Questions and assumptions of Christianity

Getting to know more about a specific belief

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Flyfishforyou
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 11:26 pm

Questions and assumptions of Christianity

Post #1

Post by Flyfishforyou »

Hello. I was curious as to why we have tail bones (present time ). Under Christianity, the belief is that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. Did they have tails? Wouldn't it make sense that since we have tail bones, so did our ancestors? That is unless god had humor, and decided to just add a bone to our body which is not functional (that is if Adam and Eve did not have a tail). And if Adam and Eve had tails, wouldn't it be due to evolution as to why we no longer have a full grown, functional tails? I would assume even religious people would agree that evolution occurs within plants and animals, even if they believe that evolution did not occur to humans. We see evolution happen to animals and plants all around us.

Also, why is there a void of dinosaurs in the bible? Animals were mentioned, but not dinosaurs. Since we know these majestic creatures roamed the earth well before man kind, would it mean that God created them, the dinosaurs before us? (If you believe that God also made dinosaurs)
Maybe, we just never thought of them until we had the tools to dig and accidently stumbled upon them much later on. But even so, I would think that God would have mentioned the dinosaurs.

Also, how come in Genesis, it saids that on the first day, there were lights but goes on describing that the sun and the moon was not made until the fourth day? What was the light source on the first day? I asked this to different Secor of Christianity groups, and most did not know. One group claimed that the light source on the first day were from the heavens. But to that I must ask, 'what happened to the lights of heaven in present time'? Did it disappear once god made the sun and the moon on the 4th day?

Also, can anyone enlighten me why we kept making revisions and different translations of the bible? Sure, we can say that we made different versions for language difference purposes... but why is it that there are vast difference of how we perceive the word of God between different versions of bible, to which we ended up going to war, killing others for? Wouldnt the gods word be concrete? Why said we change it to our perspective? King James version of the bible wasn't even translated from King James. It just saids King James because in his time, the scholars needed his approval to put out the version of the bible. Why? Why is it that the man kind had the audacity to change the meaning when we place god to such high degree?

What happened to the bible when the Catholics took it? Where did the parts that they took out to create their version of the bible end up? Why would they even dare to wipe out contents of the scripture when they believe it comes from God that they worship?

How come certain christians only heed to the 10 commandments when apparently, there were more?

How come the bible never mentions about the white people?

There are soo many questions to be asked. Overall, I am puzzled by how things ended up when we still praise god as our savior. I apologies if I asked too much questions. And also, please be aware that I am not as well versed in the bible as many of you are. I would like to give thanks ahead of time, for I hope you would not see my questions to be offensive. Hope to hear back. Thank you again.[/i]

User avatar
Ancient of Years
Guru
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:30 am
Location: In the forests of the night

Re: Questions and assumptions of Christianity

Post #2

Post by Ancient of Years »

Flyfishforyou wrote: What happened to the bible when the Catholics took it? Where did the parts that they took out to create their version of the bible end up? Why would they even dare to wipe out contents of the scripture when they believe it comes from God that they worship?
Interesting observations. O:)

But I am confused about the above point. What do you mean? What parts did Catholics take out?

BTW the Catholic Bible contains books not in the Protestant Bible. Luther put them in a separate section. Later versions of the Bible dropped them altogether.

Just asking for clarification, not debating.
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

William Blake

puddleglum
Sage
Posts: 685
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Questions and assumptions of Christianity

Post #3

Post by puddleglum »

Flyfishforyou wrote: Hello. I was curious as to why we have tail bones (present time ). Under Christianity, the belief is that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. Did they have tails? Wouldn't it make sense that since we have tail bones, so did our ancestors? That is unless god had humor, and decided to just add a bone to our body which is not functional (that is if Adam and Eve did not have a tail). And if Adam and Eve had tails, wouldn't it be due to evolution as to why we no longer have a full grown, functional tails? I would assume even religious people would agree that evolution occurs within plants and animals, even if they believe that evolution did not occur to humans. We see evolution happen to animals and plants all around us.
Here is an explanation of the purpose of the tailbone.
The tailbone or coccyx has often been presumed to be vestigial and a leftover remnant to our alleged mammal and reptilian ancestors who also had tails. Evidence that is cited includes the variable number of bony segments humans can have (usually 4 but can be 3 or 5) as well as “babies born with tails.� But these so called tails are not really tails at all and instead are a type of fatty tumor. There are not bones or muscles in them at all, and thus, it cannot truly be considered a vestigial organ.5

