Did you hear the one about the disappearing planet?

[IndigoChild5559]

The original rabbits and camels were probably different.

You have no evidence of this at all. It's simply a last ditch Hail Mary, trying to save the sacred texts from obvious error. Bunnies are in a totally different category from ruminants. They are lagomorphs. Lagomorphs don't chew their cud. Yes, life evolves, but it evolves into new things. You don't find life evolving from one group of species to cross over into another group. For example, cats will never evolve into dogs.

As far as camels go, if 4000 years ago camels walked on one toe (like a horse's hooves) we would have remains of these bones to document it. And we just don't.

No one says that ten men all had to be in each chariot at once!

Now, I'm not a big studier of war and battles, so Im out of my league. Someone who has this as their hobby can chime. But I'm of the impression that when you count chariots, you just count the chariots.

Look, think how easy it would be to accidently just add that one extra zero, just move the decimal point over one place, so to speak (obviously in the Hebrew, not Arabic, manner). Why are you more willing to accept these outrageous solutions, when we have such a sweet simple solution right there.

Looking at the battle that fits. The two forces were separated, and Israel came against each one. If Israel started losing on one front, the other Israeli army would help them, if they had won their battle. There was a hasty retreat.

11 And he said, If the Syrians be too strong for me, then thou shalt help me: but if the children of Ammon be too strong for thee, then I will come and help thee. 12 Be of good courage, and let us play the men for our people, and for the cities of our God: and the LORD do that which seemeth him good. 13 And Joab drew nigh, and the people that were with him, unto the battle against the Syrians: and they fled before him. 14 And when the children of Ammon saw that the Syrians were fled, then fled they also before Abishai, and entered into the city. So Joab returned from the children of Ammon, and came to Jerusalem. 15 And when the Syrians saw that they were smitten before Israel, they gathered themselves together. 16 And Hadarezer sent, and brought out the Syrians that were beyond the river: and they came to Helam; and Shobach the captain of the host of Hadarezer went before them.

There was the retreats on both fronts. Then they gathered together again. A lot of troops needed to be moved fast. Both in the retreats and the regathering. Those soldiers got killed soon after. Ha.

Sir, none of this make a bit of difference so far as the discrepancies are concerned. Two retreats don't excuse one text saying it was cavalry and the other text saying it was infantry.

 

[dad]

You have no evidence of this at all.

Of course I have evidence from Scripture animals will be different. Lions and other carnivores will eat grass again. Wolves and serpents and all creatures will be tame and sweet. This will be when God restores all things! We also have evidence from science that many adaptations and much evolving went on. So in no way could you claim that present-day animals would have to be identical to the created kinds.

Bunnies are in a totally different category from ruminants. They are lagomorphs.

Bunnies may not be the original kind. You see science tells us there used to be little cud-chewing hooved creatures...


"Hemihegetotherium trilobus, is a member of an extinct group called notoungulates, a term that means "southern hoofed mammals." The creature resembles a cross between a dog and a hare. It was about the size of a beagle, weighing between 20 and 25 pounds (9 and 11 kilograms), and probably looked something like a capybara, the largest modern-day rodent. Specimens of the creature's bones—including almost complete skulls and jaws and parts of the skeleton—have been in collections in various museums for more than 30 years. "Normally, you think of finding these in the field," said Darin A. Croft, an assistant professor of anatomy at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio. "But for this animal, no one who specialized on this group had taken a close look. No one had had the time or the expertise to look at the detailed anatomy." Croft found the bones in a sample drawer while visiting the museum during a 1999 paleontology conference in Bolivia. He noticed at the time that the molars had three lobes, whereas other notoungulates' teeth had only two, so he decided to study the remains further. "

Evolution - New discoveries of fossil mammals fill in the blanks

As far as camels go, if 4000 years ago camels walked on one toe (like a horse's hooves) we would have remains of these bones to document it. And we just don't.

Nope. Most animals and man did not leave remains in the former nature so we would not have remains.

Now, I'm not a big studier of war and battles, so Im out of my league. Someone who has this as their hobby can chime. But I'm of the impression that when you count chariots, you just count the chariots.

Normally...perhaps. In a crazy confused battle with dived forces being defeated and rapidly retreating, and then regathering, people would do what needed to be done.

Look, think how easy it would be to accidently just add that one extra zero, just move the decimal point over one place, so to speak (obviously in the Hebrew, not Arabic, manner). Why are you more willing to accept these outrageous solutions, when we have such a sweet simple solution right there.

No. Doubting God is not wise or healthy and does not lead to truth.

Sir, none of this make a bit of difference so far as the discrepancies are concerned. Two retreats don't excuse one text saying it was cavalry and the other text saying it was infantry.

Hey, if your boat sinks, regardless of whether it was a battleship, and you are rescued by a ferry, then you might get called a ferry passenger.

If ammonites were running for their lives and some of them jumped on some chariots, even overcrowding them to get a mile or two up the road, and a Syrian army did the same thing over on another front, hey, chariots would come in handy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course I have evidence from Scripture animals will be different. Lions and other carnivores will eat grass again. Wolves and serpents and all creatures will be tame and sweet. This will be when God restores all things! We also have evidence from science that many adaptations and much evolving went on. So in no way could you claim that present-day animals would have to be identical to the created kinds.

Bunnies may not be the original kind. You see science tells us there used to be little cud-chewing hooved creatures...


"Hemihegetotherium trilobus, is a member of an extinct group called notoungulates, a term that means "southern hoofed mammals." The creature resembles a cross between a dog and a hare. It was about the size of a beagle, weighing between 20 and 25 pounds (9 and 11 kilograms), and probably looked something like a capybara, the largest modern-day rodent. Specimens of the creature's bones—including almost complete skulls and jaws and parts of the skeleton—have been in collections in various museums for more than 30 years. "Normally, you think of finding these in the field," said Darin A. Croft, an assistant professor of anatomy at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio. "But for this animal, no one who specialized on this group had taken a close look. No one had had the time or the expertise to look at the detailed anatomy." Croft found the bones in a sample drawer while visiting the museum during a 1999 paleontology conference in Bolivia. He noticed at the time that the molars had three lobes, whereas other notoungulates' teeth had only two, so he decided to study the remains further. "

Evolution - New discoveries of fossil mammals fill in the blanks


Nope. Most animals and man did not leave remains in the former nature so we would not have remains.

Normally...perhaps. In a crazy confused battle with dived forces being defeated and rapidly retreating, and then regathering, people would do what needed to be done.


No. Doubting God is not wise or healthy and does not lead to truth.



Hey, if your boat sinks, regardless of whether it was a battleship, and you are rescued by a ferry, then you might get called a ferry passenger.

If ammonites were running for their lives and some of them jumped on some chariots, even overcrowding them to get a mile or two up the road, and a Syrian army did the same thing over on another front, hey, chariots would come in handy.

I the animals were ruminants, it would be a lie to call them rabbits. You see, either way you end up with there being an error.

And you misunderstand what I mean by evidence. I'm talking about empirical evidence, such as finding the skeleton of a camel that walked on a single toe. You can't just make something up and say "This is what it was" without any evidence. What you have done is to use the Bible as evidence, and that is the very issue we are debating -- the Bible is not a science book, nor are its transcribers magically free of making errors. You can't use a verse in a text that makes mistakes to prove that the text makes no mistakes. That is what is known as circular reasoning.

I just think this conversation is not constructive. It is a faith belief you have that the Bible is inerrant. Nothing I say, no matter how obvious, is going to kill a belief. It's because belief is not an idea, it's a passion. It digs in when it feels threatened. It doesn't look for errors to fix. Let's give it a rest. I wish you the very best.

 

[dad]

I the animals were ruminants, it would be a lie to call them rabbits. You see, either way you end up with there being an error.

