Maybe this has been addressed, but I'm not wading through 15 pages to see. Why are you nameing one set of verses, but then your supposed quotes are different numbers?
First off you have to define "truly dead". The argument can certainly be that, at least medically speaking, people who have been truly dead have come back to life. I can only assume you mean those who have been dead over a certain period of time before rising. Secondly, you are making a false comparison. You are trying to equate one set of definitions to another simply because they share a common criteria. Zombies are typically considered soulless reanimated bodies. Today's "zombie" movies don't actually have your standard zombie, and are only calllled such due to similarities, although no doubt the word will evolve shortly to include such. Modern "zombies" are basically living creatures, who have lost their higher brain function so that only the most basic instincts drive it. You can cause a modern zombie to bleed out and die, whereas a classical zombie has a "power source" beyond normal mortal means. Resurrected bodies, per Christian traditions, are reformed (new) bodies with the souls "reinstalled". And they won't appear until after the rapture and Apocalypse (the original Christian concept). So your comparison is not a true argument based upon what you are arguing against. You are essentially making a strawman by changing the concept from the Christian view of a risen body, and a zombie, either classical or modern.
Don't you? Do you actually have evidence of everything g you know/believe, or are you having faith in that which is told to you? At the risk of supporting Flat Earthers, what real evidence do you have that the Earth is a sphere? Sure we can use Occam's Razor, and repetitive assertions to support our belief of a spherical Earth. But ultimately, we are taking on faith the assertions of others, for anything we have not directly verified ourselves.
maat: You are ignoring context (the surrounding words verses and chapters). The context with the other verses says God is referring to unclean animals in sets of twos and clean animals in sets of sevens. So common sense says when the verse says "two of every kind," it automatically means "two of every kind of unclean animals." It is called reading-comprehension, maat. Alter2Ego
tkolter: The thread is about supposed contradictions in the Bible, not about morality. I suggest you start a thread on morality, and then I will respond to your questions along that line. Alter2Ego
So why are you here 10 years later, still emotional about it? Always interesting how those who say they don't believe in a personal God hate Him in a personal way.
Why is it that in the Bible people know what Yahweh will do but Yahweh is ignorant about what he will do?
I'm pointing out the context rarely matters if this passage says one thing and another passage says something else on the same thing then its clearly an issue, so when one picks a passage and its immoral and violates a god who is claimed to be good its clearly a Contradiction. Anyone should see it as a Moral Contradiction which is more important than the simple ones people are talking about.
Jews were in all of the areas from Spain to India and deep into Africa at that time. The Apostles were supposed to go and find them and convert them to the Christianity cult. Even the Bible says that Gentiles won't get into the gaudy bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem (the very name means that it's just for the Jews) because there's no gate for the Gentiles to enter through. I suppose there might be a chute for the Gentile slaves to get into so that they can keep the latrines clean for eternity. The writers had to put in a line or two to sell the fairy tale to the dummies so that the leaders could continue to wear fancy robes and get all of the money spreading BS instead of digging in the fields like common serfs. It's the same scam Moses sold to the Israelites so that the Levites could have a life of luxury.
maat: Whose problem is it that you do not understand how to read the Bible and that you insist on ignoring context. Certainly not mine. Alter2Ego
tkolter The thread is about contradictions in the Bible in which one scripture says something, and another scripture elsewhere supposedly says the exact opposite. You presented a moral issue rather than contradiction. That's not what the Opening Poster was arguing when he/she started this thread. Don't believe me. Go back to page one and read Post #1. As I already suggested, go ahead and start up a thread dealing with moral standards, and then I will address your problem therein. Alter2Ego
Is Paul super Yeshua? The Paul character was the first one to preach and write about Yeshua and the Gospels with the Jesus dialogue came along decades later. Paul preached a religion based upon resurrection with the Yeshua character being the linchpin. He didn't go into much detail about Yeshua other than that. He set himself up as the authority of what the doctrine should be. Consequently there are dozens of disagreements between what Paul said and what the later Gospel writers attributed to Yeshua. 1. Paul said that people should get paid for preaching; Yeshua told the Apostles to hit the road with nothing and live off of townspeople's hospitality. It seems that the clergy likes Paul's doctrine on this point more than they like Yeshua's.