Spinney acknowledges that the coccyx now has a “modified function, notably as an anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place.� In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body ... al-organs/

We see evolution but what kind is it? This will answer your question:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm
Also, why is there a void of dinosaurs in the bible? Animals were mentioned, but not dinosaurs. Since we know these majestic creatures roamed the earth well before man kind, would it mean that God created them, the dinosaurs before us? (If you believe that God also made dinosaurs)
Maybe, we just never thought of them until we had the tools to dig and accidently stumbled upon them much later on. But even so, I would think that God would have mentioned the dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... -dinosaur/
Also, how come in Genesis, it saids that on the first day, there were lights but goes on describing that the sun and the moon was not made until the fourth day? What was the light source on the first day? I asked this to different Secor of Christianity groups, and most did not know. One group claimed that the light source on the first day were from the heavens. But to that I must ask, 'what happened to the lights of heaven in present time'? Did it disappear once god made the sun and the moon on the 4th day?
On the fourth day God placed lights in the sky. The Bible doesn't say he created the bodies that produced the lights at that time. It is possible that he did but it is also possible that the sources of the light already existed and the light was blocked from reaching the earth.

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/ ... -universe/
Also, can anyone enlighten me why we kept making revisions and different translations of the bible? Sure, we can say that we made different versions for language difference purposes... but why is it that there are vast difference of how we perceive the word of God between different versions of bible, to which we ended up going to war, killing others for? Wouldnt the gods word be concrete? Why said we change it to our perspective? King James version of the bible wasn't even translated from King James. It just saids King James because in his time, the scholars needed his approval to put out the version of the bible. Why? Why is it that the man kind had the audacity to change the meaning when we place god to such high degree?
Perhaps this will explain it:

https://carm.org/which-bible-version-is-best

If you compare different translations you will find that there is no difference in what they teach. Different translators simply use different ways of expressing it.
What happened to the bible when the Catholics took it? Where did the parts that they took out to create their version of the bible end up? Why would they even dare to wipe out contents of the scripture when they believe it comes from God that they worship?
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. In the 2nd century BC it was translated into Greek and new books were added to the Greek translation. The Catholic church accepts these additions as being part of the inspired word. Jesus accepted the Hebrew Bible as inspired but never quoted from or referred to these extra books so Protestants only include the book written in Hebrew in their Bibles.
How come certain christians only heed to the 10 commandments when apparently, there were more?
The ten commandments were the primary commandments.
How come the bible never mentions about the white people?
What do you mean?
There are soo many questions to be asked. Overall, I am puzzled by how things ended up when we still praise god as our savior. I apologies if I asked too much questions. And also, please be aware that I am not as well versed in the bible as many of you are. I would like to give thanks ahead of time, for I hope you would not see my questions to be offensive. Hope to hear back. Thank you again.
I am glad you are interested enough to ask questions. When you post questions on this forum it would be easier to answer more completely if you don't ask so many in a single post. It might have been better if you had made a separate post for each or your questions.

Here are some sites that might help you find the answers to your questions:

http://www.backtothebible.org/

http://ariel.org/amds.htm

http://carm.org/

http://christiananswers.net/

http://gotquestions.org/
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8960
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 55 times
Contact:

Re: Questions and assumptions of Christianity

Post #4

Post by OnceConvinced »

