The Bible verse does not say they have four feet.
False! Did you even open up your bible and take a look at Lev. 11:23?
Lev. 11:23 states: "'But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you."
You want me to give you the actual Hebrew? Okay.
I'm sure this is not good enough for you. To play off of your signature a bit, For those who don't believe that Lev. 11:23 says "FOUR-FOOTED", "no proof is possible"
It makes the scientific distinction and describes how they walk on all fours, with the additional criteria of legs used for jumping. This clearly indicates 6 feet. 2 pair of walking legs, thus 4 feet, + legs used for jumping equals 6 feet in total.
Soooo......Lev. 11:23 does not say grasshoppers have four feet and now you say, "this clearly indicates 6 feet". Do you see the contradiction here??? You would make a great New Testament author.
I feel like Nam's avatar right now. So the bible says "four-footed" and you say "six-footed". In this case, you are right and your god is wrong.
ParkingPlaces has a go at seeing objective sense, even with the Atheist handicap, when he admits I have pointed out the facts correctly from the Bible and proclaims that the Bible is right "that one time" (see his post 403). What a victory for common sense! I would add to that and say, that even if one person has the sense to admit the facts, this debate is over.. its getting boring pointing out the same facts to those who do not seek answers, but obstacles.
I could be immature and invite ParkingPlaces into this conversation but I won't. If YOU want to - fine. However, if I did, this would be my question to him:
ParkingPlaces, SwordofGod made the claim, "A grasshopper walks on its front four legs and the back legs are specialized for leaping -- they aren't generally used for walking" (post 376). Do you agree or disagree with this claim? I'm sure he would disagree since he posted a youtube video of a grasshopper running. If he would agree with this ridiculous claim of yours then I would be ridiculing him just as much as I'm ridiculing you. Actually, I would ridicule him a bit more because he posted a video that goes directly against this ridiculous claim of yours.
When one obstacle is removed, they put the same recently removed obstacle back in its place. Why? Because the real objection is not the verse, but the Voice of God and His Eternal and Blessed Living Reality.. EVEN when science backs it up.
Okay okay, maybe I'm looking at this all wrong. I am going to open my bible up and meditate on this entire chapter in Leviticus. Context is everything right? I want to see if I am really objecting to "the Voice of God and His Eternal and Blessed Living Reality". I mean, the bible doesn't seem scientific to me but that could be just a presupposition I have.
I'm going to turn off my R rated movie from Satan and put down my pork chops. I have that nutty Seventh-Day Adventist pastor Doug Batchelor blasting on my radio and I am going to get rid of that distraction as well. I'm listening to him because I am amazed to find other people just as passionate as yourself who believe the same crazy teachings of the bible to be true.
Anyway, let's see if science can really back up some of the things said in this chapter of Leviticus which was written by this alleged omniscient and omnipotent creator of all living things. I have asked Satan to take my pork chops and leave the room. Now it's quite and I'm starting with verse 1 in Lev. 11 and.......................
Well Sword, I only made it to verse 5 of this chapter and the spirit of truth (a.k.a science) showed me that I should test what I am reading to the reality of the world that I live in. Why does the bible say that rock badgers (v.5) and rabbits (v.6) "chew cud"???
Well, I'll be fair and I will seek a response from a Christian source. Maybe I'm understanding this all wrong. I'll play fair with you and I will look up what "CARM" says about this since I know you must like this source since you have used their material on this thread.
"CARM" states, "The solution is that these animals were categorized with other animals who appeared to chew cud because they move their jaws in the same manner as the other animals listed."
NOW THAT'S FUNNY!!! Here were my facial expressions while reading this:
I never thought Christian apologetics could be so entertaining.
No, it may be true that you may not want to look like a thief by "not stealing" material from another author, but stealing the good reputation of other human beings to make yourself look innocent, and to self exalt your own name above other names, is rather like the character of Satan, the master of deception and the self exalted. This is not the character of God, but of fallen man and the Devil, the real thief and Father of Lies. (John 8:44).
