| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/6/2006 8:13:28 PM |
In the example you mentioned, you need to remember that the "sons of God" during Moses's time were the forerunners for the "Son of God" in Matthew. The purpose of Jesus was to fulfill both the prophesies and the Will of God. It was for Him to complete what we couldn't. Hosea was speaking historically but by extension also of the future Son. A corroborating verse can be found in Psalm 80: 7-9.
How does Psalms 80:7-9 corroborate anything you've said?
Please provide evidence from the OT that the "sons of God" during Moses' time was the forerunner for the "Son of God" in Matthew?
If Jesus purpose was to fulfill the prophesies of God then he failed. All of the prophecies accepted as Messianic failed to be fulfilled.
Please provide evidence from Hosea that Hosea was speaking of a future son. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/6/2006 8:45:43 PM |
Since circles are two dimensional objects it's clear that Isaiah did think the world was flat. Otherwise he would have used the word for sphere. The description of the heavens also shows that he thought the sky was a dome resting on the Earth.
The hebrew word for circle can also be translated as a sphere.
Isaiah contradicts other places in the Bible that says the Earth has four corners. Then there's also the story about Satan taking Jesus to a high mountain where they look at all the kingdoms of the Earth. That would only be possible on a flat Earth.
The Hebrew word KANAPH which in those passages was tanslated to "corners" is normally translated as "extremity".
The idea that it was christians that had promoted the idea of a flat Earth is false. The bible doesn't support it either. Here is a little history on it: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:22:31 PM | countibli
In the example you mentioned, you need to remember that the "sons of God" during Moses's time were the forerunners for the "Son of God" in Matthew. The purpose of Jesus was to fulfill both the prophesies and the Will of God. It was for Him to complete what we couldn't. Hosea was speaking historically but by extension also of the future Son. A corroborating verse can be found in Psalm 80: 7-9.
How does Psalms 80:7-9 corroborate anything you've said?
Please provide evidence from the OT that the "sons of God" during Moses' time was the forerunner for the "Son of God" in Matthew?
If Jesus purpose was to fulfill the prophesies of God then he failed. All of the prophecies accepted as Messianic failed to be fulfilled.
Please provide evidence from Hosea that Hosea was speaking of a future son.
imho, God sent Jesus Christ to die forgiving all our sins and is true since all of us arn't living in hell today.
The following by Hampton Keathley IV , Th.M.
Preface
These are my notes from a series I taught on the minor prophets for my church. After we started the web site, I converted all these notes to HTML. Since the study was originally intended just for teaching in a local church and not for publishing, I was not as careful to note my sources as I should have been, but I still want to give credit where credit is due. Many of the major outlines of the books come from class notes taken from classes on the minor prophets taught by Dr. Charlie Dyer and Dr. Mark Bailey of Dallas Theological Seminary. Material taken from books in print are noted in the footnotes.
Introduction
What do you think about when you think of a prophet? Do you think of someone who tells what is going to happen in the future?
Prophets do some foretelling. They warn the wicked and encourage the righteous.
In fact the prophets are not primarily interested in the future. The majority of their sermons dealt with the present and the past. Very little revelation was given about the future. They were more concerned with the past and present failings of the nation in their relationships to God and man. They focused on the lack of morals in society which pointed to the problems. They focused on people's failure to keep the law. They constantly exhorted the people to an internal righteousness rather than an external adherence to the law. Perhaps one of the most famous passages is Micah 6:8 which says
He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (NRSV)
Do you think that their writings are obscure and difficult to understand?
Prophets were traditionalists who proclaimed a doom and gloom message. They wrote to remind the Israelites of the covenants and their responsibilities. They also reminded the people of the results of disobedience. They assume that the Israelites remember the covenants and laws in Deuteronomy and make many references to them. In fact, unless you understand Dueteronomy 28-30 you cannot appreciate or perhaps even understand what the prophets are talking about.