False. You see the word translated as hare in the bible from Hebrew means this

"
hare

1. probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as "arnebeth"

"
UNKNOWN!! I already linked a source that shows an extinct animals 'hare' that does chew the cud and have cloven feet.

You cannot try to use the UNKNOWN for your baseless doubts and slurs against the bible.

And you misunderstand what I mean by evidence. I'm talking about empirical evidence, such as finding the skeleton of a camel that walked on a single toe.

To be clean in the bible that is not required. We do NOT KNOW how much the feet of camels changed. There is no reason to think that the original (and future) camel kind did not have the sort of feet Leviticus speaks about.

You can't just make something up and say "This is what it was" without any evidence.

Look in the mirror. That is exactly what you have done to try to cast doubt on the bible. You assume that what is not known would oppose Scripture. Then you call Scripture in error because of that!!! I have your number.

What you have done is to use the Bible as evidence, and that is the very issue we are debating -- the Bible is not a science book, nor are its transcribers magically free of making errors.

God's word IS evidence. It works and always has. In real test tubes of people. It worked in prophecy and bible prophecy is now mostly history!
That is evidence.

You can't use a verse in a text that makes mistakes to prove that the text makes no mistakes. That is what is known as circular reasoning.

You can't take an unknown, and use that to try and make your baseless doubts fact.

It doesn't look for errors to fix.

It doesn't invent errors based on shadows and the unknown that need to be fixed.

Both your examples were shown to be exactly that. (as all others would be also)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

False. You see the word translated as hare in the bible from Hebrew means this

"
hare

1. probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as "arnebeth"

"
UNKNOWN!! I already linked a source that shows an extinct animals 'hare' that does chew the cud and have cloven feet.

You cannot try to use the UNKNOWN for your baseless doubts and slurs against the bible.


To be clean in the bible that is not required. We do NOT KNOW how much the feet of camels changed. There is no reason to think that the original (and future) camel kind did not have the sort of feet Leviticus speaks about.

Look in the mirror. That is exactly what you have done to try to cast doubt on the bible. You assume that what is not known would oppose Scripture. Then you call Scripture in error because of that!!! I have your number.

God's word IS evidence. It works and always has. In real test tubes of people. It worked in prophecy and bible prophecy is now mostly history!
That is evidence.

You can't take an unknown, and use that to try and make your baseless doubts fact.

It doesn't invent errors based on shadows and the unknown that need to be fixed.

Both your examples were shown to be exactly that. (as all others would be also)

You have missed the forest for the trees. Technically rabbits and hares are somewhat different. So? That doesn't say anything about my point, which is that if it is a ruminant, you don't call it a rabbit or hare.

Religious texts are not scientific evidence. To a limited degree they are historical evidence, depending on what genre of the book, but even if the genre of history record, such as Chronicles, all such texts have errors.

Your belief in the innerrancy of the Bible is a FAITH based passion. I know I'm not going to make a dent in that with any evidence or reasoning, even the obvious stuff.

I think we've talked this out.

I wish you the very best.

 

[dad]

You have missed the forest for the trees. Technically rabbits and hares are somewhat different. So? That doesn't say anything about my point, which is that if it is a ruminant, you don't call it a rabbit or hare.

If the original kind was ruminant then God would allow it to be called that. Since the word is somewhat unknown in the bible as the link I gave points out, we will not use a scientific definition.
So we all can guess. You can guess it is wrong. I can guess that the created kinds both were and will be as Leviticus claims.
You cannot claim God is in error because of your preferred guesses on some obscure point that not known.

Religious texts are not scientific evidence.

Science texts are not scientific evidence. All so-called science dealing in the far past and origins issues is wholly beliefs based.

To a limited degree they are historical evidence, depending on what genre of the book, but even if the genre of history record, such as Chronicles, all such texts have errors.

Errors are assumed and read into the Scripture by people choosing to assume God must have been wrong at times.

Your belief in the innerrancy of the Bible is a FAITH based passion.

Your belief in the errancy of the Bible is a FAITH based passion

Cheers