Flyfishforyou wrote: Hello. I was curious as to why we have tail bones (present time ). Under Christianity, the belief is that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. Did they have tails? Wouldn't it make sense that since we have tail bones, so did our ancestors? That is unless god had humor, and decided to just add a bone to our body which is not functional (that is if Adam and Eve did not have a tail). And if Adam and Eve had tails, wouldn't it be due to evolution as to why we no longer have a full grown, functional tails? I would assume even religious people would agree that evolution occurs within plants and animals, even if they believe that evolution did not occur to humans. We see evolution happen to animals and plants all around us.
Snakes must have also had legs. The talking snake in the bible had to have legs, because God later cursed the snake to crawl around on its belly. If it was already crawling around on its belly, then it wouldn't have been a curse. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that snakes had legs.
Flyfishforyou wrote: Also, why is there a void of dinosaurs in the bible? Animals were mentioned, but not dinosaurs. Since we know these majestic creatures roamed the earth well before man kind, would it mean that God created them, the dinosaurs before us? (If you believe that God also made dinosaurs)
Maybe, we just never thought of them until we had the tools to dig and accidently stumbled upon them much later on. But even so, I would think that God would have mentioned the dinosaurs.
The bible does talk about dinosaur like monsters which seem to be more like mythological monsters than anything. If there were dinosaurs then the Ark would have been able to contain them, but that's just another can of worms right there.
Flyfishforyou wrote: Also, can anyone enlighten me why we kept making revisions and different translations of the bible?
They have to keep making new ones to cover up the blatant errors and absurdities. If something embarrassing or just plain wrong is exposed, the words have to be retranslated to cover it up.
Flyfishforyou wrote: Wouldnt the gods word be concrete?
You'd think so. And you'd think God would make sure there was an accurate copy for all languages.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World of Fantasy

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5566
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #5

Post by tam »

Also, how come in Genesis, it saids that on the first day, there were lights but goes on describing that the sun and the moon was not made until the fourth day? What was the light source on the first day? I asked this to different Secor of Christianity groups, and most did not know. One group claimed that the light source on the first day were from the heavens. But to that I must ask, 'what happened to the lights of heaven in present time'? Did it disappear once god made the sun and the moon on the 4th day?

The light on the first day is Christ.


Christ is the light of the world. The light of men. Also the Life.

In the [beginning] God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."

John 8:12:

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."


There are a plethora of verses that explain that Christ is the Light, hence also the Life, and that those who walk in Him walk in light. But that those not in Him walk in darkness.

Also, can anyone enlighten me why we kept making revisions and different translations of the bible? Sure, we can say that we made different versions for language difference purposes... but why is it that there are vast difference of how we perceive the word of God between different versions of bible, to which we ended up going to war, killing others for? Wouldnt the gods word be concrete? Why said we change it to our perspective? King James version of the bible wasn't even translated from King James. It just saids King James because in his time, the scholars needed his approval to put out the version of the bible. Why? Why is it that the man kind had the audacity to change the meaning when we place god to such high degree?
God's word is 'concrete' (true), but the bible is not the Word of God. CHRIST is the Word of God. Even the bible 'says' that. Because the bible is a witness, or actually many witnesses, to Christ. But Christ is the witness and Truth and Word... of God. We (those who follow and belong to Christ) are supposed to be listening to Him.

The bible can tell us about Christ, point TO Christ... but it is not itself Christ.

The finger pointing to the moon, is not the moon.

(a thank you for the person who said that first, on another forum, and it stuck with me because it is so perfect)

As for why men continue to revise... I am guessing that some are trying to be accurate, and we change the meanings of words as we go along, so the bible might have to be updated to reflect that too. And sometimes - unfortunately to the confusion and misleading of many people - some revise the bible to bring it into harmony with their own interpretations.

How come certain christians only heed to the 10 commandments when apparently, there were more?
Christians (should) listen to and obey Christ. Whatever He taught (and teaches) in word and deed.



Hope those help.

Peace to you Flyfishforyou,
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Mr.Badham
Sage
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:33 am

Re: Questions and assumptions of Christianity

Post #6

Post by Mr.Badham »

[Replying to Flyfishforyou]

All of your questions are valid and deserve answering. However the bible is a metaphor. It is not to be taken literally, or rather, should not be taken seriously. It's like Buddhism, a joke. Take whatever you can from it and discard the rest.

None of your questions would make sense if it was understood that the bible was fictional. For instance, if you asked those questions about Harry Potter, the answer would be, "Its a movie, don't worry about it." But because it's the "BIBLE", and you're not ALLOWED to make fun of it, people overlook, or dismiss, or tell you to overlook, or tell you to dismiss all the mistakes you see.

You are obviously an intelligent person. You've seen the bible for what it is. A metaphor. That's fine and good. It has many good lessons and stories....... but so what? So does Disney!!!!

If you're a religious person, that's fine. My suggestion would be to give up the church.

Post Reply