Jun 14, 2012 -- 5:21AM, five_point_dad wrote:

JACK: I'm Jack "Five point Dad."  As I mentioned, the unique Hebraic narrative style has the author giving a quick summary to start with in 1:1 and then telling the same story again with added details and definition which is the remainder of chapter one.  In 1:27 Moses tells us that God made male and female (summary), and then he added details and tells the same story again which reports that God created the male first and the female subsequently.  You're confusing Hebraic style with a contradiction. 

    Same idea in 5:1, This is the book of the generations of Adam."  The remainder of the chapter is a filling in of the details.  Same idea in chapter 10.  He begins "These are the generations of Shem..." and then he fills in the details. 

Sorry, but that pitiful explanation simply doesn't explain the obvious contradiction. What sort of "added details" would reverse the creation sequence?

The Bible is full of such contradictions and errors, just as one would expect from a collection of stories, myths, and legends cobbled together from any number of sources. The Bible is not an inerrant book.

Jun 16, 2012 -- 10:21PM, Namchuck wrote:

Jun 14, 2012 -- 5:21AM, five_point_dad wrote:

JACK: I'm Jack "Five point Dad."  As I mentioned, the unique Hebraic narrative style has the author giving a quick summary to start with in 1:1 and then telling the same story again with added details and definition which is the remainder of chapter one.  In 1:27 Moses tells us that God made male and female (summary), and then he added details and tells the same story again which reports that God created the male first and the female subsequently.  You're confusing Hebraic style with a contradiction. 

    Same idea in 5:1, This is the book of the generations of Adam."  The remainder of the chapter is a filling in of the details.  Same idea in chapter 10.  He begins "These are the generations of Shem..." and then he fills in the details. 

Sorry, but that pitiful explanation simply doesn't explain the obvious contradiction. What sort of "added details" would reverse the creation sequence?

The Bible is full of such contradictions and errors, just as one would expect from a collection of stories, myths, and legends cobbled together from any number of sources. The Bible is not an inerrant book.

NAMCHUCK: The Bible is full of such contradictions and errors, just as one would expect from a collection of stories, myths, and legends cobbled together from any number of sources. The Bible is not an inerrant book.

JACK: That's simply your opinion. You offer no substance to substantiate your contention.  It's very easy to say that an explanation is "pitiful" and that the Bible is "not an inerrant book," but to offer some proof to put any weight to those words you haven't done yet.  It's difficult to discuss or debate an idea that is nothing more than another person's opinion.

Jun 17, 2012 -- 5:45PM, Namchuck wrote:

Jun 17, 2012 -- 5:57AM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jun 16, 2012 -- 10:21PM, Namchuck wrote:

NAMCHUCK: The Bible is full of such contradictions and errors, just as one would expect from a collection of stories, myths, and legends cobbled together from any number of sources. The Bible is not an inerrant book.

JACK: That's simply your opinion. You offer no substance to substantiate your contention.  It's very easy to say that an explanation is "pitiful" and that the Bible is "not an inerrant book," but to offer some proof to put any weight to those words you haven't done yet.  It's difficult to discuss or debate an idea that is nothing more than another person's opinion.

 

Are you serious!? 

I've identified a blatant contradiction in the first two chapters of the Bible - one that you have been unable to respond coherently to - and you assert that I've been "unable to substantiate" my claim!

While there is any number of contradictions and errors in the Bible, just one is sufficient to show that it is not an inerrant book. 

NAMCHUCK:

Are you serious!? 

I've identified a blatant contradiction in the first two chapters of the Bible - one that you have been unable to respond coherently to - and you assert that I've been "unable to substantiate" my claim!

While there is any number of contradictions and errors in the Bible, just one is sufficient to show that it is not an inerrant book. 

 

JACK: Yes, I'm completely serious.  You've proved that you are unfamiliar with Hebraic writing styles and confuse it for a contradiction, but there isn't any there.  I do agree with you that one contradiction would prove it is not an inerrant book. 

Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:19PM, Namchuck wrote:

Jun 17, 2012 -- 5:52PM, five_point_dad wrote:

NAMCHUCK:

Are you serious!? 

I've identified a blatant contradiction in the first two chapters of the Bible - one that you have been unable to respond coherently to - and you assert that I've been "unable to substantiate" my claim!

While there is any number of contradictions and errors in the Bible, just one is sufficient to show that it is not an inerrant book. 

 

JACK: Yes, I'm completely serious.  You've proved that you are unfamiliar with Hebraic writing styles and confuse it for a contradiction, but there isn't any there.  I do agree with you that one contradiction would prove it is not an inerrant book. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, your not serious at all, then?

I dare say that I'm probably as familiar with Hebraic writng styles as you, at least, enough to know that they do not embrace blatant contradiction.

Given this fact, the overt contradiction in the creation sequence between Genesis 1 and II clearly and lucidly identifies that the Bible is not an inerrant book. The rest of the Bible after Genesis 1 and II goes on to confirm this obvious conclusion.

MANCHUCK: So, your not serious at all, then?  I dare say that I'm probably as familiar with Hebraic writng styles as you, at least, enough to know that they do not embrace blatant contradiction.  Given this fact, the overt contradiction in the creation sequence between Genesis 1 and II clearly and lucidly identifies that the Bible is not an inerrant book. The rest of the Bible after Genesis 1 and II goes on to confirm this obvious conclusion.

JACK: No, I'm perfectly serious.  Again, you've stated your opinion, but you offer nothing to back it up.  If at any time you wish to present anything to substantiate your claim, I'd like to read it. 

Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:53PM, Namchuck wrote:

Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:34PM, five_point_dad wrote:

JACK: No, I'm perfectly serious.  Again, you've stated your opinion, but you offer nothing to back it up.  If at any time you wish to present anything to substantiate your claim, I'd like to read it. 

No, you have shown that you're not serious at all, something which is identified by your sorry attempt to explain away the contradiction in the creation accounts in the Book of Genesis as simply a matter of writing style.

So, my claim stands. The Bible is not an inerrant book.

 

I haven't commented on any suppose errors because you haven't come up with yet.  Do you have any?