Refute This!

[Fort Fun Indiana]

4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


How odd, considering only Adam and Eve existed. Was this "wife" eve, or a transgender Adam? Point being... maybe Genesis is not a good source of knowledge.

 

[edthecynic]

The Bible has never been proven wrong about anything. There are also no contradiction about doctrine.

It is easy to be right when you are on both sides of a prediction. And if you are brainwashed you see no contradiction.

Ps 104:5 the LORD hath founded the earth upon its own bases; it shall not be removed forever and ever

1 Ch 16: 30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Contradicted by

Isa 24:19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.
20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed

 

[RWNJ]

The Bible has never been proven wrong about anything. There are also no contradiction about doctrine. Think about that. It was written by about 40 different authors over a 1500 year period and they all agree with each other. Do you have any clue just how impossible that is?

The problem is.

1) You really didn't address my point. How do you know YOUR God is the right God? Because only 2 Billion out of 7 Billion humans worship him.

2) The bible is full of scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

Here's a list.

536 Contradictions within the bible itself.

SAB Contradictions

2316 verses that are just absurd.

SAB, Absurdities

463 Scientific or HIstorical Errors

Science and History in the Bible

I could refute all of the examples you gave, but I don't have time. But I will address the first one. It's a perfect example of intellectual laziness combined with an intense anti-Biblical bias that is all too common. There are not two Creation accounts in Genesis. Here's why.

The claim goes that there are two creation accounts: Genesis 1 and 2 give different accounts. In chapter 1, man and woman are created at the same time after the creation of the animals. In chapter 2, the animals are created after people.

This apparent contradiction is best illustrated by looking at Genesis 2:19.

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them (NKJV).
The language appears to suggest that God made the animals after making Adam and then He brought the animals to Adam. However, in Genesis 1, we have an account of God creating animals and then creating men and women.

The difficulty with Genesis 2:19 lies with the use of the word formed. The same style is read in the KJV.

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.
The NIV has a subtly different rendition.

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them.
The NIV suggests a different way of viewing the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 2 does not suggest a chronology. That is why the NIV suggests using the style “the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the fields.” Therefore, the animals being brought to Adam had already been made and were not being brought to him immediately after their creation. Interestingly, Tyndale agrees with the NIV—and Tyndale’s translation predates the KJV.

The Lord God had made of the earth all manner of beasts of the field and all manner fowls of the air.
Tyndale and the NIV are correct on this verse because the verb in the sentence can be translated as pluperfect rather than perfect. The pluperfect tense can be considered as the past of the past—that is to say, in a narration set in the past, the event to which the narration refers is already further in the past. Once the pluperfect is taken into account, the perceived contradiction completely disappears.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Bible has never been proven wrong about anything. There are also no contradiction about doctrine. Think about that. It was written by about 40 different authors over a 1500 year period and they all agree with each other. Do you have any clue just how impossible that is?

The problem is.

1) You really didn't address my point. How do you know YOUR God is the right God? Because only 2 Billion out of 7 Billion humans worship him.

2) The bible is full of scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

Here's a list.

536 Contradictions within the bible itself.

SAB Contradictions

2316 verses that are just absurd.

SAB, Absurdities

463 Scientific or HIstorical Errors

Science and History in the Bible

I could refute all of the examples you gave, but I don't have time. But I will address the first one. It's a perfect example of intellectual laziness combined with an intense anti-Biblical bias that is all too common. There are not two Creation accounts in Genesis. Here's why.

The claim goes that there are two creation accounts: Genesis 1 and 2 give different accounts. In chapter 1, man and woman are created at the same time after the creation of the animals. In chapter 2, the animals are created after people.

This apparent contradiction is best illustrated by looking at Genesis 2:19.

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them (NKJV).
The language appears to suggest that God made the animals after making Adam and then He brought the animals to Adam. However, in Genesis 1, we have an account of God creating animals and then creating men and women.

The difficulty with Genesis 2:19 lies with the use of the word formed. The same style is read in the KJV.

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.
The NIV has a subtly different rendition.

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them.
The NIV suggests a different way of viewing the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 2 does not suggest a chronology. That is why the NIV suggests using the style “the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the fields.” Therefore, the animals being brought to Adam had already been made and were not being brought to him immediately after their creation. Interestingly, Tyndale agrees with the NIV—and Tyndale’s translation predates the KJV.

The Lord God had made of the earth all manner of beasts of the field and all manner fowls of the air.
Tyndale and the NIV are correct on this verse because the verb in the sentence can be translated as pluperfect rather than perfect. The pluperfect tense can be considered as the past of the past—that is to say, in a narration set in the past, the event to which the narration refers is already further in the past. Once the pluperfect is taken into account, the perceived contradiction completely disappears.

