Does the Bible contradict itself and is it scientifically inaccurate? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!





The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Does the Bible contradict itself and is it scientifically inaccurate?
in Religion

By PoguePogue 504 Pts
Are there any?
  1. Is it?

    9 votes
    1. Yes
      33.33%
    2. No
      66.67%
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

I friended myself! 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
44%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    I think contradictions destroy the Bible because if it was inspired by an omnipotent being, why does it have these. Genesis 1:3-5

    Some contradictions: 
    Can you see the face of God and live?
    These Bible verses say you can: Genesis 16:13, Genesis 32:30, Exodus 24:9-11, Exodus 33:11, and Numbers 14:14
    However, these say no one has and if you do, you will die. Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, John 5:37, and 1 Timothy 6:16

    There are more. One of them is that Earth rests on pillars (or foundations of the Earth). This is also scientifically inaccurate (which will be listed again). In 1 Samuel 2:8 it states, "For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them." So I guess it states it is on them. However, in Job 26:7, it states Earth hangs on nothing. Although, there are numerous other verses that state otherwise. Even some in Job. They are, but not limited to Job 9:6, Job 38:4, Hebrews 1:10, and Isaiah 24:18. There are about 5 more that reference pillars or foundation. 

    These are not the only 2. There are so many more. This website lists a bunch of them https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html. This also does it. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

    Now onto the scientific inaccuracies. 
    Has previously stated, it states the Earth is on pillars. In 1 Samuel 2:8 it states, "For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them." So I guess it states it is on them. However, in Job 26:7, it states Earth hangs on nothing. Although, there are numerous other verses that state otherwise. Even some in Job. They are, but not limited to Job 9:6Job 38:4Hebrews 1:10, and Isaiah 24:18. There are about 5 more that reference pillars or foundation. Now onto the next. 

    Another one is in Genesis 1:3-5. It states that light was created on the first day. However, the stars (whch seperate day and night) were created on the fourth day. 

    This is the last one I will do for now. This involves Genesis 1:3-5 and also Genesis 1:9-13. How can you have a night and day without the earth? A day depends upon the rotation of the Earth. Without the Earth created, how can you have a night and day? This website lists many more. http://www.discoveringislam.org/bible_scientific_errors.htm

    Ok, so I want to list just one more. In the story of Noah and the flood, it states that there was a global flood. Where did the water go? There is not enough water in our hydrosphere to do this. The flood would also have to cover mountains and so there would need to be so much water. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    I will also add some more contradictions. 

    According to Genesis 2:17, Adam and Eve were supposed to die the day they ate the fruit. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." However, Genesis 5:5 contradicts this.It states Adam lived till he was 930. 

    There are many many more. This includes this one: " GE 7:1 Noah was righteous. 
    JB 1:1,8JB 2:3 Job was righteous. 
    LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous. 
    JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective). 
    1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians). 
    RO 3:10, 3:231JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous." 

    Another one is between Genesis 4:16 and Jeremiah 23:23-24Genesis 4:16  states that someone the presence of the lord. However, Jeremiah 23:23-24 states God is everywhere. So how can someone leave the presence of the Lord? 

    This one may not be one but it does seem stupid. 
    "GE 11:7-9 God sows discord. 
    PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord." God did it but he hates people who do it? That does not make sense. 

    This is the last one for today. Genesis 6:3 states that a human will only live for 120 years. Although, Genesis 9:29 says Noah lived for 950 years. 

    I will only be listing one scientific inaccuracy for today. It is about Noah's ark. 
    There were only 8 people on the ark. There were also two of every "kind of animal". There is not enough genetic diversity for the species to of survived. 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Slowly we see that this religion isn't all it's made up to be... We must find the true religion of the flat earth... Worship the north pole.
    EmeryPearson
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    Slowly we see that this religion isn't all it's made up to be... We must find the true religion of the flat earth... Worship the north pole.
    Yes, this religion is seems to not be true. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Slowly we see that this religion isn't all it's made up to be... We must find the true religion of the flat earth... Worship the north pole.
    What is it that appears to shaky, that cause one to not believe it to be the one and true religion?
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    Slowly we see that this religion isn't all it's made up to be... We must find the true religion of the flat earth... Worship the north pole.
    What is it that appears to shaky, that cause one to not believe it to be the one and true religion?
    Which one? I do not believe in his religion nor yours. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • VaulkVaulk 480 Pts
    edited April 19
    It would appear on the surface that the issue here is that people can normally apply standards of context to just about anything but when it comes to the Bible...people forget to.

    The simplest of statements or pieces of information in text can look evil, dastardly, wicked, disgusting or down right horrible without proper context...so too can the Bible.  

    It boils down to this: If you care to know...you'll find out.  If you don't care...your misunderstanding will persist.  Any attempt to spread that misunderstanding to other people is a good indicator of your choice in the matter. 

    A good example would be the United States foreign policy.  Too many uninformed people will sit back and criticize efforts to build and maintain certain relationships with foreign countries...having no F$#%&%# clue what they're talking about because rather than reading the foreign policy to develop an understanding of it...some have just skimmed a few pages or done a few google searches and then proceed to influence others as to what their opinion should be without having anything that resembles an informed conscience.


    with_all_humilityEmeryPearson
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • someone234someone234 542 Pts
    edited April 19
    @with_all_humility How can God be male? God creates life and this is a unique trait to females in life-forms that have polarity in sex.

    Is God a transgender? I could buy into that, she feels masculine.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Slowly we see that this religion isn't all it's made up to be... We must find the true religion of the flat earth... Worship the north pole.
    What is it that appears to shaky, that cause one to not believe it to be the one and true religion?
    Challenge me to a debate that God is a transgender during the Bible and Qur'an as opposed to a physical male.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @with_all_humility How can God be male? God creates life and this is a unique trait to females in life-forms that have polarity in sex.

    Is God a transgender? I could buy into that, she feels masculine.
    Well, I would say there is a huge difference between creating life and conceiving life. Also, the Hebrew and Greek words for God are in the masculine form.  He is referred to as Father. 


    EmeryPearson
  • edited April 19

    Pogue said:
    Slowly we see that this religion isn't all it's made up to be... We must find the true religion of the flat earth... Worship the north pole.
    What is it that appears to shaky, that cause one to not believe it to be the one and true religion?
    Which one? I do not believe in his religion nor yours. 
    I know you don't, that's very apparent by the questions you like to debate on.  I was referring to someone234, on what he thought was made up.

  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    Vaulk said:
    It would appear on the surface that the issue here is that people can normally apply standards of context to just about anything but when it comes to the Bible...people forget to.

    The simplest of statements or pieces of information in text can look evil, dastardly, wicked, disgusting or down right horrible without proper context...so too can the Bible.  

    It boils down to this: If you care to know...you'll find out.  If you don't care...your misunderstanding will persist.  Any attempt to spread that misunderstanding to other people is a good indicator of your choice in the matter. 

    A good example would be the United States foreign policy.  Too many uninformed people will sit back and criticize efforts to build and maintain certain relationships with foreign countries...having no F$#%&%# clue what they're talking about because rather than reading the foreign policy to develop an understanding of it...some have just skimmed a few pages or done a few google searches and then proceed to influence others as to what their opinion should be without having anything that resembles an informed conscience.


    Ok. I agree with that. So, how does that prove the Bible doesn't contradict itself? Can you point out the true context of the quotes in my arguments? 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Pogue said:
    I will also add some more contradictions. 

    According to Genesis 2:17, Adam and Eve were supposed to die the day they ate the fruit. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." However, Genesis 5:5 contradicts this.It states Adam lived till he was 930. 

    There are many many more. This includes this one: " GE 7:1 Noah was righteous. 
    JB 1:1,8JB 2:3 Job was righteous. 
    LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous. 
    JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective). 
    1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians). 
    RO 3:10, 3:231JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous." 

    Another one is between Genesis 4:16 and Jeremiah 23:23-24Genesis 4:16  states that someone the presence of the lord. However, Jeremiah 23:23-24 states God is everywhere. So how can someone leave the presence of the Lord? 

