"Contradictions" Answered Here

Sara Jansky · Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:22 pm Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

Originally posted by Magnum PI

7. Math quiz: How long was the flood?
(GEN 7:17, 8:6) The flood was on the Earth 40 days and nights
(GEN 7:24, 8:3) The flood was on the Earth 150 days CONTRADICTS
(GEN 7:11) the flood began during the 600th year, 2nd month, 17th day of Noah's life and finally dried up
(GEN 8:13) during the 601st year, 1st month, 1st day of Noah's life (1 solar year from the date given in Gen7:11).

This is my answer:

First I will post the complete verses here from the King James Bible so that we can look at them.

Genesis 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

Genesis 8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made

Genesis 7:17 and 8:6 both state the amount of time that it was actually raining. Genesis 7:24 and 8:3 tell us how long the waters were on the earth.

Ya know how after it rains, there are puddles on the ground for awhile. They need time to dry up, don’t they? So, knowing this and taking these verses for what they say, we can conclude that it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights and the water was sitting on the earth for 150 days. Very simple.

Next verses: Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

This verse is telling us when the flood started, not how long it was.

Next: Genesis 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

This verse is telling us when the flood dried up. Not when it started or how long it was, just what day the ground dried up.

None of these verses contradict each other in any way whatsoever. If you had looked these verses up in the Bible and actually read them, there would not have been any confusion at all. Each verse is telling of something different. Magnum is sitting here trying to tell me that they are speaking of the same thing and thus contradicting themselves.

I went and looked each up (although I already knew what they said) just to be accurate. I suggest that everyone do the same instead of looking at Magnum’s posts filled with incomplete and inaccurate verses.

Magnum, did you even bother to look them up in the Bible, or did you just copy and paste them from one of those atheist sites you go to? If you only take a few words from a verse and even use some different words that aren’t even there, you can make up a convincing contradiction. But the problem with that Magnum is that anyone with a Bible and the ability to read will know that you are lying.

I do hope we can continue to discuss all of the so called “contradictions” you have brought to my attention. I plan on answering every last one of them and even keeping them on file for any other Magnums I run into out there. I am sorry it has taken me so long to find time to answer your posts. I am working on more answers for you as you read this.

I plan on taking them one at a time because of lack of time and I want to be accurate in my answers to you. If I can do more at a time I will. Take care.

Sara Jansky · Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2002 3:30 pm Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

Originally posted by Magnum PI:

How many Gods are there?
(GEN 1:26) God said "LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE ACCORDING TO OUR LIKENESS",
(GEN 3:22) God said "MAN HAS BECOME LIKE ONE OF US."
(DEUT 6:4) God is one God

Here is my answer:

First I will state the complete verses as found in the Bible. All verses quoted are taken from the King James Version.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord

Genesis 1:26 is telling us that man was created in the image of God. Notice the word “our” in reference to God. We all know that God is three and one at the same time. To show who God is I will quote another verse for better understanding. Notice in the verse the word mystery.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

I hope this will help you to understand. For me to fully explain how God has shown himself to me through his words, I might just need a separate thread for that. We could make a discussion out of that topic alone. For now I will just answer the question at hand as simply as possible.

So, moving on to the next verse. Genesis 3:22 simply states that after man disobeyed and ate of the tree of life, he became like God was; understanding the difference between good and evil. That is why they were now aware that they were naked. Before they were as little children who run around the house naked without any shame. They were innocent, they didn’t know any better until now. That is all it is stating. This has nothing to do with how many Gods there are. There is only one and this verse does not deny that at all.

Now for the last verse. Deuteronomy 6:4 simply answers the question asked by Magnum. “How many Gods are there?” Well, there is only one true God.

[This message has been edited by Sara Jansky (edited 10-06-2002).]

Sara Jansky · Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2002 10:32 pm Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

Magnum,

I thought that you would be interested in this. These are the "contradictions" that you brought up. Have you even read them at all?

Magnum PI · Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 8:26 pm Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

quote:
Originally posted by Sara Jansky:
Magnum,

I thought that you would be interested in this. These are the "contradictions" that you brought up. Have you even read them at all?

Yes Sara, I am interested. Just been a bit busy with school, homework and real life responsibilities. I've also been observing and posting from time to time at prochoicetalk.com as of late, Sorry.

I'll get to your posts in due time, so check in from time to time. Sorry for the delays.

MPI

[This message has been edited by Magnum PI (edited 10-08-2002).]

Sara Jansky · Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2002 7:11 am Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

Its okay. I just didn't want to be sitting here working on answering your contradiction post and no one be reading it.