"I could refute all of the examples you gave, but I don't have time."


hahaha... oh man... "I would TOTALLY prove evolutionary theory to be false, but i just don't feel like it. " Do you even fool yourself?

So, let us all get this straight:

You, who knows less than nothing about this topic and has no education or experience in this field whatsoever, would refute the mountains of mutually supportive evidence gathered over centuries by people who dedicated their lives to science.... but you just don't feel like it.

Damn this is ridiculous. How can one even have a rational discussion with someone so obviously insane?

 

[RWNJ]

God is the only rational explanation for why anything exists at all. Science has tried to come up with explanations that exclude a Creator, but they are nothing but guesses. Many, if not all of them, defy science and logic. For instance, some scientists claim that energy has always existed. This is impossible since nothing physical can be eternal. It violates the law of cause and effect. That leaves us with the question of where energy came from. The problem is that it is impossible for something physical to create itself. The only reasonable answer is that someone created it. And don't even bother insulting our intelligence by asking who created God. For one, God is not physical. The laws of physics do not apply to Him. He created them. Bottom line. The universe requires a Creator. Nothing else makes any sense.

This is silly. You can still agree with every accepted scientific theory and say, "God did that!". You should give up this false dichotomy...your attempts to undermine science will always fail.

Then perhaps you could tell us where the universe came from. It is a scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself.

"Then perhaps you could tell us where the universe came from."

I cannot. But, when we figure it out, you can still point at the explanation amd say, "Well, that's just how God did it!" So I don't see why you have any problem with science.

I don't have a problem with science. I have a problem with politicized science. I have a problem with the climate change assholes who consider the fight to 'save the planet' a religion. I have a problem with so called scientists who cling to the other religion of evolution, even though there is not one single scrap of scientific evidence to support it. I'm not alone in that belief. Many scientists believe that evolution is not the answer. You seem to be someone who believes whatever scientists say simply because they are scientists. There is a name for people like that. Useful idiots. Question everything. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a useful idiot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God is the only rational explanation for why anything exists at all. Science has tried to come up with explanations that exclude a Creator, but they are nothing but guesses. Many, if not all of them, defy science and logic. For instance, some scientists claim that energy has always existed. This is impossible since nothing physical can be eternal. It violates the law of cause and effect. That leaves us with the question of where energy came from. The problem is that it is impossible for something physical to create itself. The only reasonable answer is that someone created it. And don't even bother insulting our intelligence by asking who created God. For one, God is not physical. The laws of physics do not apply to Him. He created them. Bottom line. The universe requires a Creator. Nothing else makes any sense.

This is silly. You can still agree with every accepted scientific theory and say, "God did that!". You should give up this false dichotomy...your attempts to undermine science will always fail.

Then perhaps you could tell us where the universe came from. It is a scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself.

"Then perhaps you could tell us where the universe came from."

I cannot. But, when we figure it out, you can still point at the explanation amd say, "Well, that's just how God did it!" So I don't see why you have any problem with science.

I don't have a problem with science. I have a problem with politicized science. I have a problem with the climate change assholes who consider the fight to 'save the planet' a religion. I have a problem with so called scientists who cling to the other religion of evolution, even though there is not one single scrap of scientific evidence to support it. I'm not alone in that belief. Many scientists believe that evolution is not the answer. You seem to be someone who believes whatever scientists say simply because they are scientists. There is a name for people like that. Useful idiots. Question everything. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a useful idiot.

"I don't have a problem with science. I have a problem with politicized science."

That's a shameless lie. You have a problem with any science that does not align with your superstitions. Period. And the fact that you have to lie in order to ascribe a modicum of nobility to this should be a big hint to you that you are constructing a steaming pile of shit.

 

[skye]

God is the only rational explanation for why anything exists at all. Science has tried to come up with explanations that exclude a Creator, but they are nothing but guesses. Many, if not all of them, defy science and logic. For instance, some scientists claim that energy has always existed. This is impossible since nothing physical can be eternal. It violates the law of cause and effect. That leaves us with the question of where energy came from. The problem is that it is impossible for something physical to create itself. The only reasonable answer is that someone created it. And don't even bother insulting our intelligence by asking who created God. For one, God is not physical. The laws of physics do not apply to Him. He created them. Bottom line. The universe requires a Creator. Nothing else makes any sense.

If God exists, something had to create him.

No, GOD was never born and will never die.

