Characteristics

[Oncedeceived]

Leviticus 12:5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

Some translations sound more along the lines of "and she shall remain in her bleeding/blood".

I repeat, what makes you think they sat in it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I repeat, what makes you think they sat in it.

Partly common sense, no tampons, I doubt they sat over a chamber pot the whole time. I mean, what could they do besides have a spare rag and hope they don't bleed through it?

 

[EternalDragon]

Blood is blood though, and apparently women of old just sat in it until it stopped. Which is really gross.

Read the link. You may learn something.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Partly common sense, no tampons, I doubt they sat over a chamber pot the whole time. I mean, what could they do besides have a spare rag and hope they don't bleed through it?

I imagine they did have cloth that was used for that sole purpose which is not what I see as just sitting it in it like you said.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I imagine they did have cloth that was used for that sole purpose which is not what I see as just sitting it in it like you said.

-_- the nasty blood is held in essentially a makeshift diaper, is not a baby which urinates sitting within its own pee?

 

[Armoured]

Legs for crawling, no.

The only difference with some beetle like insects are the mouth parts, like the Planthopper, which does leap with it's hind legs. Besides, the Hebrew word "beetle" means "leaping or jumping insect". Not the beetle in our classification system.

Is it your contention to misread something in order to try to point out some invisible error so you can say that is the reason God isn't real?

I'm saying God isn't real because I count six legs on grasshoppers now? Gosh!

 

[EternalDragon]

I'm saying God isn't real because I count six legs on grasshoppers now? Gosh!

Why are you arguing then?

You are counting six appendages on a grasshopper. If you applied that to a human, a human has four limbs. Both are correct.

The bible specifies four limbs for walking. Just as it would specify two limbs on a human for walking. You would not try to argue then that a human has four limbs, when I specified "walking". It would be childish to try to say a human can walk on his hands so has four limbs for walking.

Anyone can plainly see that a grasshoppers back legs are very different and used differently than it's front legs. The Bible is extremely accurate and true in the passages on insects.

 

[Armoured]

Why are you arguing then?

Because the Bible isn't scientifically accurate, nor is it literally correct. To insist otherwise lessens it's message, and, frankly, drives people away from Christianity.

 

[EternalDragon]

Because the Bible isn't scientifically accurate, nor is it literally correct. To insist otherwise lessens it's message, and, frankly, drives people away from Christianity.

Are you reading the original Hebrew or a translation to the lesser english language?

The bible is accurate. I am insisting nothing. I am simply explaining that there is no error where you think there is.

 

[Armoured]

Are you reading the original Hebrew or a translation to the lesser english language?

English. Same as you

The bible is accurate. I am insisting nothing. I am simply explaining that there is no error where you think there is.

*eyeroll*

 

[EternalDragon]

English. Same as you

*eyeroll*

English is not the same language as Hebrew. Hebrew is much more meaningful and elaborate.

 

[Armoured]

English is not the same language as Hebrew. Hebrew is much more meaningful and elaborate.

Uh-huh. And you've read the Bible in the original Hebrew have you? Including the bits originally written in Greek, I suppose.

 

[EternalDragon]

Uh-huh. And you've read the Bible in the original Hebrew have you? Including the bits originally written in Greek, I suppose.

Some of it, yes. If you were studying the English bible, which is a translation, why wouldn't you?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why are you arguing then?

You are counting six appendages on a grasshopper. If you applied that to a human, a human has four limbs. Both are correct.

The bible specifies four limbs for walking. Just as it would specify two limbs on a human for walking. You would not try to argue then that a human has four limbs, when I specified "walking". It would be childish to try to say a human can walk on his hands so has four limbs for walking.

Anyone can plainly see that a grasshoppers back legs are very different and used differently than it's front legs. The Bible is extremely accurate and true in the passages on insects.

Its not just grasshoppers that are counted as having four legs.

Lev 11:23
23 "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
NASU

Lets hear you parse Leviticus 11:23, please.

 

[EternalDragon]

Its not just grasshoppers that are counted as having four legs.

Lev 11:23
23 "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
NASU

Lets hear you parse Leviticus 11:23, please.

Four footed is not four legged. Humans are two footed but have four limbs that could be used to be four footed.

There is really nothing to analyze.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Four footed is not four legged. Humans are two footed but have four limbs that could be used to be four footed.

There is really nothing to analyze.

With biblical interpretation skills such as you possess, you could easily make evolution compatible with the biblical narrative. That you refuse to do so is therefore not based on the bible, but on your prior opinion about the science.

 

[Mediate]

If an ape did evolve into a man or split from a chimp to become a man or whatever the current consensus is, why would it not look like this? While driving cars and playing scrabble.

Trying to disprove evolutionary theory by inferring that 'men don't look like apes, so men didn't evolve from apes' is to miss the entire idea of EVOLUTION. Things change. A man wouldn't be a man if he was an ape. Apes and men are not the same just like mountain gorillas aren't the same as Malagasy lemurs.

Apes didn't just 'evolve into men', nor did an ape 'split from a chimp to become a man'.

An ape formed a mutation of some kind, passed that mutation on to its young, who passed that mutation to theirs, then somewhere along that lineage another mutation formed, and the same thing would have happened many, many times until the result of multiple mutations would have begun to look different from the original apes, which, unmutated, still procreated and thus existed as they are today.

Rinse and repeat.

A group of apes didn't just one day decide to venture off and become humans.

 

[selfinflikted]

Humans are apes, just so you know.

Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mediate]

Humans are apes, just so you know.

Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know that, I was using the poster's own vernacular to more easily prove a point. The 'apes' in question were the ones who existed before humans, I thought you'd have gathered that. The point was, the ape in the picture is like a gorilla, and gorillas are not humans. Evolution, by definition, means 'the gradual development of something'.

 

[selfinflikted]

I know that, I was using the poster's own vernacular to more easily prove a point. The 'apes' in question were the ones who existed before humans, I thought you'd have gathered that. The point was, the ape in the picture is like a gorilla, and gorillas are not humans. Evolution, by definition, means 'the gradual development of something'.

Sorry about that. I just feel that using terms ambiguously or incorrectly can potentially confuse the issue.