The Mosaic covenant of Deuteronomy follows the same structure of the Susserain-Vassal Treaty which was popular in that day between a king or lord and his subjects. He would lay down the law and then promise to protect them if they were loyal and promise to destroy them if they were not loyal. God just uses a format that they were familiar with to give them the law. Let us read Dueteronomy 28:1-6 and 15-18, 48-50 and 30:15-20. God makes it very clear what would happen if they were not faithful to Him.
What the prophets did was come along and say, "Because you broke the covenant, the covenant curses have fallen ... or are about to fall on you." (Just like Deut 28-30 warned) The prophets messages of sin and judgment must be seen in this light.
The prophets also proclaimed a salvation message. Most of the prophets include a “promise of future deliverance” section. Modern scholars often claim that these positive messages are later additions by some scribe. They say that it doesn’t make sense that some guy would come along and pronounce judgment and then turn right around and promise deliverance. But that is because they don’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God which contains the promises of God. The prophets would usually give a message of doom and gloom and then tell the people about the light at the end of the tunnel to give them hope. Sometimes these salvation messages were "crystal ball" visions describing a particular event which they had seen in a vision (e.g. Dan 9: and the 70th week), but sometimes they were just claiming and proclaiming the promises of God to Abraham and David that he would make the nation great, send the Messiah and bring the Gentiles into the kingdom.
God had made promises to Abraham that he would make his seed into a great nation, that he would give him the land of Israel and that through his seed the nations of the world would be blessed. God’s promises were unconditional and He would eventually keep them. But the individual’s welfare and the nation’s immediate welfare depended on the people’s faithfulness.
 | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/7/2006 10:22:54 AM | Charlie...
Your website is trivial...and I am pretty sure that you are aware of that fact. Evolution is a theory, abiogenesis is a theory...
Here's an idea, find a reputable Journal of Science, or someone in the scientific community who is well respected that claims abiogenesis as a fact. Don't throw some mickie-mouse website out there like it is the word of God (that was a joke).
Hell (ha-ha another joke) let me give you a quote from your own website about a person who suggests that abiogenesis is impossible...
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions.
Pause...what was that...it is a theory...this guy must be slow...he only has a frickin Ph.D.
Wait...straight from a Christian website...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html
Abiogenesis: The theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions.
There is that theory word again.
Here's one from the Catholic Encyclopedia website
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02571a.htm
while the theory of abiogenesis implies that life may also spring from inorganic matter as such.
Theory rears its ugly head again.
Here is another website
http://www.biocab.org/Abiogenesis_1.html
COMPILATION OF NEW DATA IN PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY AND ITS APPLICATION IN SUPPORT OF THE THEORY OF ABIOGENESIS.
There it is again...
Hopefully you get the picture at this point...
Your little quote is written by a person without any qualifications, or credentials. At best your quote suggests that if evolution AS A THEORY IS CORRECT then abiogenesis, as a matter of fact, must have occurred. That is entirely different then claiming that SCIENCE claims abiogenesis as fact.
______________________________________________________________________________
You also said,
"As a spiritual person I'm sure you realize that it is unfair to judge a particular spiritual path by the actions of some of its supposed adherents. The path may be perfect but those on it, never are. Only the path that has perfect disciples has a right to throw the first stone...but if they did they would no longer be perfect."
No, it is common sense that tells me that it is unfair to judge a system of belief by the way people within that system act.
You seem to be missing my point entirely...the Church has authorized, condoned, and executed some pretty awful deeds throughout history. My whole point was to illustrate that even the church and their views of common sense have changed. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/7/2006 10:41:06 AM | It is fiction...Wildfirefly....all of the other stuff that results from various peoples attempts to make it into something other ,...dont mean anything...it is fiction... | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/7/2006 11:49:04 AM |
The hebrew word for circle can also be translated as a sphere.
Do you have any examples to back this up?
The Hebrew word KANAPH which in those passages was tanslated to "corners" is normally translated as "extremity".