Immortality is a difficult concept for us humans to understand.

The same goes for Infinity.

This is a personal opinion.

 

[RWNJ]

Why can't people accept we can't know everything right now?
Why must people have to assume a bunch of bullshit?

that is very true, TN... kinda like climate change........riiiiight, TN?

Not a good analogy. Climate scientists are the first to admit there is much they don't know. but what we know, we know.

howeverr, faith is not based on concrete fact. what we don't know we don't know.

Yes, I know. But we do know, for a fact, that adding carbon to our climatic carbon cycle will cause a warming driver and acidification of the oceans. These are known facts. This is "settled science".

Perhaps someone would care to share the evidence of this 'settled science'. I've never seen any. And simply by using the term 'settled science', one reveals the unfathomable depths of their ignorance.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why can't people accept we can't know everything right now?
Why must people have to assume a bunch of bullshit?

that is very true, TN... kinda like climate change........riiiiight, TN?

Not a good analogy. Climate scientists are the first to admit there is much they don't know. but what we know, we know.

howeverr, faith is not based on concrete fact. what we don't know we don't know.

Yes, I know. But we do know, for a fact, that adding carbon to our climatic carbon cycle will cause a warming driver and acidification of the oceans. These are known facts. This is "settled science".

Perhaps someone would care to share the evidence of this 'settled science'. I've never seen any. And simply by using the term 'settled science', one reveals the unfathomable depths of their ignorance.

"Perhaps someone would care to share the evidence of this 'settled science'. I'"

they absolutely would. scientists hold conferences for public consumption on the matter all the time. universities offer courses on it. again, you are being very dishonest. if you cared, you would look it up or go learn about it. Spare me your dishonesty.

 

[RWNJ]

God is not physical.

Well that rules out God as a creator of the physical universe because from nothing, nothing comes, AKA, you can't get some thing from no thing.

Unless you're God. Think about. The nothing from nothing rule is for our physical universe. God exists outside of time and space. He can do anything He wants. BTW. The universe did not come from nothing. It came from the limitless mind of God. Perhaps you should refresh the old noggin of the definition of omnipotent.

 

[RWNJ]

scientists claim that energy has always existed.

Actually they do more than "claim," they have proved with a repeatable experiment that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed." It is called The First Law of Thermodynamics.

They have also proved that nothing physical can be eternal. Since energy cannot be eternal, it must have been created by a process greater than anything the mind of man can possibly conceive. Like an omnipotent God, for instance. It's funny how scientists can give the term eternal to energy, but balk at doing the same for God. Why is that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

scientists claim that energy has always existed.

Actually they do more than "claim," they have proved with a repeatable experiment that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed." It is called The First Law of Thermodynamics.

They have also proved that nothing physical can be eternal. Since energy cannot be eternal, it must have been created by a process greater than anything the mind of man can possibly conceive. Like an omnipotent God, for instance. It's funny how scientists can give the term eternal to energy, but balk at doing the same for God. Why is that?

"Since energy cannot be eternal, it must have been created by a process greater than anything the mind of man can possibly conceive. Like an omnipotent God, for instance. "


Dang, you are one dishonest dude. This statement by you is not equivalent at all to your position, which is that this "god" you have imagined is 100% real and EXACTLY as you have imagined him.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The "God said it, I believe, that settles it" bumper sticker could be the OP here and it would be the same.

It's like a child that believes there is a monster in her closet. You can try to comfort the child as it will grow out of this fear over time, but it is a waste of time to try to 'reason' with a child that doesn't know better yet. Adults that still think there is a monster in the closet though need a good psychiatrist.

 

[RWNJ]

4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


How odd, considering only Adam and Eve existed. Was this "wife" eve, or a transgender Adam? Point being... maybe Genesis is not a good source of knowledge.

Cain married a chimp which resulted in the birth of the first ******. Or so I'm told. ^_^ Seriously though, who ever claimed that Adam and Eve were the only ones? We don't know how many children they had. And Cain could have easily married one of Adam and Eve's soon to be born children. There is no mystery here. You make the common misconception that a lack of evidence proves your point. It doesn't. The Bible mantions Cain and Abel. It does NOT say that they were their only children.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


How odd, considering only Adam and Eve existed. Was this "wife" eve, or a transgender Adam? Point being... maybe Genesis is not a good source of knowledge.

Cain married a chimp which resulted in the birth of the first ******. Or so I'm told. ^_^ Seriously though, who ever claimed that Adam and Eve were the only ones? We don't know how many children they had. And Cain could have easily married one of Adam and Eve's soon to be born children. There is no mystery here. You make the common misconception that a lack of evidence proves your point. It doesn't. The Bible mantions Cain and Abel. It does NOT say that they were their only children.