    This one may not be one but it does seem stupid. 
    "GE 11:7-9 God sows discord. 
    PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord." God did it but he hates people who do it? That does not make sense. 

    This is the last one for today. Genesis 6:3 states that a human will only live for 120 years. Although, Genesis 9:29 says Noah lived for 950 years. 

    I will only be listing one scientific inaccuracy for today. It is about Noah's ark. 
    There were only 8 people on the ark. There were also two of every "kind of animal". There is not enough genetic diversity for the species to of survived. 
    I think contradictions destroy the Bible because if it was inspired by an omnipotent being, why does it has these. Genesis 1.3-5 (What is it that you don't understand about these verses...pretty straightforward to me.  God created light the absence of darkness.)

    According to Genesis 2:17, Adam and Eve were supposed to die the day they ate the fruit. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." However, Genesis 5:5 contradicts this.It states Adam lived till he was 930. 

    • When studying the bible or reading it and trying to make sense of the Old Testament (OT) is important to realize it is there for our understanding, for us to learn of and understand of the character of God.  How He viewed sin and how He holds those accountable for sinning.  Why happens physically in the OT is a representation of what happens in the Spiritual realm in the age of the New Testament (NT).  Our proof text for this is in the book of Hebrews.

    Types/Anti-Types 

    Here the author explains about copy/type and shadow. How physical Israel was a copy of the things to come to Spiritual Israel in the Christian age (shadow).

    Hebrews 8.2-7: a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. vFor every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. vNow if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. vThey serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” vBut as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. vFor if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.[1]

    Verses that testify to God not being associated with evilness, sin, or wrongdoings.

    • Ecc 12.14:  For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.
    • Amo 5.14-15:  Seek good and not evil, that you may live; So, the LORD God of hosts will be with you, as you have spoken.  Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts Will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
    • Rom 13.4:  For he is God's minister to you for goodBut if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
    • Jas 1.13-14:  Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.  But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
    • 1Pe 3.17:  For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
    • Rom 6.23:  For the wages of sin is deathbut the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Adam and Eve

    Eating of the tree of knowledge

    In Gen 2.16-17  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." [2]

    In contrast to the serpent saying...3.1-3: Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”  And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die." [3]

    God says they will "surely die" and the serpent says they will "not surely die" So, who is correct here as asked in the premise.  

    We know that in verse 19 we know God says this before casting them out of the garden... "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust, you shall return."  In this statement, God identifies that Adam and Eve will experience physical death some point in their life.  This is something that they would not have experienced in the Garden.  Adam and Eve were eternal whiles in the presents with God in the Garden.

    From Gen 2.16-17 we know that God has forbidden the eating of the tree of knowledge.  By disobeying God, and eating of the fruit Adam & Eve committed the first sin.  To sin is to commit evil against God and God cannot be associated with evil. Sin is also seen as death.

    • Psa 5.4  For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you.
    • Rom 6.23  For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    The death that God was warning Adam and Eve against was a sin, a spiritual death. When someone dies they are no longer with you.  

    • Isa 59.2  but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear. 

    So when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of good and evil, committed a sin, which resulted in a spiritual death or separation for God and the Garden.  Paul explains this in Romans 5.12-21.

    Death in Adam, Life in Christ (Copy/Shadow)

    • Rom 5.12  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
    • Rom 5.13  for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
    • Rom 5.14  Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
    • Rom 5.15  But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
    • Rom 5.16  And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
    • Rom 5.17  For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
    • Rom 5.18  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
    • Rom 5.19  For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
    • Rom 5.20  Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
    • Rom 5.21  so that, as sin reigned in deathgrace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [4]

    So, as we can clearly see the death that God warned Adam and Eve about was not physical death but a Spiritual Death.

    The reason God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden is that since they sinned, and if they ate of the Tree of Life in a sinful condition they would have been eternally separated from God. Recall from Isa 59.2 iniquities (sin) is a separating from God. To be a sinner is to be unholy, and God is holy...The same imagery of being unclean and clean.  God cannot be associated with uncleanliness/unholiness. 

    Therefore while Adam live a long physical life, the death he and Eve were dealt was the spiritual death; copy of sin, that represents the shadow of being separated from God in heaven and there is no contradiction in the book of Genesis. 
    Next:  There are many many more. This includes this one:  GE 7:1 Noah was righteous. 
    JB 1:1,8JB 2:3 Job was righteous. 
    LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous. 
    JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective). 
    1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians). 
    RO 3:10, 3:231JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous. 

    We should begin by defining what is meant by righteous.  Looking to the New Living Translation we find various verses use the word righteous.

    Righteous/Righteousness in the scripture (In context with Rom 3.10)
    • God is completely righteous (Isaiah 4.:21–24)
    • We cannot attain righteousness on our own (Isaiah 64.6)
    • Human nature is the opposite of righteousness (Romans 3.10–18)
    • Righteousness is not attained by works (Romans 4.18–25)
    • Strict legalism cannot make us righteous (Galatians 3.11–21)
    • Our God-given righteousness is armor against Satan’s attacks (Ephesians 6.14)
    • We become righteous through faith in Christ (Philippians 3.9)
    • Studying God’s Word helps us grow in righteousness (2 Timothy 3.16)
    • Righteousness ought to characterize each believer’s life (1 Peter 2.24) [5]
    • Righteousness in context with keeping the OT Law:

    The Concept of Law in the OT.

    The concept of law exercised so strong an influence on the understanding of all social relationships that even theological reflection on the fellowship established between God and man was decisively affected by it. One may say that law is the basis of the view of God in the OT in so far as it is theologically developed and that conversely, the endowment of legal concepts with religious meaning contributed to an ethicist of law ( θεός ). This is proved especially by the usage of the OT. The concept of law is expressed by a series of terms which are used not merely for the relations of God to man and man to God, but also for the conduct of both God and man as determined by these relations. If vital religious relationships and interconnections are regulated by a religious norm, it is obvious that this norm is valid for all social relationships, and therefore that law fashions the ethical norm. [6]

    So when we read in the context of Rom 3.10 and 3.23 Righteousness is being used in the context of keeping God OT commandments, and no, there was never anyone who kept the OT Law except for Christ.  He fulfilled the Law or kept the law perfect by never violating it.  


    In the context of 1 John 1.8-10:

    • v8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. v9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. v10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. [7]
    • Here we see in context what is unrighteousness that John is talking about, it is the act of committing a sin.  John is just telling us if we are Christians, and sin, for we all do it.  We only need to pray to Christ to receive forgiveness of those sins.  
    The Greek word being used for Unrighteousness is; 
    • 88.21 ἀδικία, ας f: an activity which is unjust—‘unjust deed, unrighteousness, doing what is unjust.’ ἀπόστητε ἀπ̓ ἐμοῦ, πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας ‘get away from me, all you workers of what is unjust’ Lk 13.27. [8]

    Now we'll address the other verses where righteousness is spoken of how individuals are view as righteous

    • Having just viewed 1 Jn 1.8-10 we'll discuss 1JN 3.6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).  To view a verse in the context we want to go back 4-5 verses and or then read 4-5 past the verse.  In doing so we find...
    • 1 Jn 3.7-9: Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.  He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.  Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

    • v10-12:  In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.  For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous. [9]

    For this purpose, the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil(This is actually a fulfillment of Genesis 3.15: And I will put enmity. Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”) 
    • John used similar imagery when he contrasted God’s “seed” and those who are “of the devil” (1 John 3.7–10). This is heightened by his appeal to Cain’s murder of righteous Abel as paradigmatic of one “who belonged to the evil one” (1 John 3.11–15)

    I thought I would share that, it's spoken of throughout the Bible, but as we can read here, those who practice righteousness are those who are Christian and hold to the NT Law, not that they don't sin, it's because of the ask for forgiveness of their sins that they are righteous.  In contrast, John warns them of those who are unrighteous, which are those who don't do the things that he has taught them.  John is warning them of false teachers that would come and teach things contrary to the Bible.  