WinAce · Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2002 1:19 am Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

Something I wrote a while ago, which I believe applies very well here:

quote:
Are the methods Christian apologists use to 'resolve' Biblical contradictions strangely similar to those used by apologists of other faiths when solving discrepancies in the Qur'an, Book of Mormon, and many other mutually-exclusive holy books?
() Yes () No

If you answered 'yes', can such methods be considered useless, since they can be used to defend what you might consider uninspired and even completely fictional works about equally well?
() Yes () No

Are the stock rationalizations apologists create to resolve Biblical discrepancies convincing to someone who doesn't already believe there are no errors in it?
() Yes () No

[This message has been edited by WinAce (edited 10-11-2002).]

Sara Jansky · Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2002 10:51 am Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

Magnum,

I wasn't being emotional in the slightest. All I did was post the complete verse. They practically explained themselves. But, I felt a need to explain futher in my own words.

And, no you did not post the full verse. I don't care where you got it from. I don't care if you copied and pasted from a site or wrote them yourself. The fact is an incomplete verse does you no good.

Magnum PI · Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2002 4:06 pm Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

quote:
Originally posted by Sara Jansky:
I wasn't being emotional in the slightest.

Uh, yes you were. The statement I quoted you saying could be taken as a tad emotional. And don't presume to sit there and tell me that your religious beliefs are not of an emotional nature. Even by your own response here you are showing a tad bit over emtional on the subject. Chill!

quote
Quote:

And, no you did not post the full verse.

I see reading comprehension still fails you. Did you even look at my thread Problem of Evil? Obviously not.

quote
Quote:

I don't care where you got it from.

I see, to **** with the KJV of the Bible. Let's just digress to Sara's version of the Bible.

How dismissive of you Sara.

quote
Quote:

I don't care if you copied and pasted from a site or wrote them yourself. The fact is an incomplete verse does you no good.

Obviously you didn't pass your english/writing classes with a very good grade. Try looking up the word 'citation', 'synopsis' and 'sumarization'.

Ahhh...what difference does it make. You'll never learn. Besides, in all fairness I shouldn't even entertain you in further debates until you own up to your affirmative statement that it is biologically impossible for a woman to get pregnant. :P

[This message has been edited by Magnum PI (edited 10-14-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Nobby (edited 12-13-2002).]

Magnum PI · Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2002 8:25 pm Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

Sara,

I started a rather long reply but upon closer analysis I determined that this contradiction is merely an argument over semantics.

quote
Quote:

I suggest that everyone do the same instead of looking at Magnum’s posts filled with incomplete and inaccurate verses.

Don't confuse how I post verses with those of what I cut-n-paste from other sites. You know full well that I quote the entire verses (i.e., Problem with Evil thread - my essay, I quoted full verses and always do).

Besides, there is nothing wrong with giving a brief synopsis of what the verse says as long as you provide the CH:V you are summarizing. Hence, you can look up the verse yourself to read the verse in its entirety.

Anyhow, I'll concede to your somewhat emotional explanation of the account of the rains, flood and time it took for it to dry up.

MPI

[This message has been edited by Magnum PI (edited 10-12-2002).]

Sara Jansky · Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2002 6:24 pm Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

My goodness. You even take my posts out of context. You quoted me saying that "I don't care where you got it" and then said that we should all "take Sara's version of the Bible".

Magnum, you need to learn to read in complete sentences and paragraphs. What I said was that it didn't matter where you got it from if it wasn't a complete verse. You could have only posted a few words of a single verse and given someone the wrong idea. I know you are smarter than this Magnum.

All I am saying is that you need to have the complete verses - and sometimes the verses around it - in order to understand what is being explained.

Example of incomplete thoughts being misleading:

A full sentence: They thought Bob died, but he was fine.

If you only saw two words of this sentence "Bob died" you would think that Bob was dead. But this is not true.

The whole sentence tells us that they only "thought" he was dead, but he in fact is not.

This is a very elementary concept I am trying to show you. And this concept has nothing to do with emotions - it is simply a fact. If you only take half of a thought, you can get the wrong idea. You wouldn't do that when reading a text book or fiction book so don't do it when reading the Bible.

And, yes, it does anger me a little when people do this with the Bible, but they wouldn't think of doing it with lets say...a book written by Darwin.

Now, if you like, we can continue to discuss these contradictions. Let's not discuss my emotions or this concept any longer. I am sure that this post will display my emotion and this concept for everyone simply enough.

So, if you are still interested please let me know. You have yet to comment directly to the answers I have given you. Maybe if I ask you a few questions that will help.

What do you think of my answer to the question you had on the flood? Does it make sense to you? Do you agree or not? Do you see how taking the "complete" verse tells you all you need to know and the incomplete verses are misleading?

Magnum PI · Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:49 am Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

quote:
Originally posted by Sara Jansky:
My goodness. You even take my posts out of context. You quoted me saying that "I don't care where you got it" and then said that we should all "take Sara's version of the Bible".

Sara Sara Sara. Did you or did you not say, and I quote (again):

quote
Quote:

I don't care where you got it from.

and

quote
Quote:

I don't care if you copied and pasted from a site or wrote them yourself. The fact is an incomplete verse does you no good.

