate for Adam to Multiply, since he could be fruitful on his own. Fruitful means to be diligent to work and be obedient to God with joy, peace, gentleness, kindness, self-control, humbleness, patience and love. There is no contradiction here, this is clarity of details Genesis 1:26.
4."Immaculate conception": Can mankind not artificially inseminate, can mankind not gene splice, can mankind not clone life, as mankind advances in technology, this miracle requires less faith. But in the end, the Bible requires faith, though someone like me searches the depths of science so I don't have to rely on faith as much as someone that believes in God, yet knows nothing of the sciences, yet I have never physically seen God, though I have heard an inaudible voice at rare times in my life that has protected me from harm, once I was speeding in Colorado and heard a voice saying to slow down there was a cop around the bend, I slowed and saw a cop with radar gun in hand. But the Bible requires a measure of faith to account for the miracles in the Bible.
5."Multiple pairs of every animal on the Ark": The ark was 450ft long, 75ft wide and 45ft tall, with three decks, 15ft for each deck, that's 1.5 million cubic ft. that is a massive barge, 1 male and 1 female of each kind of bird, and land animal, this includes dinosaurs, for they are mentioned in Job 40 & 41 some 8 generations after the flood. this is logistically done with taking younglings and one of each kind, not one of each species. From Wolf to poodle is one kind, yet there are 1,000s of species.
6."Here's a good one from Leviticus: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." Hares don't chew cud, they aren't ruminants": This one tested me beyond my mental faculties and I had to research the answer, I had not heard of this argument before, I loved it, this was awesome!!!:
The Solution: rabbits do not share the digestive anatomy of modern ruminants. However, to describe rabbits chewing the cud is not incorrect. Simply stated, it is not reasonable to accuse a 3500-year-old document of error because it does not adhere to a modern man-made classification system.
Consider what
rabbits do. They engage in an activity called cecotrophy. Rabbits normally produce two kinds of feces, the more common hard feces as well as softer fecal pellets called cecotropes.
Cecotropes are small pellets of partially digested food that are passed through the animal but are then reingested. As part of the normal digestive process, some partially digested food is concentrated in the cecum where it undergoes a degree of fermentation to form these cecotropes. They are then covered in mucin and passed through the anus. The rabbit ingests the cecotropes, which serve as a very important source of nutrition for the animal.
Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.
Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.
But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated “chew” is the word ‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as “chew the cud” literally means something on the order of “eats that which is brought forth again.”
Also, most reference material on rabbit digestion says that the cecotrope pellet is swallowed whole and found intact in the rabbit stomach. However, experts have observed that rabbits keep the cecotrophe in the mouth for a time before swallowing.4 So even though the mucin membrane covering the cecotrope is not broken, the rabbit is able to knead it in its mouth before swallowing, possibly to enhance the process of redigestion.
Conclusion
So is the Bible in error here? No it is not.
Rabbits re-ingest partially digested foods, as do modern ruminants. They just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments by eating their own fecal matter.source:
https://answersingenesis.org/contradict ... w-the-cud/
)