"Seriously though, who ever claimed that Adam and Eve were the only ones?"

"Seriously though, who ever claimed that Adam and Eve were the only ones?"

Ah yes, the ol', "whenever the Bible doesn't make sense, it is clearly just symbolism or metaphor" chestnut. this has really become a very popular tool, in light of scientific enlightenent. how convenient for you magical thinkers. of course, what this really is is just more dishonesty on your part.

 

[RWNJ]

The Bible has never been proven wrong about anything. There are also no contradiction about doctrine. Think about that. It was written by about 40 different authors over a 1500 year period and they all agree with each other. Do you have any clue just how impossible that is?

The problem is.

1) You really didn't address my point. How do you know YOUR God is the right God? Because only 2 Billion out of 7 Billion humans worship him.

2) The bible is full of scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

Here's a list.

536 Contradictions within the bible itself.

SAB Contradictions

2316 verses that are just absurd.

SAB, Absurdities

463 Scientific or HIstorical Errors

Science and History in the Bible

I could refute all of the examples you gave, but I don't have time. But I will address the first one. It's a perfect example of intellectual laziness combined with an intense anti-Biblical bias that is all too common. There are not two Creation accounts in Genesis. Here's why.

The claim goes that there are two creation accounts: Genesis 1 and 2 give different accounts. In chapter 1, man and woman are created at the same time after the creation of the animals. In chapter 2, the animals are created after people.

This apparent contradiction is best illustrated by looking at Genesis 2:19.

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them (NKJV).
The language appears to suggest that God made the animals after making Adam and then He brought the animals to Adam. However, in Genesis 1, we have an account of God creating animals and then creating men and women.

The difficulty with Genesis 2:19 lies with the use of the word formed. The same style is read in the KJV.

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.
The NIV has a subtly different rendition.

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them.
The NIV suggests a different way of viewing the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 2 does not suggest a chronology. That is why the NIV suggests using the style “the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the fields.” Therefore, the animals being brought to Adam had already been made and were not being brought to him immediately after their creation. Interestingly, Tyndale agrees with the NIV—and Tyndale’s translation predates the KJV.

The Lord God had made of the earth all manner of beasts of the field and all manner fowls of the air.
Tyndale and the NIV are correct on this verse because the verb in the sentence can be translated as pluperfect rather than perfect. The pluperfect tense can be considered as the past of the past—that is to say, in a narration set in the past, the event to which the narration refers is already further in the past. Once the pluperfect is taken into account, the perceived contradiction completely disappears.

"I could refute all of the examples you gave, but I don't have time."


hahaha... oh man... "I would TOTALLY prove evolutionary theory to be false, but i just don't feel like it. " Do you even fool yourself?

So, let us all get this straight:

You, who knows less than nothing about this topic and has no education or experience in this field whatsoever, would refute the mountains of mutually supportive evidence gathered over centuries by people who dedicated their lives to science.... but you just don't feel like it.

Damn this is ridiculous. How can one even have a rational discussion with someone so obviously insane?

I never claimed that I could disprove evolution. I believe we were discussing Biblical contradictions. I have refuted the first piece of evidence you gave me. I could do the same with the rest of them. Having proven you a credulous fool in Biblical matters, I shall ignore you. You have nothing to say that would interest me. You may believe that I am running away, because of your superior arguments, but sadly, some are prone to self delusion. Sucks to be you. Goodbye.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Bible has never been proven wrong about anything. There are also no contradiction about doctrine. Think about that. It was written by about 40 different authors over a 1500 year period and they all agree with each other. Do you have any clue just how impossible that is?

The problem is.

1) You really didn't address my point. How do you know YOUR God is the right God? Because only 2 Billion out of 7 Billion humans worship him.

2) The bible is full of scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

Here's a list.

536 Contradictions within the bible itself.

SAB Contradictions

2316 verses that are just absurd.

SAB, Absurdities

463 Scientific or HIstorical Errors

Science and History in the Bible

I could refute all of the examples you gave, but I don't have time. But I will address the first one. It's a perfect example of intellectual laziness combined with an intense anti-Biblical bias that is all too common. There are not two Creation accounts in Genesis. Here's why.

The claim goes that there are two creation accounts: Genesis 1 and 2 give different accounts. In chapter 1, man and woman are created at the same time after the creation of the animals. In chapter 2, the animals are created after people.

This apparent contradiction is best illustrated by looking at Genesis 2:19.