The Earth doesn't have 4 extremities either. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/7/2006 12:02:26 PM | | Coffee- you just don't get it. Taking one poorly worded diatribe from a lone website does not represent the views of the scientific community or the practice of scientific methodology. Instead of grasping at straws by cutting and pasting, why don't you stop and actually try to understand what I wrote? It does not serve your position at all to spout off misunderstandings of science; you only lose credibility by doing so. I am trying to educate you as to what distinguishes fact from theory, but instead of listening, you react with a knee jerk response zeroing in on one person's poor choice of words. I'm sure I could find a reputable physicist who might say that String Theory is a fact. That would merely be an example of misuse of vernacular on his part, and not representative of science and the definition of scientific theory. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/7/2006 1:34:11 PM | <----*banging head*
@ Brain & Wonka.
The point of my example in this thread which has nothing to do with evolution btw, is that what one person considers a fact is a fallacy to another. Therefore the example was a good one to highlight that fact does not equal truth
Wonka- I will again attempt to drive through your rather thick cranium that understanding the majority of what you are attempting to teach is lost on me because the language and concepts are too difficult for me to comprehend. I have neither your education nor intelligence so is it any wonder then that if you don't "dumb" it down I'm not going to get it? I've noticed that many of your responses to both myself and others that you do not agree with, contain the phrase "you don't understand". Please get a clue. If we don't understand it is a reflection on you not vice-versa. Some of us have a life other than the forums and therefore do not have the time to sit with dictionary in hand attempting to decrypt another of your lessons on evolution and life in general. Lastly, what I have comprehended of some of your posts I simply do not agree with, in spite of understanding you. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/7/2006 2:02:14 PM | Coffee..
Let me help you out here with what you said, in your own posts, about abiogenesis....
Abiogenisis for an example is considered a fact by many scientists. However it is based on a conjecture of what may have happened in the beginning. It is susceptable to change when a new "fact" comes to light.
Response:
Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened , it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.
Who is it again that needs to do some reading? Who is it that is confused or misunderstands about doing some research? Sounds like some opinions were being pulled out of posteriors as someone once remarked to me.
We were merely trying to illustrate the difference between a FACT and a THEORY. You seem to muddle the two.
Is that simple enough for you...do you need a dictionary to understand that...or do you want to insult Wonka some more because of his big words...
Oh, and Fact does not equal truth....that is wrong....
Facts do not change, the are immutable...it is our interpretation of those facts that does not equal truth. Or is that too crazy to understand. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/8/2006 8:36:30 AM | Wow this is one rich forum thread. Look at allll the pretty ten-dollar words 
Bottom line is that everyone is entitled to what they want to believe without judgement.
No one should push their beleifs on anyone else.
Coffee knows my point of view, but I'll keep this short.
I'm only worried about the time I'm here and ensuring my son grows into a healthy and quality human being one day and also growing old with my wife. Thats it.
I don't care about some book written 2000 years ago by some Mid-eastern people trying to get people to see things their way in a world where there was a serious lack of knowledge about the world around them and what else might be going on. Funny thing is how everyone makes deptictions of the prophets and Christ as Caucasians. And if this book were written by mideasterners today our society would just say "nuke em" or Bush would invade them unjustly.
If everyone else was wrong, then the other non-Bible using religions would have been "struck down" a long time ago by the current pantheon of dieties human kind has created THIS time.
I'm sure if PCs existed 5000 years ago, they'd be having this same dialogue about Odin, Zeus, and Ra. They didn't think they were wrong at the time, either.
Its doesn't matter, folks. It really doesn't. If it did, some unearthly voice would have informed us all by now. But they haven't.
Worry about life, not death. Worry about that phone bill you need to pay, taking the dog out for a walk, take your wife out to lunch, play some ball with your kids at the park. Do something other than worry about some ancient vague text. Go enjoy life while you can. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/8/2006 9:13:11 AM | wonkavision
in science there is not such word as fact. One can read many papers from noted scientists and in their writting they keep to the word probablitiy. In my instanst it was a forensic debate with a scientist. Here is one fact if you can endow me by using the vernacular scientific theory In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it does in other contexts. Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, theories, or laws. Maybe now you can speak in hypotheses, theories or laws.
