Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 17 by Justin108]

Truth doesn't contradict truth; scientific truth is simply the correct understanding of the physical world. The bible is a book of truth and so by definition it won't contradict what is true. If therefore the bible touches on science (which it does rarely, but it does on occassion) but one interpretation contradicts what we know to be true about the physical world and the other doesn't, its not rocket science to know which interpretation is correct.

Logic,

JW

- Everything in the Bible is true
- If you find something in the Bible that is not true, it must mean that you interpreted it wrong
- How do we know you interpreted it wrong and that the Bible is not simply mistaken? Because everything in the Bible is true

[alexxcJRO]

I have not personally seen any examples of biblical texts which contradict the truth.

Here:

11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning"the third day.
(Genesis 1:11-13)

20 And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky. 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth. 23 And there was evening, and there was morning"the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind. And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:20-25)

535 Ma Major diversification of living things in the oceans: chordates, arthropods (e.g. trilobites, crustaceans), echinoderms, molluscs, brachiopods, foraminifers and radiolarians, etc.
530 Ma The first known footprints on land date to 530 Ma, indicating that early animal explorations may have predated the development of terrestrial plants.[50]
525 Ma Earliest graptolites
510 Ma First cephalopods (nautiloids) and chitons
505 Ma Fossilization of the Burgess Shale
485 Ma First vertebrates with true bones (jawless fishes)
450 Ma First complete conodonts and echinoids appear
440 Ma First agnathan fishes: Heterostraci, Galeaspida, and Pituriaspida
434 Ma The first primitive plants move onto land,[51] having evolved from green algae living along the edges of lakes.[52] They are accompanied by fungi[citation needed], which may have aided the colonization of land through symbiosis.
420 Ma Earliest ray-finned fishes, trigonotarbid arachnids, and land scorpions[53]

Seed ferns were the first seed plants, protecting their reproductive parts in structures called cupules.
Seed ferns gave rise to the gymnosperms during the Paleozoic Era, about 390 million years ago.
Gymnosperms include the gingkoes and conifers and inhabit many ecosystems, such as the taiga and the alpine forests, because they are well adapted for cold weather.
True seed plants became more numerous and diverse during the Carboniferous period around 319 million years ago; an explosion that appears to be due to a whole genome duplication event

Angiosperms evolved during the late Cretaceous Period, about 125-100 million years ago.
Angiosperms have developed flowers and fruit as ways to attract pollinators and protect their seeds, respectively.
In botany, a fruit is the seed-bearing structure in flowering plants (also known as angiosperms) formed from the ovary after flowering.
The ancestors of flowering plants diverged from gymnosperms in the Triassic Period, during the range 245 to 202 million years ago (mya), and the first flowering plants are known from 160 mya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant
https://www.boundless.com/biology/textb ... /seed-plan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... ry_of_life
https://www.boundless.com/biology/textb ... /seed-plan...


In the Genesis we have plants with flowers and fruits been created before animals.

Science shows animals were in the seas and land long before there were any flower and fruit bearing plants.

C :Therefore Genesis contradicts science. Therefore we have biblical texts which contradicts the truth.


Further analysis:
Genesis 1:11-13 New Living Translation (NLT)
11 Then God said, Let the land sprout with vegetation"every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came. And that is what happened. 12 The land produced vegetation"all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.

Genesis 1:11-13 English Standard Version (ESV)

11 And God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[a] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth. And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
Genesis 1:11-13 King James Version (KJV)

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Genesis 1:11-13 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
11 And God saith, Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so.
12 And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good;
13 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third.

Genesis 1:11-13 English Standard Version (ESV)

11 And God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[a] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth. And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.




The land produced vegetation"all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind.

12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit,

12 And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself)

12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-12.htm

- - wat-t-w-


wat-t-w- " 3 Occurrences
Genesis 1:12
HEB: - " "
NAS: The earth brought forth vegetation,
KJV: And the earth brought forth grass,
INT: brought the earth vegetation

Ruth 2:18
HEB: " - - ""
NAS: she had gleaned. She also took [it] out and gave
KJV: what she had gleaned: and she brought forth, and gave
INT: what had gleaned took and gave what

Jeremiah 32:21
HEB: - -
NAS: You brought Your people Israel
KJV: And hast brought forth thy people
INT: brought your people Israel

Hebrew:

From .

Verb, reverse imperfect, 3rd person, sing., fem.: (Strong 3318)

brought forth
was brought forth (HOPAL)
delivered (HOPAL)

Verb, imperfect, 2nd person, sing., masc.: (Strong 3318)

brought forth
was brought forth (HOPAL)
delivered (HOPAL)

"https://withoutvowels.org/wiki/Hebrew:"

In the second part, things are different.
The text clearly says that it already happened(past tense). The vegetation/grass/ plants, specifically plants with seeds(Gymnosperms) and plants with fruits (Angiosperms) already grew before the period third day was finished.