I'm not the one ignoring the context. It clearly states "all" "every" in ch. 6, then changes in 7. It clearly states 2 pairs of each bird in 6 and 7 pairs of birds in 7. You are willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.
Yahweh comes from the Ugarit Pantheon of gods, whose leader was El. Jahweh was a second rank god that the Jews adopted
You should do a little bit more than just a cut and paste. That's been answered already, you just needed to go one more step instead of stopping as soon as you found something you did not understand. http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=602 The biblical text, however, is rather easy to understand without giving up on the inspiration of Genesis, or the authorship of Moses: the clean beasts and birds entered the ark “by sevens” (KJV), while the unclean animals went into the ark by twos. There is no contradiction here. Genesis 6:19 indicates that Noah was to take “two of every sort into the ark.” Then, four verses later, God supplemented this original instruction, informing Noah in a more detailed manner, to take more of the clean animals. If a farmer told his son to take two of every kind of farm animal to the state fair, and then instructed his son to take several extra chickens and two extra pigs for a barbecue, would anyone accuse the farmer of contradicting himself? Certainly not. It was necessary for Noah to take additional clean animals because, upon his departure from the ark after the Flood, he “built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Genesis 8:20). If Noah had taken only two clean animals from which to choose when sacrificing to God after departing the ark, then he would have driven the various kinds of clean beasts and birds into extinction by sacrificing one of each pair. Thus, after God told Noah to take two of every kind of animal into the ark, He then instructed him to take extras of the clean animals. Similar to how Genesis chapter 2 supplements the first chapter of Genesis by giving a more detailed account of the Creation (see Lyons, 2002), the first portion of Genesis 7 merely supplements the end of the preceding chapter, “containing several particulars of a minute description which were not embraced in the general directions first given to Noah” (Jamieson, et al., 1997).
maat: Of course you are the one ignoring context. Context refers to the surrounding words, verses, and chapters--which you are ignoring--while you cherry-pick the word "all" from Genesis 6:20 and ignore everything else that is part of the context. Specifically, you are harping on Genesis 6:20 where Jehovah instructed Noah to take two of "all" or of "every" creature into the Ark. "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." Genesis 6:20 -- New International Version) Your claim is that the Bible contradicted itself when it said "all" because in one place it said two animals and in another place it said seven animals. You chose to ignore the context at Genesis 7:2 where it identifies what types of animals should be taken only in sets of two. I directed you to Genesis 7:2 at Post 304 and you refused to look up the verse and reason on it. We are now at Post 319, and you still refuse to reason on the scriptures. At Genesis 7:2, Jehovah said the following to Noah. "You must take with you every kind of clean animal by sevens, the male and its mate; and every animal that is not clean just two, the male and its mate." (Genesis 7:2) So when the Bible says "all" and identifies animals that are only in sets of two, the word "all" is with reference to unclean animals. As I just showed you, there is no contradiction--except in your mind. Alter2Ego and
Yeshua said that the law continues to the end of the world. Paul said that the law became obsolete because of Yeshua's sacrifice. So who was right, Yeshua or Paul?
The post was addressed to the group of Christians who are literalist's Unfortunately these folks make up a fairly large percentage of Christians in the US. And these folks need to be put in their place = far away from Gov't policy of any kind.
No, it is giving two contradictive accounts. Ch. 6 says two of "every" kind of creature and two of every kind of bird. Ch. 7 contradicts this when changing and adding between clean and unclean. There is no distinction between clean and unclean birds, yet he still changes the number. You are being willfully ignorant of these facts.
Your pitiful attempt at apologetics isn't going to work with me. Excusing the animals, it changes the birds from 2 to 7 without a distinction. It is a clear contradiction.
These folks make up a large percentage of the vocal Christians. There are a lot more of us out here who don't make such fusses.
