Bobbyaf:


Its not a contradiction until you approach the passage from a contextual point of view. All things are possible when your faith is strong in God, but apart from that God didn't promise that His people would be victorious in every battle. In Exudus 23:29, we see this remark"I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee."

Israel was small in number in comparison, and if God had quickly allowed them to conquer such a vast territory then what would be the point of having the land and not being able to occupy it?

Another possible reason could be that the men of Judah allowed their fear to overcome their faith in the Lord. In fact, in Joshua 17:14-18, we see that Joshua is trying to convince his people that they can overcome troops that have iron chariots.

Jdg1:1 After the death of Joshua, the Israelites asked the LORD, "Who will be the first to go up and fight for us against the Canaanites?"
Jdg 1:2 The LORD answered, "Judah is to go; I have given the land into their hands."
Jdg 1:3 Then the men of Judah said to the Simeonites their brothers, "Come up with us into the territory allotted to us, to fight against the Canaanites. We in turn will go with you into yours." So the Simeonites went with them.
Jdg 1:4  When Judah attacked, the LORD gave the Canaanites and Perizzites into their hands and they struck down ten thousand men at Bezek.

"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but COULD NOT drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had CHARIOTS OF IRON." (jUDGES 1:19).

Bobbyaf:

@ OLAADEGBU

The problem with persons who do not know Christ as Lord and Savior, is that they are the least aware of the power of the bible and the God of the bible to change lives from a vile state to that of a virtuous state.

These people whose duty it is to express in an indirect, and subconscioius manner their own wretchedness, and wayward lifestyle, are bound to do what they do best, and that is to resist the Spirit's call to surrender. They pretend to not care, but deep down they do. God knows it and they know it.

To each man is granted a probationary time period to make things right with God. Every man has a choice to either believe or not believe. Deep down they know what is happening, but are afraid to be accountable to an Almighty God who will soon judge them. Their day is short for soon He that will come, will come and will not tarry.

I bid you ignore the fools, for fools they are, with very little to contribute to life, and proceed to bless those who are willing to learn.

We have 66 books, penned by over 40 authors, over several thousand years, with a design that originated outside the dimension of time.  Every number, every place name, every detail is there by deliberate design.

The Dead Sea Scrolls make the number of the people of Jacob 75, not 70, in Genesis 46:27, thus correcting a scribal error and showing that Stephen’s figure was right (Acts 7:14).

Krayola:

@ Debosky. . .Excellent post.

toneyb:

He remains the only rational christian that really knows what he is saying on NL(from his few post that i have read so far). All the others are just empty barrels that have no idea of what they are trying to defend.

noetic2:

as long as an opinion does not correlate with ur illiterate postulations, they are unacceptable and unintelligent. you are intellectually embarrassing.

dalaman:

Do you know who papnin is? Did you bother to read the salient points made by Ken smith? Panin's report on the last twelve verse of Mark begins with the observation that there are 175 = 25x7 words in the Greek text.

They did a search of the greek text and found out that the numbers were less that what panin claim and they made some reference to the greek text available which panin claimed he used. What has peer review or external reference got to do with it? Did panin give any external reference to his own claim or was it peer reviewed? I can't help but laugh at the "point" or "critique" you that you give your self too much credit for. You are only saying that the guy did not make give any peer review because he has refutes panins claims. Why didn't you ask panin for peer reviewed or external reference to his work? Because he makes a claim that you like?

You are just trying to show that you have an idea of what you are saying but its obvious you don't. You are more interested in typing than making any sense.   

debosky:

I don't believe the work of Panin, it has been discredited and is simply an overstretched attempt to create something out of nothing. God doesn't need 'heptadic constraints' in texts which have been transcribed over time with possible errors in this transmission to prove himself. We look to the MESSAGE of the bible not any fanciful attempts to prove things that are not contained therein.

The problem with trying to 'prove' scientific facts from the bible lies in the often inaccurate contextual reading of passages. Ola believes the bible shows the earth is rotating, but this was not the view of some early Christians and the Catholics, leading to people being killed or expelled for believing contrary things.

Even till today, I had an argument recently with a guy on this same section who believes the bible is strictly GEOCENTRIC - i.e that the earth is the center of the universe and that everything is rotating around it! He will argue this with bible verses and bring the 'usual' question - who will you agree with? Man's fallible word or God's infallible word?

[size=14pt]I do not think the bible was intended to 'prove' mathematics, physics and other things, but to teach us primarily how to relate with God and fellow human beings. As Christians we believe everything including knowledge and understanding comes from God, so there is no need to 'force fit' the bible to contain these things.[/size]

Be careful when making claims like these - Human beings decided which books were useful and those not so. When translating texts from different languages/cultures there is always a chance that nuances will be missed and words misinterpreted. To claim every detail and number is there by design is dangerous.

Bobbyaf:

@ OLAADEGBU

The problem with persons who do not know Christ as Lord and Savior, is that they are the least aware of the power of the bible and the God of the bible to change lives from a vile state to that of a virtuous state.