[Clownboat]

Got it.
So we should read the Bible like we do any other book, even children's books.

I cannot say that I disagree with you.

Yes, a childrens book. Or a novel. Or an instruction manual for building a grill.

Then your thinking is wrong.
You see, we can read an instruction manual for building a grill and all come to the same conclusion. This is impossible with the Bible, therefore your comparison is not apt.

Or, at least in this aspect, every other thing we ever read.

Again, un-true. See a manual for a toaster, and then compare that to how thoughts from Christians about heaven/hell or the trinity cannot garner agreement. Nobody would read the manual for a toaster and come out thinking that they are actually describing a microwave.

In everything we read we tend to give the author the benefit of the doubt that the text makes sense, unless we it is impossible to do so. Then we must decide if either the text or our pre-existing worldview is inaccurate.

Are you not aware that you are talking about a text that has talking animals, an impossible flood tale, walking on water and creating food out of thin air to name a few? These things are not things that happen on our planet, therefore they do not match either of our world views. Sorry.

I do not read Egyptian or Greek mythologies and give the author the benefit of the doubt. Credibility should be earned, not assumed. Thank you for a likely explanation as to why you are a Christian though.

Specifying only childrens books, as if to suggest that the Bible is somehow a childish book, is itself an immature suggestions.

The Bible, like children's books has talking animals. Call me immature if you cannot argue against what I say, but the shoe still fits whether you want to see it or not.
Perhaps if you call me names next, that will help your argument?

But whatever you do, don't show how the Bible can be read and then agreed upon because that would destroy my point and I could no longer read it like a children's story.

[ttruscott]

As long as you claim that it's open to interpretation, no one would ever be able to call you out on the flaws in your text.

What is not open to interpretation? Math?

x = 2 squared.
What is X?

[Justin108]

As long as you claim that it's open to interpretation, no one would ever be able to call you out on the flaws in your text.

What is not open to interpretation? Math?

x = 2 squared.
What is X?

There's a difference between something having some room for interpretation, and something being so open to interpretation that it results in more than 30 000 denominations, despite them using the same text.

If someone said "I hate spinach", there isn't much room for interpretation, is there? Now compare that statement to God saying "let there be light". I have heard "let there be light" to mean anything from the Big Bang to Jesus' birth to the light of heaven to God's own light. You can take that one sentence and make it mean a thousand different things.

Do you suggest that simply because all things have a certain degree of interpretation that suddenly all things are equal in interpretability? Do you deny the fact that the Bible is more open to interpretation than most books claiming to be factual? Than most history books? Than most science books? Or is "Japan attacked Pearl Harbor" as open to interpretation as "God made the stars on day 4"? If tomorrow we find out that Pearl Harbor was an inside job, would we be able to go back to the history books and claim "oh but that was just a metaphor"? Or would we have to admit that the history books were simply wrong?

[Justin108]

Carry on

Gee, thanks for your permission

You are most welcome. Did I make myself clear or was there anything you wanted me to clarifiy in the above post #36?

JW


Post #36
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 510#881510]

I see you edited your post. No, I have no more questions regarding post 36, only post 14. But as you will no doubt continue ignoring it, I guess we are done here. When someone asks questions you cannot answer, you can either ignore them or admit that you cannot answer them. Naturally, you would not admit it so your only option is to ignore it.

[JehovahsWitness]

Carry on

Gee, thanks for your permission

You are most welcome. Did I make myself clear or was there anything you wanted me to clarifiy in the above post #36?

JW


Post #36
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 510#881510]

I see you edited your post. No, I have no more questions regarding post 36 [...].

Good. Well then my work here is done.

Have a most excellent day,

JW

[dio9]

The Bible is mostly the chronicle of a people and a moral challenge to that history. I interpret that little tribe to represent all of us. Even-though the behavior of so called civilized people hasn't changed The moral challenge remains valid . Do you find the fundamental challenge to love God and your neighbor as yourself unbelievable? or the challenge to care for the poor and the sick? how about not to kill steal from covet lie to and honor parents? There are no civilized people who can disallow these values.
Even wars are fought and atrisities committed these values though unadhered to remain valid.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 46 by dio9]

You know you're right, people who follow that book are always on one end or the other of genocides and other horrors, in the name of God.

Usually the followers say that this is mens' fault, but face it:

If God isn't responsible for free will, he is definitely responsible for government and the will of the masses...

If not, just what is he responsible for?
If nothing, who needs him?

[dio9]

[Replying to post 47 by Willum]

Through all the wars and rumors of wars the eternal unchanging imperative remains do the right thing, and that might even be to fight if the cause is just. Who decides what is just? I'd say just is in compliance with these eternal values. Where do they come from ? who knows only this we have them .

[Willum]

[Replying to post 48 by dio9]

I am saying, since the wills of individuals are abrogated under these conditions, it is most certainly the responsibility of God.

I am saying we do know, not 'who knows'; what are the counter-arguments?