Where ever coffeeholic decides to extract the information he uses is his perogative and not your nor anyone elses to just toss it into the trash can at your whim. I personally like to see his participation as i always look forward for yours too. i consider every new words from you are worth $50 each while adding them to my volcabulary. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/8/2006 10:22:27 AM |
The cause of this "delusion" is evidence. The Bible is at odds with what we know about biology, astronomy, cosmology, geophysics, history, and geology. The Bible isn't even a good moral guide.
Can you give an example of proven fact that the bible is at odds with?
Every single one of these falls apart as soon as you read them in context. For example, Jesus is said to have fulfilled a prophecy that says "Out of Egypt I have called my son."
Matt 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Of course this is in reference to Hosea 11:1. But we see this fall apart as soon as we read this "prophecy."
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
This verse is explicitly about Israel, and refers to a past event, not a future one.
Firstly, Hosea was a prophet and not a historian.
Secondly, if you only use your intellect to understand God’s word then you will fail and at worse make a fool of oneself.
God says if you want to understand his word trust in him with your heart and not with your own understanding and only then you will understand his hidden meanings (Proverbs 3: 5-6)
Thirdly, there is duality or double fulfilment in Hosea’s words. One of Israel (plural) as a nation and (singular) as God's son (Jesus Christ)
- Israel came out of Egypt which was a prophesy of God which was fulfilled (and was historical then).
- The Son of God came out of Egypt which was a prophesy of God’s son which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ (which is historical now and then).
Usually Matthew provides more information about the nature of fulfilment than the prophet could have been expected to know. Hosea isn’t stating these words just for a history lesson; he was talking in the spirit of prophecy so Hosea mixes Child, Isreal, Son.
Jesus is also the interpretive key to the OT (“Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” Luke 24:45). So it wasn’t Matthews’s interpretation but Jesus opened his eyes to the mysteries of God which even the prophets and apostles couldn’t realise.
One thing is clear; it was revealed to the prophets that there was much more in what they were prophesying than they themselves realized. That there was a sense intended by the Holy Spirit which the human author did not intend, or know about, is understandable because God is the God of both Testaments and we cannot limit what He intended. The apostle Peter knew this (1 Peter 1:10-12)
So who am I going to go to for the understanding of the mysteries of the bible? Well it certainly is not a skeptic or someone who doesn’t understand that the bible is about our relationship and future with God. It is not some historical text even though history and archaeology verifies the bible.
James 4:3
When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
Truly James is right for even the skeptic and atheist will always go wrong because they use the mysteries of the bible for their own errors.
Given the way that Christians have misrepresented the OT to make it look like Jesus fulfilled 300 Scriptures, I'd have to say they were lying.
Given the fact that you stated that
The Bible isn't even a good moral guide
I’d have to say that you are the one that’s lying. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/8/2006 1:36:42 PM | brain in a vcac
Charlie...
Your website is trivial...and I am pretty sure that you are aware of that fact. Evolution is a theory, abiogenesis is a theory...
Here's an idea, find a reputable Journal of Science, or someone in the scientific community who is well respected that claims abiogenesis as a fact. Don't throw some mickie-mouse website out there like it is the word of God (that was a joke).
Hell (ha-ha another joke) let me give you a quote from your own website about a person who suggests that abiogenesis is impossible..
for one who know so much about science knows nothing using the correct words of science PROBILILITIES not fact and my friend if it is your idea you go find your JoS or someone in the sc ... it called "goyla" and go do something youngum'.
i have no idea what you are talking about when you write "your website"
do not use Gods name in vain. you'll utimitely will pay the price.
| |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/8/2006 3:57:00 PM | My appologies Charlie, that particular post was directed at Coffee. I did not mean to direct that at yourself.
As for using God's name in vein...please, have a sense of humor and don't lecture me. I didn't mock anyone, nor was I serious. I would be a little disappointed if 'God' couldn't appreciate a bit of humor.
I agree science is based largely on probabilities, we have no argument there, as I said prior, the post was directed at Coffee, who fails to understand the difference between fact and theory.
I would suggest that science has demonstrated certain things as fact - a brutalily simple example would be the elemental makeup of water ... H20.
Also...can you please explain what this means
"if it is your idea you go foind you JoS or someone in the sc...it called "goyla" and go do something youngum"
Seriously...do you read your posts before slapping them up? | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/8/2006 9:14:46 PM |
Can you give an example of proven fact that the bible is at odds with?
Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Fact: Hares don't chew their cud. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/8/2006 9:26:46 PM | It is still not really known what the correct transaltion for the word that comes out as "hare"..
I doubt that the writer of Leviticus would think that the hare chews cud or ruminates..
Nice try though.. | |
|
| |
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/8/2006 10:41:23 PM |
Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Fact: Hares don't chew their cud.
1. In ancient times, chewing the cud was applied to any animal that chewed their food for a long time. Hares do that.
2. Hares, coneys do chew their cud but today the term for it in these animals is refection. Because they only have one chamber stomachs, their method is to chew on their feces so as obtain the full nutritional value out of it. The same reason that cattle bring up their cud. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/9/2006 2:15:02 AM | Braininavent,
i accept your apology as I have assumed your reply was to me. my question do you use God's name in vain? should have ended in a question mark allowing you some recourse. as i am not here to judge. One who loves Jesus more and more every day has no time nor findings vaules in listening and telling jokes about Him. Especially when I am asking my Lord to bless those I debaded today through him and I have to ask for somedispansation about joking to get your your blessings due you.
if it is your idea you go find Journal of Science or someone in the science community. it is not our business to take you at face value without a line supporting your views. I for one like the writtings of Stephen Jay Gould as he separates the chaft from the wheat up front and gives me good means as the same in religioun, spearating the goats from the lambs
i would have to go back to my original reply 'goyla' was meanth to be gettling off your lazzy a** and doing the work you suject others to you do yourself. as to do i read my posts before posting them. the largest amount of time is gathering the information. my mind is a sponge so gathering and prioritizing is basically simpile. since this is not costing anytime in time on the board i keep editing unit i'm more than saisfied making sure my, loops often the smallest areas to escape from. Do i concern my self with one who use $50 words over my free words, no and thats where some of the fun commenses.  Arrogance some times will add 2x-5x the initial $50 worth of the words since in most cases they would expect tou to stop where you are and forget about challenging. But why should one forget as when you do you goodgle search you find your odds have increached to having a wealth in information at your reach is 360,000 variations available for you use. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/9/2006 2:43:24 AM | breain-in-a-vat We were merely trying to illustrate the difference between a FACT and a THEORY. You seem to muddle the two.
Is that simple enough for you...do you need a dictionary to understand that...or do you want to insult Wonka some more because of his big words...
Oh, and Fact does not equal truth....that is wrong....
Facts do not change, the are immutable...it is our interpretation of those facts that does not equal truth. Or is that too crazy to understand. fact and theory, not just thing, toss it into the trash and all which follows it.
if it insults wonka so be it, still use a dictionary as i am pretty sure he does do as his new words are cyclical,a meaning he looks for new $50 words to use and aims to have new ones in every new post. if there is not fact in science then there is a void each and every thime the word is used. fact does not not equal truth nor does it. fact used in science is a void term. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/9/2006 6:43:55 AM | Fact in science - elemental make up of water = h20
Fact in science - elemental make up of carbon dioxide = c02
There are facts in science.
In terms of your posts, I have seen numerous other people on this website encourage you to clean up your writing.
On one hand you accuse Wonka of using $50 words in order to stop the argument, and on the other hand your grammer and sentence structure is so 'unique' it is impossible to respond to it. It is as though you are trying to write in riddles in an attempt to stop the argument.