How is it possible to take this out of context? Going by exactly what you said, in context, you are dismissing any quotable source. In addition to, you arbitrarily dismiss the point and purpose of a synopsis and/or summarization of cited text.

quote
Quote:

Magnum, you need to learn to read in complete sentences and paragraphs.

You have absolutely no place to lecture me on reading comprehension.

quote
Quote:

What I said was that it didn't matter where you got it from if it wasn't a complete verse. You could have only posted a few words of a single verse and given someone the wrong idea.

Hence, the citation of the source! DUH! It wouldn't be my fault if that someone was too dense to review the cited source for themselves then draw their own conclusions.

quote
Quote:

All I am saying is that you need to have the complete verses - and sometimes the verses around it - in order to understand what is being explained.

Which is the responsibility of the reader, not the writer. All the writer has to do is cite the source. It's up to the reader to verify the validity of the source, not the writer as he/she has already done that by citing the source.

quote
Quote:

And, yes, it does anger me a little when people do this with the Bible,

So you admit you were in fact getting a tad emotional.

quote
Quote:

Now, if you like, we can continue to discuss these contradictions. Let's not discuss my emotions or this concept any longer.

To suit your needs, all you had to do was ask that I quote the full verse(s) if you didn't want to take the time to look up the citations yourself. Which, personaly, I think is ridiculous because I know full well you have a copy of the Bible right next to your computer so you know exactly what I am talking about and referring to.

quote
Quote:

What do you think of my answer to the question you had on the flood? Does it make sense to you? Do you agree or not? Do you see how taking the "complete" verse tells you all you need to know and the incomplete verses are misleading?

I already said I agreed with your interpretation of the account of the flood. As I said, it was merely an argument over semantics. Upon a closer reading and complete analysis of the semantics, you presented the better argument than the original author posing the question of the contradiction in question.

MPI

[This message has been edited by Magnum PI (edited 10-16-2002).]

Sara Jansky · Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:10 pm Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

Magnum,

Yes I did say that it doesn't matter where you got it from, if it is incomplete it delivers a false message. Posting the complete verse is not for my benefit but the benefit of others that might be reading my posts. I want to give complete answers that do not mislead. That is all I am saying.

Now with that out of the way (for good I hope), what did you think of my second answer? And could you maybe give the link to the site where you got your information?

I will post another answer for you either later tonight or tommorow. Take care Magnum.

Magnum PI · Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2002 7:48 am Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

quote:
Originally posted by Sara Jansky:
Yes I did say that it doesn't matter where you got it from, if it is incomplete it delivers a false message. Posting the complete verse is not for my benefit but the benefit of others that might be reading my posts. I want to give complete answers that do not mislead. That is all I am saying.

Yes yes yes Sara...I know what you were/are saying. You, Ron, others and myself have gone over this point before (Deja Vu).

Fact is, if I (or anyone else) am writing an op-ed piece (or an essay, article, report, etc.) and I quote, paraphrase or summarize a sentence, phrase, paragraph, verse or whathaveyou from a particular source all I am require to do is cite the source (this is basic Writing 101).

As I said before (redundantly), it is up to the reader to verify the validity of the information given by reviewing the source material. Period! The same goes for quoting or paraphrasing verses from the Bible. As long as I cite the CH:V it's up to you, the reader, to verify the information. My responsibility goes no further than citing the source (again, basic Writing 101).

However, if you want to be thorough and take the time to make superfluous postings be my guest. Just don't criticize me or anyone else when we don't do things 'your' way.

quote
Quote:

And could you maybe give the link to the site where you got your information?

The link is in the original post from which you copied the material from when starting this thread (instead of just answering the questions there).

MPI

PS. I'll look at your second posting/reply a little later.

[This message has been edited by Magnum PI (edited 10-17-2002).]

Sara Jansky · Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2002 7:28 pm Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

Magnum PI wrote:

Who was Keturah?
(GEN 25:1) Keturah was Abraham's wife
(1 CHRON 1:32) Keturah was Abraham's concubine

My answer:

Genesis 25:1 - Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

1 Chronicles 1:32 - Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.

Just like these two verses say, she was Abraham’s wife. If you go and look up the meaning for concubine you would have understood this.

Magnum PI · Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:33 am Post subject: "Contradictions" Answered Here

quote:
Originally posted by Sara Jansky:
Magnum PI wrote:

Who was Keturah?
(GEN 25:1) Keturah was Abraham's wife
(1 CHRON 1:32) Keturah was Abraham's concubine

My answer:

Genesis 25:1 - Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

1 Chronicles 1:32 - Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.

Just like these two verses say, she was Abraham’s wife. If you go and look up the meaning for concubine you would have understood this.

Wrong. Concubine means Mistress, a woman who is not married and has a station below that of wife.

Concubine does not = wife. BIG difference!

The contradiction stands!

[This message has been edited by Magnum PI (edited 10-18-2002).]