These people whose duty it is to express in an indirect, and subconscioius manner their own wretchedness, and wayward lifestyle, are bound to do what they do best, and that is to resist the Spirit's call to surrender. They pretend to not care, but deep down they do. God knows it and they know it.

To each man is granted a probationary time period to make things right with God. Every man has a choice to either believe or not believe. Deep down they know what is happening, but are afraid to be accountable to an Almighty God who will soon judge them. Their day is short for soon He that will come, will come and will not tarry.

I bid you ignore the fools, for fools they are, with very little to contribute to life, and proceed to bless those who are willing to learn.

debosky:

I don't believe the work of Panin, it has been discredited and is simply an overstretched attempt to create something out of nothing. God doesn't need 'heptadic constraints' in texts which have been transcribed over time with possible errors in this transmission to prove himself. We look to the MESSAGE of the bible not any fanciful attempts to prove things that are not contained therein.

debosky:

The problem with trying to 'prove' scientific facts from the bible lies in the often inaccurate contextual reading of passages. Ola believes the bible shows the earth is rotating, but this was not the view of some early Christians and the Catholics, leading to people being killed or expelled for believing contrary things.

debosky:

Even till today, I had an argument recently with a guy on this same section who believes the bible is strictly GEOCENTRIC - i.e that the earth is the center of the universe and that everything is rotating around it! He will argue this with bible verses and bring the 'usual' question - who will you agree with? Man's fallible word or God's infallible word?

debosky:

I do not think the bible was intended to 'prove' mathematics, physics and other things, but to teach us primarily how to relate with God and fellow human beings. As Christians we believe everything including knowledge and understanding comes from God, so there is no need to 'force fit' the bible to contain these things.

debosky:

Be careful when making claims like these - Human beings decided which books were useful and those not so. When translating texts from different languages/cultures there is always a chance that nuances will be missed and words misinterpreted. To claim every detail and number is there by design is dangerous.

debosky:

Even one of your 'sites' has claimed there is a 'scribal error' in the number of people that went to Egypt with Jacob.

OLAADEGBU:

Evolution disproves the Bible!

The Book of Genesis tells us that everything was created by God nothing evolved.  Every creature was given the ability to reproduce after its own kind as is stated ten times in Genesis 1.  Dogs do not produce cats.  Neither do cats and dogs have a common ancestry.  Dogs began as dogs and are still dogs.  They vary in species from Chihuahuas to Saint Bernards, but you will not find a "dat" or a "cog" (part cat and part dog) throughout God's creation.  Frogs don't reproduce oysters, cows don't have lambs and pregnant pigs don't give birth to rabbits.  God made monkeys as monkeys and man as man.  Each creature "brings forth after its own kind."  That's no theory; its a fact.

Why should we believe that man comes from another species?  If evolution is true, then it is proof that the Bible is false.  However, the whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory of evolution.

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." -- 1 Corinthians 15:39

Tudór:

I take it you've never heared of LIGERS (lion and tiger offspring) or a horse and zebra mating to produce an offspring or wolf-dog. . .

Don't you think the lying moses saw the workings of nature on how like produces like, night and day, animal, human and plant multiplication, crawling serpents, prescence of ocean and sees e.t.c- He then decided to use all these to tell a story that fit these outcomes. Its quite typical of different creation accounts from different religions, i've never seen a creation story that says dogs produce cats or the like because EVERY BOFFON can write a creation story that accurately mirrors realities and nature as we see it everyday.

OLAADEGBU:

You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion. 

I read and understand the Bible in a straightforward manner which helps to eliminate improper interpretations.

I put the same question to you, who do you agree with, God's Word or Man's fallible words? 

It is rather the other way round, Mathematics and science confirm the Bible as the Bible is capable of standing alone.

So you also believe that the Bible is the work of some Catholic monks?  No wonder.

If I were you I would read the link posted earlier in this thread about the cleared 101 contradictions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-archaeology-support-the-bible

Every number, every place name, every detail is there by deliberate design.

an error [/b]be there by deliberate design? Deliberate design of whom? 

Your link says

The individuals responsible for the copying (scribes or copyists) were prone to making[b] two types of scribal errors, well known and documented by those expert in the field of manuscript analysis. One concerned the spelling of proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and the other had to do with numbers. The fact that it is mainly these type of errors in evidence gives credence to the argument for copyist errors. If indeed the originals were in contradiction, we would see evidence of this within the content of the stories themselves.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents were inspired. 

OLAADEGBU:

Evolution disproves the Bible!

The Book of Genesis tells us that everything was created by God[b] nothing evolved[/b].  Every creature was given the ability to reproduce after its own kind as is stated ten times in Genesis 1.  Dogs do not produce cats.  Neither do cats and dogs have a common ancestry.  Dogs began as dogs and are still dogs.  They vary in species from Chihuahuas to Saint Bernards, but you will not find a "dat" or a "cog" (part cat and part dog) throughout God's creation.  Frogs don't reproduce oysters, cows don't have lambs and pregnant pigs don't give birth to rabbits.  God made monkeys as monkeys and man as man.  Each creature "brings forth after its own kind."  That's no theory; its a fact.