For example:
"fact and theory, not just thing, toss it into the trash and all which follows it."
That is a non-sense sentence, it is impossible to tell what point you are trying to make.
Or when you type my name as Braininavent (Brain in a vent) that could very easily be taken as intentionally insulting, or mocking. Do you understand the philisophical significance behind the name that I chose?
I am 99.9% sure that you did not intentionally mock my nickname, or try to make fun of me, because you have not insulted someone on these threads yet. But it illustrates the point, clarity in ones posts is key. Another example was my own carelessness in using your nickname instead of Coffee's. Unfortunately your posts are plagued with very confusing arguments and sentences all to often. I do not mean to insult you, I only want to understand your side of the argument / debate so I can respond in kind. You are obviously someone who takes the time to consider issues, so I want to understand you position.
"if it is your idea you go find Journal of Science or someone in the science community. it is not our business to take you at face value without a line supporting your views. I for one like the writtings of Stephen Jay Gould as he separates the chaft from the wheat up front and gives me good means as the same in religioun, spearating the goats from the lambs"
When somebody decides they will pull internet sources to illustrate a scientific point, the least that they can do is use a reputable source, not a source that is, for lack of a better label, lacking any credibility. Also, I did point out that the particular post your a quoting me from was directed at another POF'r. (Plenty of Fish'r). Generally when I am trying to illustrate a point of argument that is not well accepted I will site appropriate sources.
Actually a number of members try and use a system by which we simply use the " " when quoting other members, and the [quote ... /quote] function when quoting an outside source. It is good for clarity. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/9/2006 1:00:44 PM | Wait... why do Christians care about the bible beyond the New Testament anyway? For that matter, why is so much of the NT made up of writings by the one Apostle who never actually met the man, and may have had one experience with him while traveling?
I'll say that as far as the Tanakh is concerned, we've seen it as literal, and figurative. We've read it to be both fact & fiction. It's geared to get you to that place. That's all. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/9/2006 1:09:54 PM | "if it insults wonka so be it, still use a dictionary as i am pretty sure he does do as his new words are cyclical,a meaning he looks for new $50 words to use and aims to have new ones in every new post."
This is demonstrably proved false by merely reading my posts in their context. I use words specific to the subject matter at hand, as every discipline has it's share of jargon. Clearly I'm not going to use the word "cladogenesis" in a thread about Quantum Physics, but I will use it appropriately in a discussion of Evolution. Your notion that I predicate every post on a word-of-the-day calender is ludicrous. My posts are internally consistent, and every word is employed in it's proper context. As Brain says, your grammar and comprehensibility is atrocious. I'm not usually one to criticize a person on grammar, as I criticize the content of the argument, but when you attempt to discredit my argument on the basis of being articulate (which really only makes sense in some magical backwards land) then your abysmal grammar and lack of cohesive thought become relevant.
coffee- many terms, especially when specific to disciplines, encapsulate a higher level concept, as opposed to being merely a one to one descriptor like "chair." The only alternative in such cases is to deconstruct every such word into an involved definition and my posts are long enough. It's not that hard to look it up; you're sitting at the computer. You have internet access. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/9/2006 1:13:14 PM | Christians don`t (care) for books beyond the new testament, because that (care) is for others. In the end none of it will be lost.
Paul was the literary genuise of the time plus spent numerous years under the sole teachings of the Holy Spirit combined with his unequaled knowledge of scripture. His teachings surpass those grasped today. Some are hard teaching but they are as ladders reaching higher.
I don`t know how to read something both as fact and as fiction without complete contradiction and confusion ensuing. Good " luck " on that. | |
|
| bible fact or fitcion
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:38:53 PM |
It is still not really known what the correct transaltion for the word that comes out as "hare"..
I doubt that the writer of Leviticus would think that the hare chews cud or ruminates..
Every Bible that I've been able to find translates it as either rabbit or hare. That's about the extend of the uncertainty. One can get the false impression that rabbits chew their cud because they chew their feces. | |
|
Home
login 