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them (NKJV).
The language appears to suggest that God made the animals after making Adam and then He brought the animals to Adam. However, in Genesis 1, we have an account of God creating animals and then creating men and women.

The difficulty with Genesis 2:19 lies with the use of the word formed. The same style is read in the KJV.

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.
The NIV has a subtly different rendition.

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them.
The NIV suggests a different way of viewing the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 2 does not suggest a chronology. That is why the NIV suggests using the style “the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the fields.” Therefore, the animals being brought to Adam had already been made and were not being brought to him immediately after their creation. Interestingly, Tyndale agrees with the NIV—and Tyndale’s translation predates the KJV.

The Lord God had made of the earth all manner of beasts of the field and all manner fowls of the air.
Tyndale and the NIV are correct on this verse because the verb in the sentence can be translated as pluperfect rather than perfect. The pluperfect tense can be considered as the past of the past—that is to say, in a narration set in the past, the event to which the narration refers is already further in the past. Once the pluperfect is taken into account, the perceived contradiction completely disappears.

"I could refute all of the examples you gave, but I don't have time."


hahaha... oh man... "I would TOTALLY prove evolutionary theory to be false, but i just don't feel like it. " Do you even fool yourself?

So, let us all get this straight:

You, who knows less than nothing about this topic and has no education or experience in this field whatsoever, would refute the mountains of mutually supportive evidence gathered over centuries by people who dedicated their lives to science.... but you just don't feel like it.

Damn this is ridiculous. How can one even have a rational discussion with someone so obviously insane?

I never claimed that I could disprove evolution. I believe we were discussing Biblical contradictions. I have refuted the first piece of evidence you gave me. I could do the same with the rest of them. Having proven you a credulous fool in Biblical matters, I shall ignore you. You have nothing to say that would interest me. You may believe that I am running away, because of your superior arguments, but sadly, some are prone to self delusion. Sucks to you. Goodbye.

" I have refuted the first piece of evidence you gave me."

You refuted nothing. you merely claimed, 'those words in the bible don't actually mean what they mean" your evidence for this? because you think so. And literally nothing else. No, you do not refute things in this manner. you merely shit on them.

 

[RWNJ]

The "God said it, I believe, that settles it" bumper sticker could be the OP here and it would be the same.

It's like a child that believes there is a monster in her closet. You can try to comfort the child as it will grow out of this fear over time, but it is a waste of time to try to 'reason' with a child that doesn't know better yet. Adults that still think there is a monster in the closet though need a good psychiatrist.

I just love how people like you label others fools simply because of different beliefs, without providing any evidence for making that claim. Your condescending attitude is noted, as well as your complete lack of any rational counter-arguments. In other words. You have no argument, nor have you addressed the evidence I provided. That means you lose. Sucks to be you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The "God said it, I believe, that settles it" bumper sticker could be the OP here and it would be the same.

It's like a child that believes there is a monster in her closet. You can try to comfort the child as it will grow out of this fear over time, but it is a waste of time to try to 'reason' with a child that doesn't know better yet. Adults that still think there is a monster in the closet though need a good psychiatrist.

I just love how people like you label others fools simply because of different beliefs, without providing any evidence for making that claim. Your condescending attitude is noted, as well as your complete lack of any rational counter-arguments. In other words. You have no argument, nor have you addressed the evidence I provided. That means you lose. Sucks to be you.

"I just love how people like you label others fools simply because of different beliefs"


ANOTHER shameless lie. Clearly, you have been called a fool not because you "have different beliefs", but because you reject accepted scientific theories on completely irrational bases. Over and over you have been told that nothing about a belief in the existence of a god or the belief that he created everything contradicts accepted science. When you were called "foolish" is when you tried to claim this was so, and tried to undermine accepted science by shitting on it (which, I promise, you did not accomplish).

 

[RWNJ]

The "God said it, I believe, that settles it" bumper sticker could be the OP here and it would be the same.

It's like a child that believes there is a monster in her closet. You can try to comfort the child as it will grow out of this fear over time, but it is a waste of time to try to 'reason' with a child that doesn't know better yet. Adults that still think there is a monster in the closet though need a good psychiatrist.

About that monster in the closet. The real monster in the closet is God. You fear Him because His word convicts you of your sin and you are aware of the penalty of your sin. You fear Him, but your sinful pride will not allow you to humble yourself and repent to God for sinning against Him. You love your sin more than your Creator. And that is why you will burn in Hell. But there is a way out. And guess what? It's completely free. No strings attached. All you have to do is place God first in your life. But you won't. how sad.