Why should we believe that man comes from another species?  If evolution is true, then it is proof that the Bible is false.  However, the whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory of evolution.

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." -- 1 Corinthians 15:39

noetic2:

how does this dis-prove creationism?

this is  a mere theory and assumption from an idle mind.

Tudór:

Just like moses' idle mind made up the creation story. . . .

debosky:

How does the bible tell us that nothing evolved? What it says is that everything was created by God who spoke them into existence. Does it tell us in what exact manner/process the creatures came about?

The bible says each creature brings forth after it's own kind - what is this 'kind' exactly? Was it defined as species, genus, phylum or any of the current biological classifications in use? How can you simply jump to comparing dogs and cats as proof of anything?

How do you know dogs and cats have no common ancestry?

noetic2:

so by speaking them into existence, ur theory is that they evolved. . .right?

NOPE. . .thats false. Go and read ur genesis again. . . . .no deduction of evolution. . . they were created and asked to reproduce of their own kind.

kind means kind. A dog brings forth a Dog. . . .just like adam and eve brought forth Cain and Abel.

because they dont.

debosky:

I don't know if it's right or wrong, and I am not proposing any theory - but to say definitively that no evolution cannot be a conclusion arrived at by the text.
I am not deducing evolution, just as I can't deduce anything - I do not know the exact process, all I know is they were 'created' - what that involved is not specified in the bible.
Was this strict definition given in the bible? What about beast brings forth beast? Again, what is 'kind' here? is it the 'kind' mentioned in corinthians referring to beasts, fishes, birds and men or is it related to specific species like cats and dogs?
Not a very helpful answer - how do you know this? Does the bible tell you this? The bible talks about kinds of flesh and mentions groupings that could easily encompass dogs and cats - both are 'beasts', but you sit and tell me they didn't? based on what information exactly?

noetic2:

The bible asked them to bring forth their kind. . . kind referring to their own nature.
The best example there was for Adam and Eve who also brought forth their kind. . .Cain and Abel.

This has absolutely no connection to any one evolving over a period of any time.

Again. . .the bible never told us that God made man from some evolving decayed bacteria. . . . Yes, that rules out the probability of such ever happening.

debosky:

I am not arguing about Adam and Eve - that is clearly stated. My point is this, how can you make a definitive comment about cats and dogs not having common ancestry when the bible groups them together under 'kind' as flesh of beasts? humans are clearly in a different class from 'flesh of men.'
I have made no such connection either, I just ask, how can you say it didn't happen? Based on what evidence?
Did I mention man being made from 'evolving decayed bacteria'? Please let's stick to the original question - there is no basis for saying cats and dogs have no common ancestry from the bible. Yes or no?

noetic2:

whats the meaning of the nonsense above?

is it possible for cats and dogs to evolve and not humans? what theory are postulating?

debosky:

Why you cannot focus on the issue at hand without getting offtrack is amazing. Who mentioned evolution here?

The dude is severely bleeped in the head!

debosky:

Why you cannot focus on the issue at hand without getting offtrack is amazing. Who mentioned evolution here?

You say cats and dogs have no common ancestry with no proof except for a possibly wrong interpretation of the word 'kind' which is reflected INSIDE THE BIBLE as grouping together beasts, birds, fish and humans in distinct categories.

Now the bible says each produced after it's kind, so if cats and dogs are both beasts (i.e that is their kind) is it impossible for them to have a common 'parent' who produced them?

MrCrackles:

The dude is severely bleeped in the head!

noetic2:

so what EXACTLY are u talking about. . .when u refer to evolve?

debosky:

Thanks for this.

1. You say no evolution occurred - based on what information? Note I am not saying that evolution as proposed by scientists or anyone else is accurate, I am merely challenging an assertion you are making. The bible tells us God created, it doesn't tell us how he created.

2. You say cats and dogs have no common ancestry. Again, based on what information? The bible clearly does not tell you this, and the argument using kind as shown in the bible indicates that both cats and dogs are 'flesh of beasts'. Now if they produced after their kind, why can a common ancestor not produce two beasts?

debosky:

How does the bible tell us that nothing evolved?  What it says is that everything was created by God who spoke them into existence. Does it tell us in what exact manner/process the creatures came about?

The bible says each creature brings forth after it's own kind - what is this 'kind' exactly? Was it defined as species, genus, phylum or any of the current biological classifications in use? How can you simply jump to comparing dogs and cats as proof of anything? 

How do you know dogs and cats have no common ancestry? 

noetic2:

This is amazing. so why did u deny evolution in the context of this discussion earlier?

I cant believe this?  was it not u who said the following
please make up ur mind before opening ur mouth