Something to think about if you claim to be christian

^ Sad to say, alot of ppl are like that. I don't even bother w/them anymore. it is a waste.
 
So , I can hear some saying, "Yes but I repent after I sin." Maybe so.
But if you claim to be my friend and do me wrong, how long will I call you friend when I see you don't even care when you stab me in the back just because you know I may let it slide?
How long before I see you are anything but my friend? How long before I see it isn't mistakes you are making but just the way you are and you could care less about our friendship?





I FEEL YA.

:gives:

















...j/k
 
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

RABBITS DONT CHEW CUD

Here is what I found on this Cruci:

In modern English, animals that ?chew the cud? are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ?chew the cud? simply means ?raising up what has been swallowed?. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ?raise up what has been swallowed?. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It is not an error of Scripture that ?chewing the cud? now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses? day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ?chew the cud? in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.

God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
 
Here is what I found on this Cruci:

In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.

God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp

Interesting. However that is only one verse of many absurd ones that I posted.

I would love to see explanation of the "foul that walketh on all four" or how Joesph had two different fathers.
 
I would love to see explanation of the "foul that walketh on all four" or how Joesph had two different fathers.

Can you quote the scripture for this one bro? I can't find it in the other post you made.

So far about Joseph having two fathers I found the following. Heli is Joseph's father in law, as in Mary's father.
 
I would suggest to any Christian or person interested in it, to read a book called 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis. He begins by trying to disprove Christianity because he is an athiest. He brings up many interesting points..and looks at religion through non denominational, rational eyes to prove his points. He actually used to be an athiest, but in the process of trying to disprove Christianity was converted into a Christian. Its worth the time definately.

Cool bro, I'll take a look at it.
 
Can you quote the scripture for this one bro? I can't find it in the other post you made.

So far about Joseph having two fathers I found the following. Heli is Joseph's father in law, as in Mary's father.

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

THERE IS NO WAY TO SEE ALL THE KINGDOMS FROM ANY MOUNTAIN. IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

WHICH ONES WERE HIS LAST WORDS, THEY BOTH COULDNT BE IT.

God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

WHICH ONE IS IT?

(Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

NOTHING SAYS "LOVING GOD" MORE THAN BABIES GETTING BUTCHERED.

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

DID GOD TEMPT OR NOT, IT CAN'T BE BOTH

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

WAIT, HOW OLD WAS HE?

Luke 3:23 says "He was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"

Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."


HOW DID JOESPH HAVE TWO FATHERS?
 
Jesus was
assumed to be the son of Joseph, but he was really the "son of Heli,..."

Thats not what the bible says, I am looking at it right now. Luke 23 makes no mention of adoptions at all, it doesn't even hint in that direction.

This is all one big assumption, there is no proof he was adopted at all, I am looking at the verse now and it does not even hint at that. It sounds to me like you are trying to make sense of a blatant mistake. Sorry, you lose this round, but I will give you an A for effort. Feel free to make sense of the four legged bird mentioned in Lev 11:20-21:

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

There is no such thing as a bird that walks on all four. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Feel free to make sense of the four legged bird mentioned in Lev 11:20-21:

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

There is no such thing as a bird that walks on all four. Sorry.

Dragons ........... they are throughout the bible and the term "dinosaur" is not even 100 years old.
 
Here is another one to prove that I am right.

Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree."

Mustard is A: Not the smallest of all seeds, orchids for example are much smaller.

And B: MUSTARD ISN'T GROWN ON TREES. Mustard seeds grow from regular plants, not trees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_plant
 
Dragons ........... they are throughout the bible and the term "dinosaur" is not even 100 years old.

There are no such things as dragons. What the hell are you talking about?

If you are one of those people that believe against all scientific evidence that dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago, and please don't take this personal, but there is no way to have an intelligent conversation with you and we should stop right now.

People that believe that dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago do so with no proof. They will make up bullshit in order to maintain their beliefs, scared of what is real. It makes the "The bible is inerrant and perfect" argument seem much more absurd. If some teacher told my child that dinosaurs lived in the time of Abraham, I would have them fired for being a dumb fuck unqualified to teach.
 
Last edited:
Dragons ........... they are throughout the bible and the term "dinosaur" is not even 100 years old.

And even if there were dragons, this said fowl, which is a bird, not a lizard. So that argument doesn't have any legitimacy anyways.
 
If you are one of those people that believe against all scientific evidence that dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago, and please don't take this personal, but there is no way to have an intelligent conversation with you and we should stop right now.

OK then ............... ALL conversations are over.

Have a nice day .......
 
Which part do you have a hard time understanding? The fact that they followed a woman's heritage?


Since the custom was of using male genealogies only, then how could an ancestral line of Jesus be shown through Mary?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that GOD left a convenient loophole in this law that would allow women to be included in the ancestral line if they met two stringent conditions...

1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So now, all we have to show is that:
1. The father of Mary had no sons.
2. Mary married within her own tribe of Judah. Gen 49:8-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.



http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/geneal.htm
 
which translation are you pulling these from cruci?

King James

Luke 3 23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Matthew 1 16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

There are many ways to try to make up explanations for this, but in reality there is only one reason. A typographical error. These books were both written at different times from different men, and one of them made a factual error.
 
The thing that irritates me the most is WHY do people think that if there is one misprint or error then the whole thing is wrong? The bible was put together by King James over a 1000 years after the books were written, and king James was by no means a Saint. HE decided what went in the bible, NOT God. Notice how the Catholics have more books than you? King James took them out. So who is right? Then of course Orthodox Christians have more books than the Catholics in their bible. Who is right? After all, there are three versions of the Bible, and they can't all be right. Come on bro, some discrepancies don't take away from the general meaning of the book, but you can't say that the bible is not without errors, that is just not true.
 
Last edited:

Trending

Back
Top