Quick question

[TexasSky]

Turn to Leviticus 14:1-9 and then give me a site where I can find proper medical documentation for even one person who was cured of leprosy through such a ritual.

Note that not only is that in the Bible, but it's declared by Moses that he got it straight from God. And as you read through the Bible, you'll find many claims, attributed to Moses, which aren't possible. Planets don't form covered in liquid water but without atmospheres. Plants don't grow without warmth and light. The sun and the moon aren't in Earth's atmosphere, they are well beyond it. That's just a fraction.

You seem willing to stand up and suggest that people are lying or mistaken, but you don't seem prepared to attempt to support your accusations.

Leviticus 14: 1-9 does not claim to cure leprosy. It is a ritual of atonement, not of healing. That is very clear if you read it.

"The Lord said to Moses, "These are the regulations for the diseased person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, , when he is brought to the priset. The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the person has been healed of his infectious skin disease, the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed. Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the infectious disease and pronounce him clean. Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields. The person to be cleansed must wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, he must shave his head, his beard, his eyebrows and the rest of his hair. He must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water, and he will be clean."

Note - The person must already present evidence that he is cured BEFORE this process begins.
They do not say, "then he will be healed." They say, "Then he will be clean."

This is NOT even prssented as a cure for the disease.

I do thank you for your post. Your post is a wonderful example of the errors that the vast majority of people who say the bible is wrong make. They "misread" or they jump to conclusions.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I hope I do not confuse anyone here, but when God says He will destroy every living substance off the face of the "earth", the Hebrew word used for "earth" is "adamah". This is a referance to the land of Eden. Other than what was preserved on the ark, God was going to destory one biodiverse ecology.

'ădâmâh
BDB Definition:
1) ground, land
1a) ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance)
1b) piece of ground, a specific plot of land
1c) earth substance (for building or constructing)
1d) ground as earth’s visible surface
1e) land, territory, country
1f) whole inhabited earth
1g) city in Naphtali

Strongs
'ădâmâh
ad-aw-maw'
From H119; soil (from its general redness): - country, earth, ground, husband [-man] (-ry), land.

Seems to me like the word is a vauge term that can mean many different things, but when we take the whole story into account it seems to be talking about at the very least a very large section of the planet if not the entire planet. A flood that covers the tallest mountian in any region where there are mountains would be a very very large flood.

I live in the mountians of WV and we have a river that floods a lot near where I live. If it were to cover the mountian behind my house about half 1/2 of the U.S. would be under water.

 

[Soul Searcher]

(Actually, I've often wondered if that isn't really what he did in many cases. Taking "babies" of various creatures, as opposed to "full grown". That would allow much more room, be easier to deal with in terms of temprament, comply with God's instructions, be easier to feed......)

The problem with taking eggs or babies is that many of them would not have survived to reproduce. Baby animals do not do well in the wild without thier mother.

 

[JohnR7]

If the local flood was in the mideast then how did it kill the brontos in the americas?

Does not seem to be logical does it?

It is just a cute question, so everyone is having fun with it. The whole question is not scientifically logical anyways. From a scientific perspective the brontos went extinct at least 64 million years ago. Noah's ark was more like 4,200 years ago. Noah's father Lamech was alive for the last 64 years of Adams life, so he may known Adam. All of this took place in the last 6000 years.

We do not know for sure if the Brontos lived millions of years ago, but we have no reason to question it. That does not change the fact that God created Adam and put him in the Garden in Eden 6,000 years ago. Adam and Eve were historical people and the Bible contains very accurate history of the Hebrew people over the last 6000 years.

 

[Soul Searcher]

It is just a cute question, so everyone is having fun with it. The whole question is not scientifically logical anyways.

True.. In the first one I used Moses hoping that someone would give a number, but the first reply spoiled the fun.

 

[TexasSky]

Note that not only is that in the Bible, but it's declared by Moses that he got it straight from God. And as you read through the Bible, you'll find many claims, attributed to Moses, which aren't possible. Planets don't form covered in liquid water but without atmospheres. Plants don't grow without warmth and light. The sun and the moon aren't in Earth's atmosphere, they are well beyond it. That's just a fraction.

You are again mis-reading the bible. (Though even if you weren't, I would not say you have supported your contention that the bible is wrong. The bible says that miraculous methods were used to create the earth. I accept that God can do what you otherwise call impossible.)

HOWEVER - YOU are wrong in your claims. The bible doesn't say what you claim it says.

First - Moses never makes the claim that the creation story was given to Moses directly by God.

Christians and Jewish people often state that Moses was the author of the first five books of the old testament, and there are many things to supoprt that view, however, Moses does NOT make that claim in the Gensis story.

So that is your first error.

Second - The Bible doesn't claim that the earth and seas were created before the atomosphere was created.

Vs 1: God created the heavens and the earth
Vs 2: The earth was formless and empty.
Vs 3: God created light.
Vs 4: God separated light and darkness.
Vs 5: God named day and night.

(You say we cannot grow life without "the sun" and "the moon." Scientifically, that is not correct. We cannot grow life without warmth and light. God has created both of these things prior to creating life on earth. I believe this is actually the biblical account of the creation of the sun and moon.)

Vs 6=7: "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
Vs 8: God called the expanse "sky."

Your argument that we had no atmosphere is ALSO invalidated, as this is the creation of the atmosphere around the earth.

Vs 9-10: God created seas and land.

Vs 11-13: God creates vegetation and plant life.

Vs 14-19: God sets the orbits of the Sun and Moon and names them. (I think the way I phrased this makes it pretty clear what I believe happened in this verse.)

Vs 20-23: God creates sea life and fowl.

Vs 24-25: God creates animals.

Vs 26: God creates man in God's image and make man above the other animals.

Now, I happen to be a creationist in that I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I happen to be an anti-evolutionist because I think they will absolutely never prove marco-evolution-species-leaps and because eventual evolution gets to primordial soup and I don't believe in that.

However - the theory of evolution would NOT be invalidated by this account in Genesis, and given the lack of education of the writer's of Genesis at the time of the writing - it is an AMAZINGLY accurate bit of information in regards to what we now know.

They didn't know they HAD an atmosphere, and yet, they were able to describe the creation of an atmosphere. That is pretty amazing.

 

[TexasSky]

Soul Searcher - You have a valid point. I'm not sure the Ark qualifies as "in the wild", and I tend to think God could have solved that problem for Noah, but I don't discount your objection to my ponderings since they are valid.

 

[JohnR7]

when we take the whole story into account it seems to be talking about at the very least a very large section of the planet if not the entire planet.

I think that is a reasonable assumption to make when you read the Bible story of Noah. The problem is that the scientific evidence does not back this interpretation up and the scientific evidence is very stong. So for me, I had to go back to the Bible with the new information I had, so I could get a better understanding of the story of Noah that we received from Moses. I know that Moses is dependable and accurate, so there is no problem there. I think that science can help us to have a better understanding of our Bible.

 

[Soul Searcher]

[/font]
Christians and Jewish people often state that Moses was the author of the first five books of the old testament, and there are many things to supoprt that view, however, Moses does NOT make that claim in the Gensis story.

There is one huge thing that indicates Moses did not write the first five books. That of course being the fact that Moses died and the book does not end there.

 

[JohnR7]

[/font]The bible says that miraculous methods were used to create the earth.

What scriptures are you refering to? Every miracle that I have ever seen, God restores things back to His plan and purpose. I have never seen a miracle that would violate any sort of a natural law. At times it can be difficult to show a miracle took place because you have to show that there was some sort of a problem in the first place.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I think that is a reasonable assumption to make when you read the Bible story of Noah. The problem is that the scientific evidence does not back this interpretation up and the scientific evidence is very stong.

Agreed, logical conclusion, the story is a myth, perhaps based on a real event but greatly exagerated.

So for me, I had to go back to the Bible with the new information I had, so I could get a better understanding of the story of Noah that we received from Moses. I know that Moses is dependable and accurate, so there is no problem there. I think that science can help us to have a better understanding of our Bible.

I see no evidence that Moses actually wrote the book of Genesis. In fact there is some evidence that the book of Genesis was combined from more than one scroll from different authors with different writing styles.

 

[JohnR7]

Of course that's not what it says in the Bible.

The Bible is clear that God made Eve from Adams rib. Science confirms this because they tell us that if you wanted to use Adams DNA the bone marrow of the rib would be exactly where you would go to get it. As far as Adam is concerned all we are told is that The Lord formed man. It does not give a time referance. It could have taken millions of years. There is no conflict between this and theistic evolution. I do not accept or believe evolutionary theory, but I see no conflict here between theistic evolution and the Bible.

 

[JohnR7]

Agreed, logical conclusion, the story is a myth, perhaps based on a real event but greatly exagerated.

The story is an allegory in it's use of shaddows and types, but it is still an accurate and a true story. The ?Bible is much more accurate compared to the other books that we find written in the same time frame.

Col. 2:17
These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Hebrews 10:1a
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves.

I see no evidence that Moses actually wrote the book of Genesis.

I am not sure this is a issue that has to do with science.

 

[Lignoba]

[/font]

You are wrong.

Explain to me why Jesus was crucified between two robbers and Mary and Paul? were allowed to come talk to him.

 

[LittleNipper]

The problem with taking eggs or babies is that many of them would not have survived to reproduce. Baby animals do not do well in the wild without thier mother.

After the FLOOD, I imagine that there was not a "wild" for a few years at least..... GOD brought the animals to Noah. GOD is the perfect one to select just the right animals with GOD's blessings on each.....

 

[Soul Searcher]

After the FLOOD, I imagine that there was not a "wild" for a few years at least.....

by wild I mean on thier own in the land. Don;t you think that lions and tigers and wolves and such would have had a feast on the baby lambs and calfs and pigs and such. many extinct species very quickly.

GOD brought the animals to Noah. GOD is the perfect one to select just the right animals with GOD's blessings on each.....

I can't disagree with that but unless he made the carnivores refrain from eating meat for at least several years there would not be many animals left to reproduce.

For example one adult Cougar needs roughly one deer a week to survive, that is 52 deer in one year for just one cat, Even if Noah had 14 adult deer and only two baby Cougars how many years do you think deers would survive in an area where these 2 Cougars were?

If either Cougar were killed then Cougars would be extinct, If both survived they would eat all the deer, the sheep, the goats , rabbits, and several other critters in just a few years, not to mention that their would be tigers and wolves and lepoards and many other such carnivores that require large amounts of meat to survive.

 

[Loudmouth]

After the FLOOD, I imagine that there was not a "wild" for a few years at least..... GOD brought the animals to Noah. GOD is the perfect one to select just the right animals with GOD's blessings on each.....

Or the animals were fed Lucky Charms by magical Leprechauns, and the cougars would have done just fine since Lucky Charms are magically delicious. I can use my imagination as well, but this doesn't mean that reality must bend to what I imagine.

 

[urbanxy]

...Science confirms this because they tell us that if you wanted to use Adams DNA the bone marrow of the rib would be exactly where you would go to get it...

Where exactly does "Science" confirm this?

 

[Beastt]

The Bible is clear that God made Eve from Adams rib. Science confirms this because they tell us that if you wanted to use Adams DNA the bone marrow of the rib would be exactly where you would go to get it.

Yes, but John, if God used Adam's DNA then Eve would have been a man. Not to mention that God apparently didn't need to go digging into any human bodies to get Adam's DNA. Since he poofed that up out of the dust, why not do the same for Eve? After all, using the same DNA for two specimens you wish to breed isn't a very good idea. In choosing animals to mate, such a process is known as "inbreeding". It has a nasty tendency to magnify any weaknesses in the genetic line.

As far as Adam is concerned all we are told is that The Lord formed man. It does not give a time referance. It could have taken millions of years. There is no conflict between this and theistic evolution.

(Genesis 2:7) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.​

Does that sound like a proper explanation of the mechanisms behind abiogenesis, coupled to evolution, to you? Not that anyone might expect God to try to explain about DNA, genetics, nucleotides and all of the nitty-gritty details. But he, (or whoever wrote Genesis), could have at least made an effort to get something about the process close to resembling even a simplified level of accuracy.

I do not accept or believe evolutionary theory, but I see no conflict here between theistic evolution and the Bible.

Because you read around the Bible rather than reading what it actually says. Reading what it actually says shows it to be nothing more than what might be expected of the traditional tales of ancient men. That might mean it's not God's word, so it seems you've adopted a method far more liberating to your beliefs than reading the actual words.

 

[Beastt]

Where exactly does "Science" confirm this?

I can't say for sure but I suspect the answer to that may have something to do with this.