    GENESIS 7:1
     Noah was righteous. 
    • If we go back to Genesis 6.8-9:  The reason Noah “found favor” is related in the following section to his “righteous” conduct (v9). Later Ezekiel recognized that it was Noah’s character that distinguished him from his peers (Ezek 14.14, 20). Any attempt to erect a wall between God’s sovereign mercies (v. 8) and the merit of Noah’s “righteousness” (v9) is superficial. No such dichotomy is presented in the text, for the contrast in v8 is how Noah looked in God’s “eyes” versus how God “saw” his contemporaries (6.5). This infers that Noah’s conduct is related in some way to God’s bestowal of gracious favor. The same contrast follows in v9 between the conduct of Noah, who is “blameless,” and the “people of his time.” This does not mean that Noah’s character automatically secures divine favor, for God is under no obligation to bestow his favor. It presupposes a relationship. The proper emphasis in our passage is God’s gracious favor, just as we see his preservation of the human family in chaps. 1–11 despite human sin. For the apostle Paul the promissory favor is realized by faith, hence a gift (grace) that results in righteousness (Rom 4.13–16). Genesis’s “grace” and “righteousness” (6.8–9) joined by Noah’s “faith” is brought together in the reflection of the writer to the Hebrews. He interpreted Noah’s obedient “fear” as “faith” that resulted in a saving “righteousness” (Heb 11.7).

    JOB 1:1,8JOB 2:3 Job was righteous. 
    • Job verse one tells us how Job was viewed righteous in God's eye.  1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil.
    • Verse 1 contains two adjectives that readers often question. Job was “blameless” (“perfect,” KJV) and “upright.” The first of these (tām) will occur six more times in Job.  Because the English word “perfect” has overtones of sinless perfection, it is best to avoid it in translation. A glance at two places where tām appears illustrates its range of meanings. The word never describes God although it does characterize his work (Deut 32.4), his way (2 Sam 22.31 = Ps 18.30), and his law (Ps 19.7). Jesus urged his followers to “be perfect, … as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5.48).
    • Perfection, integrity, or blamelessness referred to the absence of certain observable sinful acts. Job, his friends, and the author of the book were thinking of honesty, marital fidelity, just treatment of servants, generosity to the poor, and the avoidance of idolatry. Job denied wrongdoing in all these areas in chap. 31, his long oath. Neither Job nor his friends were thinking of perfection in the theological New Testament sense.  If Job were perfect in that sense, then he would not have had to repent as he did at the end of the book (Job 42.6) thus Job was not sinless, but when he did sin, Job was repentant of his wrongdoing and thus was found to be righteous in God's eyes.


    LUKE 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous. 

    • Their righteousness was in the sight of God and not just in appearance as in the case of some Pharisees. How were they righteous? By observing and keeping His commandments, they were devout followers of God's.
    • Observing … commandments and regulations blamelessly. “Commandments and regulations” is a frequent OT combination. Other synonyms are laws, ordinances, and judgments. For Luke, as for the psalmist in Ps 119:1, keeping the commandments and regulations results in being upright and blameless before God. This is true for the Christian as well. A correct understanding of the law includes recognizing God’s gracious provision of mercy for the sinner and the law as the ethical embodiment of God’s will for his children. [10] 
    • To keep God’s commandments and regulations means to believe in and follow God’s Son and by his grace to observe the “commandments and regulations” that embody his will. Zechariah and Elizabeth represent the best of OT piety and as the faithful remnant received the good news of the gospel (Luke 1:19). They are an indication that the good news Jesus brings does not conflict with the faith of Israel in the OT. If some in Israel opposed Jesus, it was not because there was a conflict between the religion of the OT and the Christian faith. Rather it was due to their being unfaithful to the teachings of the law and the prophets. (See John 6.41-51)  The term “blamelessly” does not mean that they possessed a sinless perfection as 1:18–20 reveals. Luke used this verse to explain to his readers that Zechariah and Elizabeth’s childlessness, as mentioned in the next verse, was not due to sin.


    JAMES 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective). 

    The Christians being spoken of here, would be just like those we have been seeing all along.  Have you noticed the pattern...One who knows the commandments of God, who follows them to the best of their ability and when the sin, the are sure to pray and ask for forgiveness.  No one can be righteous, by their actions only.  It is only by way of Christ sacrifice and the Grace of God.  

    Jam 5.16 Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.

    • James continues, “Therefore,”  the entire fellowship of believers should be characterized by mutual confessing of sin. The confession of sin entails humble honesty about the fact of having committed sin, not a public retelling of the details of the act. This way of confessing sin can be detected in the classic text of Old Testament confession, Psalm 51: “When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.” But this superscription is not a part of the psalm itself.  Many employ this psalm in private confession without recognizing that it is a “public” testimony to the people of God. The psalm could even function as an aid to fulfilling the imperative of James’s instruction.
    • Texts are important for what they include and do not include. In following this verse, it is appropriate to name a sin but no more. Following David one might confess the personal suffering caused by an unspecified sin; indeed, how “sick” it had made the person (cf. Ps 51.8). When confessing sin, there is no room for reliving it in the retelling. There should not be anything sensational about the mutual confessing of sin, nothing that feeds sinful desire (cf. 1.14). Confession should entail only humble acknowledgment of the act of sin and the joy of release from the offensiveness of those acts. Along with active correction of those who fall into sin among believers, Paul surely had mutual confession in mind as he counseled how to carry out the law of Christ:
    • Consider Gal 6:1–2:   Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.  For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
    • Note:  Although believers bear one another’s burdens, nothing in confession should spawn temptation and sinful acts.
    • Mutual confession leads to mutual prayer. The prayer of faith  (v15) is not exclusively a prerogative of the office of elder but is a shared responsibility among the members of the church.  The believers are to intercede for one another, both in the greatest matter of ministry, that confession that appropriates forgiveness, and also in the great matter of healing sickness. This mutual intercession is a prime NT example of the Christian doctrine of the priesthood of all believers (consider 1 Pet 2.4–5).  Along with the sacrifice of praise that arises from the worship of the whole body of Christ, the mutual interceding of believers one for the other(s) is a priestly function. 
    • James asserted the important relation between the virtue of righteousness and the quality of prayer for all believers. The essence of biblical righteousness is dependence upon God in all one’s dealings. To be righteous is to live a life centered upon the word of God; not sinlessness but mercy (consider 2.13) typifies this life.  Since it is the prayer for others that is being discussed, the righteous are the ones who intercede not so much on behalf of themselves but in obedience to God and for others. This was characteristic of the exemplars Job (v. 11; consider Job 1.5) and Elijah (v. 17). The prayer of the righteous believer is both powerful and effective. These two terms have overlapping meaning, together connoting the potency of prayer to accomplish the purposes of God.  Just as Jesus taught that his disciples would suffer for the sake of righteousness in fulfilling their prophetic task (Matt 5.11–12), James called his audience to the same righteousness in the face of suffering. The reference to healing does not include a special gift (look at 1 Cor 12.9); rather, healing is simply a part of the intercessory role to which believers are called. The question of the assurance of healing must be balanced with the will of God in each case. 
    • C. Hodge wrote,
    • It cannot be supposed that God has subjected Himself in the government of the world, or in the dispensation of his gifts, to the shortsighted wisdom of men, by promising, without condition, to do whatever they ask. No rational man could wish this to be the case. [11]
    • He then asserted that the condition expressed in 1 John 5.14 is everywhere else implied: “This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.” It was the divine will in Elijah’s case that drought and rain should be limited to a certain time (see vv. 17–18). This is also the case with every event of healing. The intercessor must trust the will of God.


    Concerning:  This is the last one for today. Genesis 6.3 states that a human will only live for 120 years. Although, Genesis 9.29 says Noah lived for 950 years. 

    • We need to remember that Noah was 500 years old when began to build the ark, and 600 years old when he completed it.  God was not referring to Noah's generation but the generations to come.  Abraham live to be 175 years old...by the time we get to Moses we find that he lived to be 120 years old.  So again there is no contradiction here, God's proclamation did not apply to those alive at the time of the this new provision for mankind.  


