My YEC Evidence Challenge

Queller · Feb 23, 2017

KWCrazy said:
The CORRECT responses is that not everything Jesus did was witnessed and recorded in all four Gospels, which makes sense because we would only need one were that the case. It's an ASSUMPTION to say that ONLY four blind men were healed. We have no basis in Scripture for that.

Sure we do. We have the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

BTW, no one is saying that those weren't the only ones healed. The question is why the accounts of what seems to be the same event, don't agree.

The same question arises when you try to ask "what were Jesus' last words?".

Neither did Paul.
How could David Herbert Donald write "Lincoln?" he never met the man.

Did you or did you not say this:

KWCrazy said:
The disciples of Jesus wrote of the things they had seen, but they did not all record the same events from the same vantage point, nor did they record everything that Jesus did during His ministry. Doubtless there are many, many things He did that are lost to recorded history.

Paul was not there when the blind men were healed. Therefore he did not see it happen which invalidates your claim.

Queller · Feb 23, 2017

Abraxos said:
You are quite correct, but the OT (i.e. Leviticus) was written in it's Hebrew context and not by it's modern definition. This is probably why most Christians get confused.

Do you have any evidence for your implied claim the ancient Hebrews considered that chewing anything was "chewing the cud"?

AV1611VET · Feb 23, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Rabbits do not have four stomachs ...

What animal does?

KWCrazy · Feb 23, 2017

Queller said:
LOL. Thanks for using a completely nonscientific, nonlinguistic source that has to invent a new meaning for the word cud, just to save your precious literal, inerrant interpretation of scripture.

How you done diligent research on what a cud is so that you can state confidently that it has always maintained it's current meaning?
In fact, I can give you two definitions right now.
1. Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant and chewed again.
2. Something held in the mouth and chewed, such as a plug of tobacco.
source
Soo...
A Hyrax has a multi-chambered stomach and chews what appears to be its own cud; or which IS cud if it chews for an extended period.

Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat. Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:3–6)
So, what is cud? What was cud? What are you chewing right now?

Here's something we can agree on. Unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. Good luck on that.

Loudmouth · Feb 23, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Yours must be.

I said "show me" and you apparently went into a trance and started typing in tongues.

Warden went 404 and you went off in tongues ... and all I said was "show me."

That's pretty sad.

I just showed you what the Bible said. You called it graffiti.

AV1611VET · Feb 23, 2017

Loudmouth said:
I just showed you what the Bible said.

What version?

Queller · Feb 23, 2017

KWCrazy said:
How you done diligent research on what a cud is so that you can state confidently that it has always maintained it's current meaning?
In fact, I can give you two definitions right now.
1. Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant and chewed again.
2. Something held in the mouth and chewed, such as a plug of tobacco.
source
Soo...
A Hyrax has a multi-chambered stomach and chews what appears to be its own cud; or which IS cud if it chews for an extended period.

Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat. Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:3–6)
So, what is cud? What was cud? What are you chewing right now?

You need to show what cud was 3,500 years ago. I await your evidence.

Here's something we can agree on. Unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. Good luck on that.

No worries. Happened for me almost 30 years ago.

Abraxos · Feb 23, 2017

Queller said:
Do you have any evidence for your implied claim the ancient Hebrews considered that chewing anything was "chewing the cud"?

It's all completely scientifically proven. Rabbits have a special pouch called the cecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet, a hard one and a special soft one coming from the cecum. It is only the latter which is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the cecum.

The Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Leviticus 11:3-6 talks about two kinds of animals here: animals that have divided hooves and chews the cud (the cows and sheep); and the animals that chew the cud but do not have divided hooves or vice versa (rabbits and camels).

Loudmouth · Feb 23, 2017

AV1611VET said:
What version?

Version? You mean like different versions of the word "rabbit"?

AV1611VET · Feb 23, 2017

Queller said:
You need to show what cud was 3,500 years ago. I await your evidence.

Is there nothing scientists won't be willing to see, hear, taste, smell, or feel?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 23, 2017

Abraxos said:
It's all completely scientifically proven. Rabbits have a special pouch called the cecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet, a hard one and a special soft one coming from the cecum. It is only the latter which is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the cecum.

The Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Leviticus 11:3-6 talks about two kinds of animals here: animals that have divided hooves and chews the cud (the cows and sheep); and the animals that chew the cud but do not have divided hooves or vice versa (rabbits and camels).

And 'raising up' means to regurgitate, which rabbits DO NOT DO since they defecate. Do you understand the difference between regurgitating and defecating?

Queller · Feb 23, 2017

Abraxos said:
It's all completely scientifically proven. Rabbits have a special pouch called the cecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet, a hard one and a special soft one coming from the cecum. It is only the latter which is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the cecum.

The Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Leviticus 11:3-6 talks about two kinds of animals here: animals that have divided hooves and chews the cud (the cows and sheep); and the animals that chew the cud but do not have divided hooves or vice versa (rabbits and camels).

Eating something off the ground is not "raising up what has been swallowed". Regurgitating from a chamber in the stomach is.

EDIT: @Warden_of_the_Storm Now you beat me to it. I guess we're even. :oldthumbsup:

AV1611VET · Feb 23, 2017

Loudmouth said:
Version? You mean like different versions of the word "rabbit"?

You're calling that graffiti a word in the Bible.

I'm asking which Bible?

Loudmouth · Feb 23, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And 'raising up' means to regurgitate, which rabbits DO NOT DO since they defecate. Do you understand the difference between regurgitating and defecating?

When reading creationist literature, I sometimes wonder if they don't know the difference.

Loudmouth · Feb 23, 2017

AV1611VET said:
You're calling that graffiti a word in the Bible.

I'm asking which Bible?

Are there different versions of the word "rabbit"?

AV1611VET · Feb 23, 2017

Loudmouth said:
Are there different versions of the word "rabbit"?

Ask Elmer Fudd.

Abraxos · Feb 23, 2017

Queller said:
Eating something off the ground is not "raising up what has been swallowed". Regurgitating from a chamber in the stomach is.

Again we are speaking in the context on what the Hebrew text meant, not what the modern definitions mean. This is one of the core points Christians need to understand if they want to read and understand the OT.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 23, 2017

Abraxos said:
Again we are speaking in the context on what the Hebrew text meant, not what the modern definitions mean. This is one of the core points Christians need to understand if they want to read and understand the OT.

And that does nothing except show that the original writers of the Old Testament were wrong!

Loudmouth · Feb 23, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Ask Elmer Fudd.

I thought I was.

Are there different versions of the word "rabbit"?

AV1611VET · Feb 23, 2017

Loudmouth said:
Are there different versions of the word "rabbit"?

The word "rabbit" isn't even in the Bible.

My YEC Evidence Challenge

I'm where?

I'm where?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

I'm where?

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem.

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

I'm where?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem.

Well-Known Member

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads