-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Two arms with claws? A praying mantis is an insect, and to be classified as an insect, you need six legs. The mantis does have two forelegs to hold and catch prey and four posterior legs. So it's still six legs. Calling them arms or claws is factually inacurrate. They are legs. Also, many praying mantis species don't even have wings, but some do.
But I also like how somehow a praying mantis can resolve both the rabbit chewing cud issue and the Jesus and the mustard seed issue as well. As if by presenting this praying mantis example to me you are absolving the other two. And you keep on pointing to these other sources. If what they say properly excuses these contradictions, then please copy and paste the info into here so it can be discussed. If you don't feel like doing it, then that's your choice. But I think it's clear that nothing has been presented yet to properly excuse even just these three contradictions.
But I also like how somehow a praying mantis can resolve both the rabbit chewing cud issue and the Jesus and the mustard seed issue as well. As if by presenting this praying mantis example to me you are absolving the other two. And you keep on pointing to these other sources. If what they say properly excuses these contradictions, then please copy and paste the info into here so it can be discussed. If you don't feel like doing it, then that's your choice. But I think it's clear that nothing has been presented yet to properly excuse even just these three contradictions.
Last edited:
T
You're a stubborn one, aren't you? I wasn't trying to absolve anything. You're the one caught up in the little intricacies that aren't even important. I can't copy and paste the information, it's from a book that's under copyright laws. I'll post you the links to four of your questions though, since you seem to be too proud/lazy to look for yourself.
Bats not birds:
https://answersingenesis.org/birds/bats-of-a-feather/
Four-legged insects:
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/two-missing-legs/
Rabbits 'chewing cud':
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-rabbits-really-chew-the-cud/
Jesus and the mustard seed:
https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/jesus-is-god/seeds-of-dissent/
Bats not birds:
https://answersingenesis.org/birds/bats-of-a-feather/
Four-legged insects:
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/two-missing-legs/
Rabbits 'chewing cud':
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-rabbits-really-chew-the-cud/
Jesus and the mustard seed:
https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/jesus-is-god/seeds-of-dissent/
Last edited by a moderator:
Tintin, here is my issue altogether with just relying on explanations from websites. Those websites are unchallenged sources. Someone can say whatever they want and they won't be challenged there unless they have a unmoderated comment system in place or something of the like. This gives them free reign to post any strawman argument or unsatisfactory argument they want. Thank you though for posting the links this way. Posting an overall link and having to make your opponent search through and find your own sources actually points to laziness on your part. This link posting is much better.
With that being said, I'd have to say these defenses really leave something to be desired. It's as if the author was pulling at straws to find any possible explanation. As for the mustard seed. The bible says that Jesus said it was the "smallest of all seed." According to the link you sent, the only explanation they give, is that Jesus must have meant more contextually, that it was the smallest seed in the area or the smallest of a certain group of seeds. So what they are basically doing is adding to the Bible. They are adding on an assumed contextual specification that there is no evidence to believe in. This kind of defense is no defense at all. I can go to any quote in Scripture and say, "oh yeah, Jesus said this statement, but then he probably said something else afterwards to clarify it so that it fits my point of view. It just didn't happen to make it into the Bible." See how dumb that sounds? Without going on and on about what Jesus could have said to narrow the seed pool, all we can look at is what Jesus did say as recorded in Scripture. And from what is listed, we can say that Jesus was wrong in his assertion that the mustard seed is the smallest. He either didn't know, or if he knew, he spoke in a deceptive manner.
Also for the rabbit chewing the cud. It's only defense is that it is not unreasonable for people in ancient times to see a rabbit chewing and think he is chewing the cud. But remember. God is the one who said this. So God was mistaken? He was confused? He saw a rabbit chewing and thought he was chewing the cud? This explanation does not satisfy anything at all, but makes God out to be someone who doesn't even understand his own creations.
And as for the four-legged insects, the defense there is pretty much the same one you already gave. The Mantis' forelegs look like they are arms, so that's okay to call them arms. But remember, God is talking here. Is he confused about his own creation? Since dogs and cats use their forelegs to hold onto prey, do dogs and cats all of a sudden have two arms and two legs. If some middle aged man 4,000 years ago was writing this stuff, I'd give him a break here. But this is supposedly God speaking. It's a little concerning that he would make these mistakes.
With that being said, I'd have to say these defenses really leave something to be desired. It's as if the author was pulling at straws to find any possible explanation. As for the mustard seed. The bible says that Jesus said it was the "smallest of all seed." According to the link you sent, the only explanation they give, is that Jesus must have meant more contextually, that it was the smallest seed in the area or the smallest of a certain group of seeds. So what they are basically doing is adding to the Bible. They are adding on an assumed contextual specification that there is no evidence to believe in. This kind of defense is no defense at all. I can go to any quote in Scripture and say, "oh yeah, Jesus said this statement, but then he probably said something else afterwards to clarify it so that it fits my point of view. It just didn't happen to make it into the Bible." See how dumb that sounds? Without going on and on about what Jesus could have said to narrow the seed pool, all we can look at is what Jesus did say as recorded in Scripture. And from what is listed, we can say that Jesus was wrong in his assertion that the mustard seed is the smallest. He either didn't know, or if he knew, he spoke in a deceptive manner.
Also for the rabbit chewing the cud. It's only defense is that it is not unreasonable for people in ancient times to see a rabbit chewing and think he is chewing the cud. But remember. God is the one who said this. So God was mistaken? He was confused? He saw a rabbit chewing and thought he was chewing the cud? This explanation does not satisfy anything at all, but makes God out to be someone who doesn't even understand his own creations.
And as for the four-legged insects, the defense there is pretty much the same one you already gave. The Mantis' forelegs look like they are arms, so that's okay to call them arms. But remember, God is talking here. Is he confused about his own creation? Since dogs and cats use their forelegs to hold onto prey, do dogs and cats all of a sudden have two arms and two legs. If some middle aged man 4,000 years ago was writing this stuff, I'd give him a break here. But this is supposedly God speaking. It's a little concerning that he would make these mistakes.
Thanks for the video, a couple of thoughts:
(1) The platform they tested was far from stable; heck, as soon as waves hit it, the boat immediately moves into the most unstable position. I don't know how anyone would say that's an ideal ship design.
(2) There is nothing in Genesis that says anything about a keel or designing a bow as they designed. The boat in Genesis is just shaped like a rectangular cuboid. So while they may have made their ship off of a drawing of what someone imagined Noah's ark to look like, had they made it like the bible described, it would be even more unstable and more easily prone to capsize.
(3) The testers concluded that the ship would eventually capsize/sink due to leaking. That doesn't strike me as ideal either.
(4) There is nothing in the bible about weights from the boat to stabilize it. Besides, even if there were, hanging weights from a ship to change it's center of gravity may work, but it's not the most efficient or effective way to build a boat; so it's not ideal. And why exactly Noah would cut the weights is never really explained or questioned in the clip.
(1) The platform they tested was far from stable; heck, as soon as waves hit it, the boat immediately moves into the most unstable position. I don't know how anyone would say that's an ideal ship design.
(2) There is nothing in Genesis that says anything about a keel or designing a bow as they designed. The boat in Genesis is just shaped like a rectangular cuboid. So while they may have made their ship off of a drawing of what someone imagined Noah's ark to look like, had they made it like the bible described, it would be even more unstable and more easily prone to capsize.
(3) The testers concluded that the ship would eventually capsize/sink due to leaking. That doesn't strike me as ideal either.
(4) There is nothing in the bible about weights from the boat to stabilize it. Besides, even if there were, hanging weights from a ship to change it's center of gravity may work, but it's not the most efficient or effective way to build a boat; so it's not ideal. And why exactly Noah would cut the weights is never really explained or questioned in the clip.
Last edited:
Best Answer:All rabbits do it. if the do not eat them they will become very sick.....it's not actual poop, it's cecalsRabbits have a large cecum, which is a blind pouch located at the junction of the small intestine and the large intestine, where the digestible portions of the intestinal contents enter and are broken down by bacteria. Some nutrients are absorbed through the wall of the cecum, but most nutrients are locked up in the bacteria. The rabbit then produces bacteria-rich droppings called ecotropes, which are softer, stickier, greener and have a stronger odor than the regular waste droppings. These cecotropes are eaten directly from the anus as soon as they are produced. The cecotropes are then passed through the digestive tract of the rabbit and nutrients such as vitamins,amino acids and fatty acids are released from the bacteria and absorbed into the rabbit's body. In this way, rabbits are very efficient at producing their own vitamin, protein and fat supply from food that for some animals, such as ourselves, would be totally useless. This is why Rabbit manure is the only manure you can use direct form the animal without composting it first, and it wont hurt your plants by burning them with too much nitrogen.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080301130057AA1MHtI
Q: #215. What does "chew the cud" mean in Leviticus 11?
By: Steve Shirley
A: Animals that "chew the cud" are those that partially digest their food, and then regurgitate it from their first stomach (most have a four chambered stomach) and chew it. Animals that "chew the cud" (also called "ruminating" animals) are mentioned in (Lev 11:3-26) and (Deut 14:6-8). What does "chew the cud" mean?
Re-chewing the cud can also be poop, and which poop was once considered as food.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080301130057AA1MHtI
Q: #215. What does "chew the cud" mean in Leviticus 11?
By: Steve Shirley
A: Animals that "chew the cud" are those that partially digest their food, and then regurgitate it from their first stomach (most have a four chambered stomach) and chew it. Animals that "chew the cud" (also called "ruminating" animals) are mentioned in (Lev 11:3-26) and (Deut 14:6-8). What does "chew the cud" mean?
Re-chewing the cud can also be poop, and which poop was once considered as food.
Note what this defense does. It alters the definition of chewing the cud, then acts as if a rabbit obviously chews the cud by this new definition.
"Re-chewing the cud can also be poop, and which poop was once considered as food."
This is the altered definition. I did some brief research on the phrase and its definition both in scientific and historical dictionaries and nowhere is this mentioned as what chewing the cud is. Nor does the Bible mention that this is what it is. In fact, the Leviticus section mentions other ruminants that properly chew the cud but accidentally includes rabbits in this grouping. So what the apologist did here was little make up a definition for chewing the cud, apply it to the rabbit, and then act like the rabbit does chew the cud. But it doesn't. Rabbits don't chew the cud.
"Re-chewing the cud can also be poop, and which poop was once considered as food."
This is the altered definition. I did some brief research on the phrase and its definition both in scientific and historical dictionaries and nowhere is this mentioned as what chewing the cud is. Nor does the Bible mention that this is what it is. In fact, the Leviticus section mentions other ruminants that properly chew the cud but accidentally includes rabbits in this grouping. So what the apologist did here was little make up a definition for chewing the cud, apply it to the rabbit, and then act like the rabbit does chew the cud. But it doesn't. Rabbits don't chew the cud.
Lot's of things.
That's why we don't take the bible literal, especially when it discusses teaching metaphors aka parables. They are myths that teach truths, they are not meant to be science. They are meant to be our religious truth told in story version.
The fact the Bible is scientifically inaccurate, shouldn't affect anyone's faith.
Nothing in Science invalidates a Christian religious worldview.
It certainly invalidates Right Wing political beliefs though. (incidentally being a right wing conservative is NOT a requirement for salvation or truth either).
G
David, nothing in the Bible should be inaccurate because then you are calling God a liar. If you serve a perfect God His word will also be perfect. We think there are errors in the Bible but when we look at it in close detail we can see that the word of God is perfect and accurate in every way. You can take the Bible literally because that is the undisputed Word of God my friend. If we don't understand the Bible we just need to study it a bit harder and ask God to reveal himself in His word as part of the truth.
A
Romans [SUP]1:20[/SUP]For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
In Creation, we find God's attributes. But also, by our own observations through the lens of cause and effect, we find evidence of an old earth. I am not trying to say that the Genesis account of Creation is inaccurate. I am only saying that I believe God sometimes gets his point across in the Bible by what isn't actually said. Could it be that Creation was 6 twenty-four hour periods inside a period of billions of years? With God actually placing man here around 80,000 years ago?
Salvation is of course the center of the story and I trust in Christ for the forgiveness of my sins. I just feel that God takes joy in our discovery of things with the Bible as our starting point.
In Creation, we find God's attributes. But also, by our own observations through the lens of cause and effect, we find evidence of an old earth. I am not trying to say that the Genesis account of Creation is inaccurate. I am only saying that I believe God sometimes gets his point across in the Bible by what isn't actually said. Could it be that Creation was 6 twenty-four hour periods inside a period of billions of years? With God actually placing man here around 80,000 years ago?
Salvation is of course the center of the story and I trust in Christ for the forgiveness of my sins. I just feel that God takes joy in our discovery of things with the Bible as our starting point.
A
Remember how skewed the interpretation of Mosaic Law had become due to the Pharisees and their "adding the traditions of their fathers?" Job is the oldest book in the Bible, meaning it was written before Genesis and the whole Pentatuch (first five books). Those first five and the rest of the Old Testament didn't begin their journey from spoken word onto paper until the Jewish captivity in Babylon. So man, being imperfect, took these God inspired stories from their ancestors and transcribed them in their capacity with all truth. The "errors" such as improper classification of animals only became errors when mankind began the framework for modern day science. The classification for non-human but living things was probably more like: trees, bushes,grass, water animals, water-land animals, land animals, sky animals and bugs. The general structure of the food chain was also likely more important that a properly categorized menu at the time.
Thanks Awoken for that response. For those of us who understand that the Bible, especially the early New Testament has man-made errors, these small scientific and historical inaccuracies are of little to no consequences. However, for those who believe that there are absolutely no inaccuracies at all in Scripture, they have to come up with outlandish responses for these contradictions. I don't condemn people for standing firm on their ideologies with just cause, but to do so blindly, casting aside any reason or evidence just to hold firm to that ideology, that is as sad a sight as any.