Are you implying that you have a good reputation here. I don't think so. You were caught plagiarizing and you gave me a negative darwin for no good reason. Your reason: "Ha ha ha ha... I just had to do it because you had 0 there".
I would have to say that the evidence I see in the bible points to YOUR GOD being the "master of deception". I mean, he gives his chosen people "statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live" (Ezekiel 20:25). What a deceptive deity!
The defects highlighted the perfection of Jesus, the perfect High Priest without defect. These physical examples of disabilities are pictures of the spiritual. We must learn to read the Bible with the spiritual in mind, as well as for the obvious physical teachings. Therefore we pray "Help us grow up ever more to be in your image, to look and be like you (spiritually).” without fault. Thats why Jesus died on the cross, so that all with default, may approach a Holy and loving God who Himself is without default. In this sense, default means sin, and that's how the Jewish disciples understood it. See verse below for proof.
This is classic Sword! Thanks for the link. Christian apologetics is comical entertainment. I love how you say, "We must learn to read the Bible with the spiritual in mind" and then you give me a source that says, "None of these (defected people) could serve in the tabernacle or temple. Let’s examine some POSSIBLE (spiritual) reasons why". Parenthesis mine for clarification.
Did you catch the speculative key word? When you start spiritualizing the bible then interpretations become subjective. Any interpretation is POSSIBLE when you spiritualize scripture. And shouldn't we take an objective approach to the bible Sword???
When Christians start spiritualizing the bible, who's interpretation is right? Which parts of the bible are to be interpreted literally and which parts are supposed to be interpreted spiritually? Why would god include in his holy book verses that make him look intolerant towards people with defects and expect fallible humans to interpret this part spiritually?
What you are doing here Sword is creating god in your own image. You are spiritualizing this passage because you can't think of your god to be intolerant of people with defects. I can understand.
All men and women are not created equal according to the god of your bible. He is intolerant of people with defects. Your god is "THE MASTER OF DECEPTION" if he says he is loving and at the same time he creates individuals with defects and then makes a provision that degrades these individuals with defects.
First of all, Jesus is the All-Knowing, Eternal Son of God.
Why start with "First of all"? If you want to pose like you know anything about the scientific method you should never start with a conclusion first. You should look at the evidence first before you make a false conclusion like, "Jesus is the All-Knowing, Eternal Son of God".
First you want to look at all the evidence in the bible that points to Jesus not being "All-Knowing" (Mark 5:30, 13:32, Rev. 1:1, Acts 1:7 just to name a few).
Then you want to look at all the evidence in the bible that points to Jesus not being "Eternal" (John 3:16, 16:24, Col. 1:15 just to name a few). In addition the term Son implies that Jesus was a descendant which contradicts the claim of him being eternal.
Then you have to ask yourself, "is this conclusion of mine correct based on ALL the evidence in the bible?..........Could I have been brainwashed"?
Because of sin, man is permitted to be born with defects. This was mans choice, not Gods.
Facial expressions once again:
You do know this is not biblical don't you? This is false because I was born with a physical defect and I had no choice in the matter.
Wait a second, are you saying I might have had a choice in utero and I chose to have this physical defect that I bear?
And "because of sin, man is permitted to be born with defects"??? I don't think so my friend. Your god is responsible for creating people with defects because you know, "for by Him all things were created" (1 Col. 1:16).
If you will blame God for creating defects, then you must logically credit Him for creating the earth and every other living thing in it that displays beauty and greatness.
Hey Sword, do you think your god is responsible for natural disasters or is it because of sin, that natural disasters are permitted to disturb this "beautiful" earth. Are you going to say the same thing as with the defects: "This was mans choice, not Gods."
I don't think too many people would choose the option of having the earth hammered with natural disasters if they were given the CHOICE.
I invite true seekers of the truth to study and see for themselves if what I say is true. I respect the views of those who disagree, I do not come here to lie, but to tell the truth. Truth is not relative. Truth is absolute. 1+1=2 and it always will.
If you believe in the Trinity then you must think that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 is absolute truth.