    [1]The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 8:2–7). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
    [2]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 2:16–17). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [3]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:1–3). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [4] The New King James Version. (1982). (Rom 5:12-21). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [5] Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
    [6] Schrenk, G. (1964–). δίκη, δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, δικαιόω, δικαίωμα, δικαίωσις, δικαιοκρισία. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 2, p. 174). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
    [7] The New King James Version. (1982). (1 Jn 1:8–10). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [8] Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 744). New York: United Bible Societies.
    [9] The New King James Version. (1982). (1 Jn 3:7–12). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [10] Stein, R. H. (1992). Luke (Vol. 24, pp. 73–74). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
    [11] C. Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940), 3:704
    BaconToesEmeryPearson
  • Pogue said:

    Some contradictions: 
    Can you see the face of God and live?
    These Bible verses say you can: Genesis 16:13, Genesis 32:30, Exodus 24:9-11, Exodus 33:11, and Numbers 14:14
    However, these say no one has and if you do, you will die. Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, John 5:37, and 1 Timothy 6:16


    So the question is did Hagar see God's face and lived, which is contrary to other passages in the Bible.  

    The short answer is No...Hagar did not see the Lord's face.

    Gen 16.13:

    The scene comes to a climax with Hagar recognizing God’s presence in the angel and his mercy toward her. But as usual in such situations, “As man comes to realize the presence of God, as he recognizes Him, God has disappeared”.

    “You are El, who sees me.” In Scripture when God sees, he cares (look at Gen 29:32; Exod 3:7). In appearing to Hagar, the Lord has shown he cares for her. Note though that she calls God El, whereas the narrator calls him the Lord, Yahweh, the name of God revealed to Moses (Exod 3:14–15; 6:3). The God who rescued Hagar in the wilderness is the one who redeemed Israel from Egypt.

    “Truly here I have seen him who looks after me?” The Hebrew of this half-verse has caused much perplexity and prompted many emendations (see Notes). However, Booij and Koenen have plausibly argued that emendation is unnecessary and have suggested a translation that makes a satisfying climax to the narrative. The emendation most commonly adopted (e.g., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), “Have I seen God and lived after seeing him?” merely expresses astonishment. Booij’s rendering expresses not just surprise but a recognition of God’s care for Hagar even in the most unlikely situations, a theme most beautifully developed in Ps 139:1–12; cf. Amos 9:2–3.[1]

    The translation of this verse is made difficult by its clause order and by the text itself. As to the first problem, translators should notice how TEV and others have reordered the clauses by placing Hagar’s question first, followed by the name she gave to the Lord. In the discussion of the verse here the RSV clause order is followed.


    According to Translator Notes: 

    What's nice about Translator Notes is that these are linguist notes, they only interpret the original Hebrew writings, no theology add-in.

    So she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her: So is used in Revised Standard Version (RSV) and Today's English Version (TEV) to represent the Hebrew connective as a conclusion. She refers to Hagar. If necessary this may be expressed more fully as “Because of what the Lord had told her, she called.…”

    Here is the TEV or Lexham English Bible translation for Gen 16.13-15:  So she called the name of Yahweh who spoke to her, “You are El-Roi,” for she said, “Here I have seen after he who sees me.”  Therefore the well was called Beer-Lahai-Roi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered. And Hagar had a child for Abram, a son. And Abram called the name of his son whom Hagar bore to him, Ishmael. [2]

    Here is the RSV translation for Gen 16.13-15:  So she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, “Thou art a God of seeing”; for she said, “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?”  Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; it lies between Kadesh and Bered.  And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael.[3]

    She called the name means Hagar gave the Lord a name, a name which he was not known by before: Thou art a God of seeing or, as TEV says, “A God Who Sees.” In some languages, it may be necessary to adjust this statement and name to something like “So Hagar gave the Lord a name that means ‘You are God who sees me.’ ” hottp says the Hebrew of “who sees” can mean “a God of vision,” that is, “a visible God” or “a God of Providence,” meaning “a God who provides.” In the light of the context, it seems best to understand “sees,” and so “God who sees” (TEV). Some translations retain the Hebrew for “a God of seeing” in the form of ’el ro’i, in order to associate the name Hagar gave to the Lord and the name of the well in the next verse. For example, njb says, “You are El Roi.”

    For she said, “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?” This question, which is shifted to the opening of the verse by TEV, is noted in both RSV and TEV as a conjecture or probable interpretation. Hebrew seems to say “Have I even here seen after him who sees me?” (RSV footnote). Speiser understands the text to say “Did I not go on seeing here after he had seen me?” In spite of the difficulty in the text, it seems clear that there is a sense of surprise in what Hagar says, surprise at having survived her meeting with God. This can be brought out in a variety of ways in translation; in one language, for example, Hagar says to herself, “My word! I saw God and I didn’t die! I’m still here to talk about it!”

    Translators will note that Hagar’s statement in the first part of the verse is addressed to God as thou art, but her question here is in the third person seen God and after seeing him? Such a change from the second person to the third person will create difficulties in some languages, and so it may be necessary to retain the second person in the question: “Have I really seen you, God, and remained alive after seeing you?” Alternatively, the statement may be shifted to the third person, as in TeV, and the question kept in the third person.

    Suggested translations for verse 13 are:

    Hagar asked herself this question: “Have I really seen God and am still alive?” She decided to call the Lord who had spoken to her by the name “A God Who Sees.”

    Hagar asked herself “God, have I really seen you and I am still alive to tell it?” So she decided to call God who had talked to her “You are God Who Sees Me.” [4]

    Scholars are much divided on exactly how to translate the words thus rendered in our version (ASV), but we are strongly inclined to allow the translation we have before us. It makes as good a sense as any, and besides, as Robinson bluntly stated it:

    "As the text stands, the whole name is not explained, but it is possible that the latter part of Genesis 16:13 should read, I have seen God and have survived after seeing him ... this, however, is pure conjecture, and it may well be that this part of the name of the well had no explanation at all in the original narrative.

    Whatever the exact meaning of the names here, the thought is clear enough that God had seen Hagar's distress, and that he heeded her cry, consoled her, put her feet homeward on the path of duty, and gave magnificent prophecies of the son to be born to her.

    We may only conjecture as to the reaction of Abram and Sarai when they got word from the returned Hagar that God had appeared to her and that she was indeed going to have a son, and what a son! "A wild- of a man, destined to be the enemy of Israel forever!" It must have been hard for Sarai and Abram to hear this.[5]

    I believe it appeared that the Spirit of the Lord spoke to Hagar, however, to conclude she physically saw God would not be a true representation of what took place.  The Spirit of God was often manifested in angels, a burning bush for Moses.

    Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

    God was manifest as fire, and a cloud, with thunderings, lightning, and a "thick darkness."

    Exodus 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightning, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that were in the camp trembled.

    Exodus 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke because the LORD descended upon it in a fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

    Exodus 20.18  And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightning, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.God appeared to seventy-four men on Mount Sinai, in a form that is not clearly described, but which is described as "hands" and "feet":

    Exodus 24.9  Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
    Exodus 24.10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
    Exodus 24.11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

    (This resembles what John described at Revelation 4:2-6, though it's not necessarily the same.)  Had they seen "the face of God", that is to say, had they seen God as He truly is, then they would have died, as God later said, "there shall no man see me, and live" (Exodus 33:20).  However, just as Moses would see God's "back parts" (Exodus 33:23), so too have these men seen the glory, or, a manifestation of God.  What these men saw was not God as He truly is, but was a manifestation of God.  It must be understood in this way, for Moses (who was there, and "saw the God of Israel," at Exodus 24:9) 

    Likewise, Jesus Christ would later make the general statement:

    John 5.37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his shape.

    Job 38.1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

    God, as either a man or as a walking voice in the garden of Eden

    Genesis 3.8  And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

    God appears to Abraham as an angel.

    Genesis 18:1-2 
     Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.  So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,

    Did Jacob:  See God?

    Gen 32.30-32:  So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” 31 Just as he crossed over Penuel the sun rose on him, and he limped on his hip. Therefore to this day, the children of Israel do not eat the muscle that shrank, which is on the hip socket, because He touched the socket of Jacob’s hip in the muscle that shrank.[6]

    “A man” appeared to Jacob in his loneliness; one having the bodily form and substance of a man(most likely an angle). Wrestled with him in the very point in which he was strong. He had been a taker from his very birth, and his subsequent life had been a constant and successful struggle with adversaries. And when he, the stranger, saw that he prevailed not over him. Jacob, true to his character, struggles while life remains, with this new combatant. Touched the socket of his thigh, so that it was wrenched out of joint. The thigh is the pillar of a man’s strength and its joint with the hip the seat of physical force for the wrestler. Let the thigh bone be thrown out of joint, and the man is utterly disabled. 

    Jacob now finds that this mysterious wrestler has wrested from him, by one touch, all his might, and he can no longer stand alone. Without any support whatever from himself, he hangs upon the conqueror, and in that condition learns by experience the practice of reliance on others mightier than himself. This is the turning-point in this strange drama.  Jacob now feels himself strong, not in himself, but in the Lord, and in the power of his might. What follows is merely the explication and the consequence of this bodily conflict.

    The Mighty Stranger, says, Let me go, for the sun is arising. The stranger does not shake off the clinging grasp of the now disabled Jacob, but only calls upon him to relax his grasp. Jacob, says, "I will not let you go unless you bless me”. Despairing now of his own strength, he is Jacob still: he declares his determination to cling on until his conqueror bless him. He now knows he is in the hand of a higher power, who can disable and again enable, who can curse and also bless. He knows himself also to be now utterly helpless without the healing, quickening, protecting power of his victor, and though he may die in the effort, he will not let him go without receiving this blessing. Jacob’s sense of his total debility and utter defeat is now the secret of his power with his friendly combatant. He can overthrow all the prowess of the self-reliant, but he cannot resist the earnest entreaty of the helpless.

    Thus the transformation of Jacob into Israel, the father of the nation, that takes place here is a momentous moment. The man who cheated his brother out of his blessing is now concerned that he is about to meet that brother again and prays to God not to leave him in the lurch. “The night attack, the life and death struggle, and finally the unexpected conclusion, the gracious blessing and bestowal of a new name, that is … God’s answer to the Jacob …, whereby God’s sovereignty and faithfulness to his promise despite all human unworthiness is demonstrated. Jacob is no longer the strong victorious controller of the divine but Israel who is totally dependent on God’s grace and lame”[7]

    The reference to dawn indicates first that the struggle continued a good while, and second explains why Jacob was unaware of his foe’s identity and indeed took him on. Had he realized that his enemy was divine, he would never have engaged him in a fight. This Man reminds him of his former self, Jacob, the supplanter, the self-reliant, self-seeking. But now he is disabled, dependent on another, and seeking a blessing from another, and for all others as well as himself. No long will Jacob be your name, but Israel meaning — a prince of God, in God, with God. "For you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." The new name is indicative of the new nature which has now come to its perfection of development in Jacob. Unlike Abraham, who received his new name once for all, and was never afterward called by the former one, Jacob will hence, be called now by the one and now by the other, as the occasion may serve. For he was called from the womb Gen 25:23, and both names have a spiritual significance for two different aspects of the child of God, according to the apostle Paul’s paradox, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” Php 2:12-13. 

    Jacob asks "Please tell me your name."  This mysterious Being intimately replies "Why is it that you ask my name?" Jacob was to learn his nature, from the event that had just occurred; and he was well acquainted with his name just not knowing it.  And man blessed him there. He had the power of disabling the self-sufficient creature, of upholding that creature when unable to stand, of answering prayer, of conferring a new name, with a new phase of spiritual life, and of blessing with a physical renovation, and with spiritual capacity for being a blessing to mankind. After all this, Jacob could not any longer doubt who he was. There are, then, three acts in this dramatic scene: first, Jacob wrestling with the Omnipresent in the form of a man, in which he is signally defeated; second, Jacob importunately begging Yahweh, in which he prevails as a prince of God; third, Jacob receiving the blessing of a new name, a new development of spiritual life, and a new capacity for bodily action.

    In the future whenever his descendants heard this name Israel, or used it to describe themselves, they were reminded of its origin and of it's meaning, that as their father had triumphed in his struggle with men (i.e., Esau and Laban) and with God, so they too could eventually hope to triumph. Within this episode, of course, his new name is a guarantee of a successful meeting with his brother Esau.[8]


    In verse 32.30 Israel names the place Peniel: face of God

    Contrary to many earlier critics who attempted to distinguish two sources, it is now recognized following the work of Barthes that the tale is a substantial unity conforming to the outline of many folk tales, with perhaps a few later additions. Barthes (“La lutte,” 35) points out that the central part of the scene consists of a dialogue in which new names are given:

    • v 28, God asks Jacob’s name—Jacob’s reply—v 29, Name changed
    • v 30, Jacob asks God’s name—Indirect reply—v 31, Place name changed to Peniel

    Furthermore, Barthes (38) observed that the whole story contains many of the features of the typical folktale as distinguished by Propp:

    • Move to new place                                       cf. 31:17, Jacob moved from Paddan-Aran
    • Struggle between hero and antagonist       cf. 32:25–28
    • Hero receives bodily wound                         cf. 32:26–33, Jacob’s limp
    • Victory of hero                                               cf. 32:27
    • End of bad luck or need                                cf. 32:32, Jacob passes Peniel and reaches
    • Shechem in Canaan (33:18)

    De Pury [4] has noted how many of the features of this story correspond to an old Irish (pre-Christian) story, which make it plausible to suppose the substantial integrity of 32:25–33, and that any later additions must be quite minor. A similar suggestion has been made about a Hittite text by Tsevat. [9] 

    The scene falls into three parts:

    • v25-26      Description of the fight
    • v27-31      Dialogue: (v27-29) Naming of Israel; (v30-31) Naming of Peniel
    • v32-33      Departure and Etiological comment

    This analysis shows that the emphasis of the story is on the names Israel and Peniel.

    Much speculation has been devoted to reconstructing earlier forms of the tradition. Parallels with other tales of night attacks by river demons are often cited to explain the origin of the story. But as Eissfeldt [6] has pointed out, Jacob does not encounter a localized deity but El, supreme creator God in the Semitic pantheon (32:31; 33:20). Nor is the nature of Jacob’s experience very clear. It does not seem to have been just a dream, nor can it be spiritualized into wrestling in prayer; it does appear that a real fight was involved, for Jacob went on his way limping (32:32). But having said that, the nature of the experience still remains mysterious, as all encounters with God must necessarily be.[10]

    Closing observations:

    The importance of this account shows the maturing of man, from a young man who did wrong, and was taken advantage of by other. To a self-reliant man who could defend himself, to be humbled again so as to be the father of a nation who names will probably never be forgotten by mankind.  Jacob did not know who he was wrestling, most likely the being was not God, but a heavily being in the form of a man.  Besides the encounter in the Garden of Eden, there is only one other recorded instance of God on Earth and someone witnessing and that was with Moses.  The encounter is interesting and worth noting.  

    Exodus 33.18-23:  Moses said, "Please show me your glory."  And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.  But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."  And the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen."

    The account of Moses wanting to see God, it is revealed only His backside could be viewed because a person would die from seeing his full glory.  There's no purposely losing the struggle that took place, either way, the purpose of the event was for Jacob's learning not to prove that God is not all-powerful.  To say God is all powerful is not necessarily brute strength, but means is not limited by natural laws and therefore can do anything.

    [1]Wenham, G. J. (1998). Genesis 16–50(Vol. 2, p. 11). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

    [2] Harris, W. H., III, Ritzema, E., Brannan, R., Mangum, D., Dunham, J., Reimer, J. A., & Wierenga, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Bible (Ge 16:13–15). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

    [3] The Revised Standard Version. (1971). (Ge 16:13–15). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

    [4] Reyburn, W. D., & Fry, E. M. (1998). A handbook on Genesis (pp. 359–360). New York: United Bible Societies.
    [5] Coffman, Genesis Commentary on Book of Genesis, Genesis 16.13 (p 151). James Burton Coffman

    [6] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 32:29–32). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [7] Wenham, G. J. (1998). Genesis 16–50 (Vol. 2, p. 294). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

    [8] Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1919). Index (p. 301). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.

    [9] Wenham, G. J. (1998). Genesis 16–50 (Vol. 2, p. 297). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

    [10] Theologische Zeitschrift; 35 [1979], p18–34

    [11] Journal of the American Oriental Society, 103 [1983]; p321–22.




    BaconToesEmeryPearson
  • @Pogue

    "There are more. One of them is that Earth rests on pillars (or foundations of the Earth). This is also scientifically inaccurate (which will be listed again). In 1 Samuel 2:8 it states, "For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them." So I guess it states it is on them. However, in Job 26:7, it states Earth hangs on nothing. Although, there are numerous other verses that state otherwise. Even some in Job. They are, but not limited to Job 9:6Job 38:4Hebrews 1:10, and Isaiah 24:18. There are about 5 more that reference pillars or foundation."

    The figure of speech "Pillars of the earth" refers to the Lords creation. in 1 Sam 2.8

    2 Sam 2.8: The prayer of Hannah, is written as poem, so therefore the language is figurative, not having the literal meaning. 

    The poem begins with joy over God’s victories followed by an affirmation of his incomparability. The first strophe ends with a warning against speaking arrogantly since God knows everything (v 1–3; for the division into strophes see Ritterspach, Rhetorical Criticism). Yahweh regularly exalts the lowly and confounds the powerful; he is the creator of the world (v4–8). His world-wide judgeship guarantees the safety of his followers and the fall of all who oppose him. The hymn’s third strophe closes with a prayer for God to bless the king (v9–10).

    It is generally recognized that this psalm must have had a different setting and function before its ascription to Hannah. While 1 Samuel speaks of Hannah as a mother of six children (Samuel, plus the five children mentioned in 2.21), the song itself speaks of a barren woman who has seven children (v5). The tone of the poem is national, alluding to male enemies and military metaphors (i.e. v4), neither of which are appropriate to Hannah. The final prayer for the king is impossible for Hannah: her son Samuel, as an old man, held earthly kingship to be a rejection of God’s kingship. Finally, the pious wishes for the monarchy provide a proper setting for the following two books of Samuel and their stories of the kingship of Saul and David.

    The song is usually classified form-critically as a hymn though elements from the Psalm of Thanksgiving genre are also present. Claus Westermann has pointed out that psalms often combine a report of God’s deeds with a description of his greatness and glory (Ritterspach, Rhetorical Criticism). Hymns are often structured into introduction, body, and conclusion through the structure of hymns is much less sharply defined than that of the psalms of lament. Hymns are not so many prayers to God, but testimony borne in the presence of God and proclamation in the presence of the congregation. The Song of Hannah lacks the usual introduction, with its summons to extol Yahweh, and the use of the second person address in v1 may result from its affinities with the Psalms of Thanksgiving. The body of the hymn, v2–8 (the form-critical sections do not correspond with the strophes noted above), begins with negative sentences referring to the incomparability of Yahweh (v2), followed by admonitions to others (v 3a), a hymnal element attested elsewhere in both positive (Ps 76:12) forms. Attributes of Yahweh are recited in v3b. Next, come confessions of Yahweh’s regular or repeated actions in v4–8. In v4–5 the sentences are cast in the passive with no explicit reference to the agent (who is clearly God). This means that v6–8 are a heightening or intensification of the confession (Yahweh is mentioned by name, the statements are cast in the active voice, and there is frequent use of the participles that are typical in hymns). The statements of v4–8a form a transition from Yahweh’s attributes to his actions in the past, in this case at creation (v8). The active, explicit, and the passive, implicit types of confession are repeated in the first two lines of v9. The conclusion of this hymn is not an appeal for others to worship, but rather a prayer for the welfare of the king. The hymnist Ps 29 similarly concludes with a prayer (in this case for God to bless the people). [1]

     

     Interpretation of v8 of Hannah’s Poe

    The poet places special stress on God’s positive actions in v 8. The dunghills or town dumps provided sleeping quarters for beggars by night and a place to ask alms by day (consider Lam 4.5; Job 2.8; 30:.19). God so reverses the fate of the poor that they get to sit (dine?) with the nobility and obtain a glorious throne. The latter expression is used for the high administrative office of Eliakim (Isa 22.23) or even for the ark, God’s glorious seat in the temple (Jer 14.21 and 17.12). The words of v 8 are nearly identical with Ps 113.7–8; perhaps they formed a standard formula which would be used with some variations by the Hebrew poets. The opposite of such exaltation takes place in the demotion of the harlot Babylon in Second Isaiah: “Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne” (Isa 47.1)

    The last two lines of v 8 hymn God’s role as a creator to validate his effective concern for the downcast. Creation is expressed metaphorically: he places the world (Freedman, Ibid: netherworld) on pillars which belong to him. This is by no means an isolated picture. “When the earth totters,” God announces in Ps 75:4. “I keep steady its pillars” (עמודיה; look at Job 9.6). Elsewhere we read that God founded the world on the river or seas (Ps 24.2) or sunk its bases (Job 38.4, 6). The difficulty with interpreting the word “pillars,” which is used only here and in 1 Sam 14:5, where it is frequently understood as a gloss and is deleted.  Some favor the root word עוק, meaning narrow, and interprets the noun as referring to subterranean narrows or straits. This is then used in his attempt to discover a reference to the river ordeal.  However, the meaning of the word, in best judgment, is not certain, but most likely meant that the central emphasis of v8 is on God’s role as creator in order to ground his reversing role in history

    Slipping (Deut 32.35), falling, Ps 56.14 or stumbling, Ps 116.8 feet are clear signs of defeat, a peril which God’s devout need not fear (consider Ps 31:24; 86:2; 97:10; Proverbs 2:8). The wicked are to be silenced by the darkness which is death. Death/Sheol is often used in parallel with darkness (Job 10.21–22; 15.22; 17.13). Both 1 Sam 2.9 and Ps 31.18 speak of the fate of the wicked, using the verb דמהn “silenced.” In the former case they have silenced in darkness; in the latter to Sheol the Hebrew equivalent to Hell. [2]


    Job Chapter 26 is again a poetic prayer.  

    God’s response of grief over the making of humanity, however, is not remorse in the sense of sorrow over a mistaken creation; our verse shows that God’s pain has its source in the perversion of human sin. The making of “man” is no error; it is what “man” has made of himself. By recurring reference to mankind (ʾādām) in 6.5–7, the passage focuses on the source of his grief. God is grieving because this sinful “man” is not the pristine mankind whom he has made to bear his image. The intensity of the pain is demonstrated by the use of nāḥamelsewhere in Genesis, where it describes mourning over the loss of a family member due to death. But his is not regret over destroying humanity; paradoxically, so foul has become mankind that it is the necessary step to salvage him.

    This “grief” is explicated by the parallel clause of the sentence, “and His “God’s” heart was filled with pain” (v6b). By allusion to the “pain” and “painful toil” in God’s pronouncement of punishment for the crimes of our first parents (Job 3:16–17; consider Job 5.29), God indicates that unbridled human sin has become his source of anguish. Yet this anguish does not reflect impotent remorse; it entails also God’s angry response at the injury inflicted by human rebellion. Our earlier verb nāḥammay also indicate the execution of God’s wrath to relieve his emotional pain. “Lament is always an integral part of the wrath of God.” In the only two other passages where the same verb, “pained” (ʿāṣab), is used of God’s feelings (Ps 78.40–41; Isa 63.10), both motifs of divine grief and anger represent his opposition against rebellious Israel in the desert when they “grieved his Holy Spirit” (Isa 63.10; consider, Eph 4.30). But we hear a mitigated mood in Hos 11:8–11; there the Lord refuses to execute his full wrath against his wayward son, Israel (cf. Deut 21.18–21). The reason is not human repentance; on the contrary, God’s repentance is because he is “not mankind” (Hos 11.9). The motivation for reversal is God’s constancy of promise and purpose, unlike capricious mankind (cf. Mal 3.6). Similarly, God’s anger is tempered by his favor toward Noah, the ark builder (Heb 11.7), who is the beneficent recipient of God’s promise to humanity.

    God is no robot. We know him as a personal, living God, not a static principle, who while having transcendent purposes to be sure also engages intimately with his creation. Our God is incomparably affected by, even pained by, the sinner’s rebellion. Acknowledging the plausibility (emotions) of God does not diminish the immutability of his promissory purposes. Rather, his feelings and actions toward men, such as judgment or forgiveness, are always inherently consistent with his essential person and just and gracious resolve (Jas 1.17). When we consider the metaphor of God as a feeling person who loves, is angry, and grieves, the aim of the figure is to point to a mitigated correspondence between human experience and God. This does not say that the emotions of humans and God are equivalent in their entirety either in intensity or in quality, for God does not grieve in the same way as men and women. Nor is he angry in the same fashion as sinful mortals, but to conclude that such language reveals nothing of God’s essential personhood makes all such language pointless. For what purpose is there in describing God in any terms understandable to us other than to reveal something of God’s mysterious nature? In Christ, we see God so moved by grief and love that he chooses to take upon himself the very suffering of our sins. Do we not appeal to the incarnational role of Christ as our vision of the nature of his Father (cf. Matt 23:37 par.)? God is not a dispassionate accountant overseeing the books of human endeavor; rather he makes a personal decision out of a sorrowful loss to judge Noah’s wicked generation. 

    Job 6.7 God’s second speech (“so the Lord said”) in this narrative epilogue makes explicit what is only intimated in the former utterance (v3). God’s new policy toward human life is the radical undoing of his creative acts in Genesis 1. The language of our verse is an allusion to 1.26–28, where mankind is created and given dominion over all living things. God declares his resolve to “wipe [out]” (māḥâ) his handiwork. Here “wipe out” is in sound play with the earlier “grieved” (nāḥam; 6.6). The word bears the sense of “removal” as in Moses’ offer that his name is erased from God’s ledger of life (Exod 32.32–33). Here it describes obliteration of all “man”—which means man and animal alike (consider 7.4, 23). The specific means is left unstated until God’s later directions for building Noah’s ark (6.14–17). [3]


    Again in Hebrews 1.10 is referring to God as the creator, using figurative language.

    Creator of the World

    “Through whom also He made the worlds” (v 2c). Continuing to present the Son as the Exalted, our author adds yet another characteristic, that of Creator. The creation passages in the epistle are v1.2b, v1.3b, v1.10, v2.20, v3.4–5, v4.4, and v11.1. They fall into three categories: (1) those that speak of the Son, (2) those that speak of the Word of God as the agent of creation, and those that speak of God as Creator.

    Those passages that speak of the Son as Creator or agent of creation are v1.2b and v1.10. Verse 1.2b sets the Son as the agent or cause of creation but does not answer the problem of Son’s identity or equality with the Father. Looking at that verse alone, one could argue that He was a middle power like Plato’s demiurges that were neither God nor creation but were the powers through which God created the earth and all things. Verse 1.10, however, unashamedly identifies the Son with the Lord: “You, Lord, in the beginning, laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.” No Jew could miss the point; the quotation is directly from Psalm 102.25–27, and no other than God Himself could be applied to that psalm.

    Those passages that deal with God as the Creator are v2.10, v3.4, v4.4, and v11.10. The phrase “by whom,” used in v1.2b in speaking of God as Creator, is used also in v2.10. Verse 4.4 openly states that God rested on the seventh day from all His works of creation just as v3.3 states that God is the Builder of all things. Then the author uses a striking word as though to make a bold comparison with Platonic philosophy, stating that not only is God the Builder (teknitēs) but also the Maker (dēmiourgos). That God should be the one in touch with the creation was appalling and repulsive to the Platonist. God could never touch the physical; that was the task of the dēmiourgoi—the middle powers—through whom the Platonists claimed the world was created. And here our writer boldly proposes that God is both designer-builder and the actual artificer. Such a claim flew into the face of popular Platonic philosophy. This is truly a Hebraic concept.

    The phrase “by whom also He made the worlds” stimulates us to ask, “Is this a Hellenistic thought similar to Plato’s?” Could the writer be presenting this “Son” as a being less than God, a dēmiourgos or middle power somewhere between God and His created world according to Plato’s system, which did not permit the realm of the eternal to be in contact with the realm of the concrete? What similarity is there between the logos of the Greek and the epistle’s Logos as an agent of creation, or is creation a function of God Himself through His Son?

    To consider these questions, it might be helpful to peruse the historical uses of the terms logos and rhēma in Greek writings as compared with our author’s use of them. Such a study indicates that our author’s thought-forms, in spite of similarities, are in sharp contrast or even confrontation with the established thought-forms of Plato or the emerging forms of Philo of Alexandria. Let us consider the references to logos and creation in the works of Heraclitus, Plato, and Philo.

    Heraclitus, a sixth-century philosopher, believed the cosmos to be in ceaseless change. This change was both progressive and regressive at the same time, surging forward as burning fire and falling back as when the fire dies out. All change, however, is under regulated control of the logos; thus the orderliness of the universe. Change must conform to fixed patterns according to logos, which subjects all change to the orderly law. Logos is eternal, intelligent, ultimate reality, but impersonal.

    The similarity between logos in Heraclitus and the Son in Hebrews is intriguing. However, the dissimilarities are important. First, the writer to the Hebrews does not use the term logos for the Son. Moreover, the epistle’s concept of creation is quite different from creation under logos, which controls change. The first works out of nothing, out of sheer primal and creative energy, “out of that which does not appear,” while the latter works with existing material. Whereas Heraclitus’s logos is impersonal—a force, or neuter entity—characteristics of the Creator in Hebrews are personality, involvement with the created order, and a capacity for feelings based on identification with His own people in an empathetic relationship.

    The use of logos by the philosopher Plato (427384 b.c.) is not so highly developed. One has the feeling in reading Crito or The Sophist that a kind of primitive speculation is emerging out of language in a dialogical method. As partners discuss, ideas are discovered rather spontaneously, while following simple logic; these ideas then become the building blocks of reality, a kind of mentalism— “so we think, so it exists.” The mental gymnastics of the dialogical method of Plato, based on common language with the resulting opinions and imagination, become the nature of things.

    Logos is the philosophical concept in which matter, nature, and being are brought into interrelation. The logos of the thinking soul and the logos of things have been in a preexistent harmony. The philosophically speculative and the impersonal nature of logos in Plato is in marked contrast to the Creator concept of Hebrews, which lacks the speculative and the language-based nature of existence but instead throbs with personal attributes.

    Philo (30 b.c.–a.d. 50) depicts a logos that comes closer to the Creator of Hebrews. Using the word some thirteen hundred times in his writing, Philo nevertheless vacillates in his meaning from “divine reason” to “epitome of divine wisdom.” His well-known attempt to unite Jewish religion and Greek philosophy resulted in his use of Greek terminology but refashioned with Hebraic texture, new and very different from the Greek development of the concept. Logos was not God Himself but a secondary ergon or work, a mediating figure that comes forth from God and establishes a link between the world and man, representing the world to God as a high priest or advocate, a personal Mediator. Philo’s distinctive term logos theou gives logos a characteristic unlike Plato’s speculative philosophy and brings it closer to the idea “Word of God” in the Christian usage. Still, Philo leaves his readers at the level of an “invisible divine reason, perceptible only to the intellect,” which presses its image upon all things. It is determinative but impersonal.

    Going from Philo to the Epistle to the Hebrews makes one acutely aware of a completely different atmosphere. Whereas Philo is philosophical and speculative, in Hebrews suddenly the revelational, God Himself, is present in the acts of creation. Consistent with other New Testament writers, our author is proclaiming Incarnation, God in the flesh, not Plato’s dualism or Philo’s “intelligible only to the intellect.” Out of the realm of ideas comes God’s personal manifestation in Christ—here the Christ of creation, and in a moment, the Christ of humanity.

    Our author appears to be pointedly staying clear of Platonic or Philonic terminology in explaining creation. Of the twelve times he uses the word logos, in nine he speaks of the gospel of the Old Testament or the apostolic message of Christ, in two he speaks of logos as accountability or responsibility, and in the last, he describes his epistle as a logos (word) of exhortation. Never does he use logos as the agent of creation.

    We look now at our author’s use of rhēma to approximate Plato’s or Philo’s logos. Of the four times he uses rhēma, in two he means the gospel (v6.5) or the revelation at Sinai (v12.19), once the sustaining power of the Son (v1.3), and once the agent of creating the world (v11.3) in that classic definition of faith. It appears that our writer is purposely shying away from the Hellenistic term and concepts that might identify the Creating Son with the intermediary powers of creation in Plato or Philo. The relation of our writer to the Hellenistic school indicates probable knowledge and familiarity with Hellenism but certainly not agreement or acceptance. The writer is thoroughly confident of his belief; assurance pervades his argument like a fragrance of ointment that cannot be hidden. [4]

    He moves on to show the nature of the relationship of the Son to God, describing Him as radiance, character, and sustaining power.

    While I have not examined every verse listed, I believe we see a pattern of Pillars of the Earth of then refers the foundation of the Earth in reference to creation itself.




    [1] Klein, R. W. (1998). 1 Samuel(Vol. 10, pp. 14–15). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

    [2] Klein, R. W. (1998). 1 Samuel(Vol. 10, p. 18). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

    [3] Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26(Vol. 1A, pp. 343–345). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

    [4] Evans, L. H., Jr, & Ogilvie, L. J. (1985). Hebrews (Vol. 33, pp. 48–51). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.






    BaconToesEmeryPearson
  • "Ok, so I want to list just one more. In the story of Noah and the flood, it states that there was a global flood. Where did the water go? There is not enough water in our hydrosphere to do this. The flood would also have to cover mountains and so there would need to be so much water."

    On just needs to read the Bible and pay attention to what is being said, the majority of the water was subterranean?  Note:   Gen 7:11:  In the six hundredth years of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.  Gen 8:2:  The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained
    EmeryPearson
  • @with_all_humility ;

    Once upon a time, people apparently lived to a ripe old age.

    What do you think the secret of their longevity was?


    Maybe it was all a fantasy tale.


    Thing is. 

    If it was a just a fantasy tale, there would be no need to worry about all the contradiction and scientific inaccuracy.
    anonymousdebaterEmeryPearson
  • @with_all_humility ;

    Once upon a time, people apparently lived to a ripe old age.

    What do you think the secret of their longevity was?


    Maybe it was all a fantasy tale.


    Thing is. 

    If it was a just a fantasy tale, there would be no need to worry about all the contradiction and scientific inaccuracy.
    Why sure, that's an easy way to dismiss something that you don't want to be true.  Many conspiracy theorists believe the Apollo lunar landing was made up and took place on a movie screen.  That JFK was not shot by Lee Oswald and the pyramids were built by aliens.  It's easy to dismiss whatever you want to not be true.  

    The burden of proving it to be true is equally as burdensome to prove it not true.  To write it off as a fairy tale.  By the way, there are Babylonia Tables that testify to people living the same amount of time, so the evidence is not just limited to Bible.


    EmeryPearson
  • @with_all_humility ;

    1) I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a realist.

    2) I know that  J.F.K. was shot and I know that the Pyramids were built.

    3) I'm pretty sure that the Moon landings weren't fake.

    4) And I'm pretty certain, that human beings do not live for 600 years.

    4) What the Babylonian Tablets represent is open to interpretation. They can represent what you want them to represent
    You certainly have no way of verifying the accuracy of an assumed interpretation.

    5) If the God theory turns out to be accurate, then that's all well and good. I have never dismissed the God Theory,
    but I am certainly not prepared to accept it with blind faith.

    6) As a realist, I feel no burden to prove anything. As far I am concerned the burden of proof sits firmly on the shoulders
    of those, who are prepared to blindly accept a theory that is clearly lacking realistic and verifiable evidence.
    EmeryPearson
  • pocopoco 39 Pts
    @Pogue
    Your 1st example re the pillars of being a literal set of some sort of support for the earth shows that either you believe all written word presented HAS to mean just as the words say, (I would have loved to seen the reaction of your English instructors when you had told them that "Animal Farm" by Orson Wells, was really about a bunch of disgruntled animals & the farmer they didn't like).  Either that, or you've had your head in the sand & haven't realized that even atheists do not use this argument any longer bc everyone accepts this is not to be taken literally. 

    Knowing you haven't investigated any of your claims yourself, I cannot take your argument seriously whatsoever.  Please, in the future, do yourself a favor & research material b4 claiming something showing your inexperience on this subject.  I just have to laugh that someone still hangs their hat on the 4 pillars thing as being literal ..... this is unbelievable.
    EmeryPearson
  • @with_all_humility ;

    1) I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a realist.

    2) I know that  J.F.K. was shot and I know that the Pyramids were built.

    3) I'm pretty sure that the Moon landings weren't fake.

    4) And I'm pretty certain, that human beings do not live for 600 years.

    4) What the Babylonian Tablets represent is open to interpretation. They can represent what you want them to represent
    You certainly have no way of verifying the accuracy of an assumed interpretation.

    5) If the God theory turns out to be accurate, then that's all well and good. I have never dismissed the God Theory,
    but I am certainly not prepared to accept it with blind faith.

    6) As a realist, I feel no burden to prove anything. As far I am concerned the burden of proof sits firmly on the shoulders
    of those, who are prepared to blindly accept a theory that is clearly lacking realistic and verifiable evidence.
    2) Pyramids were built...Yes, but by whom? 

    3) Pretty sure does not sound very solid.

    4) Not since Noah's flood they haven't ;)

    4) I can't read Babylonian...yes I would have to assume whoever interpreted them correctly or look for peer review of research. I can't read Egyptian Hyrogriphics either so do we have to assume the animal heads on people's bodies were a decoration or were they aliens from Star Gate SG-1

    5) "I have never dismissed the God Theory, but I am certainly not prepared to accept it with blind faith."  The according to the Bible God does not accept blind faith.  So we can all agree on that.

     6) I agree I don't feel the need to prove God exists if someone asks I'll share with them my thought.  If you look at most of my arguments they are spent correcting pretextual arguments and try to explain what the original author was trying to explain to the best of my ability. I don't feel a need to push religion on to people.  Either you accept it or not if you want to talk about it great if not that's fine too.  

    One has to realize not everyone is going to see the world as I do or you do...and that's a good thing.  It means we are not mear robots.  

    "who are prepared to blindly accept a theory that is clearly lacking realistic and verifiable evidence" I feel the same about a lot of scientific theory and just as you claim people follow God blindly. There are a lot of people who accept a scientific theory as a gospel and they do it without question.  We're still teaching it in schools as doctrine.  For example...people blindly drank that cool-aid for years and some still are.  Was the Haeckel's embryo debunk before you as realist believed it to be true?

    Earnst Haeckel's evolution embryo fraud


    Evolution fraud Haeckels drawings

    How about 

    Piltdown man, deliberate evolution fraud.

    Completley fabricated fraud showing the willingness of evolutionists to swollow anything that seems to support their pet theory

    Completely fabricated fraud showing the willingness of evolutionists to swallow anything that seems to support their pet theory.

    How many people blindly believed in this hoax?  There are many more and people believe them be true because it's published in a school book. 

    EmeryPearson
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch