ATTN: FudoMyoo

Oh FudoMyoo I am Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo glad you brought this thread up! On the "Evolution, the rebuttal..." thread you insinuated that I did not resolve your supposed contradictions and actually had the gall to say that I was avoiding "questions that he can't handle"!

You, thankfully, brought the thread back up by saying:

"There is an old thread here, that I made on Bible contradictions. If you want you can check it out and see if your approach is different then the Christians that tried to resolve the problems on that thread."


And I went back and saw this post when someone asked where I was:

"I hope not. But he for sure avoids questions that he can't handle. I have seen that behavior from him on sooo many threads now, so now I believe that this open-minded intellectual approach is just an image. I'm disappointed and have given up on discussing with him."

I checked over the thread and only found this unanswered post...

"Ok here I am, I'm sorry for the delay in the discussion.


I have read your explanations and I have some further questions if you don't mind Tulkas. Let's start with this:


In Genesis 11:26 you can read that "After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran."


However you say that "Abraham was not born for another 60 years."


I wonder if you have any Bible verse to back that statement up, or do you simply assume that by yourself?


I mean anyone can make up ad-hoc theories in absurdum just to avoid a contradiction."


You have got to be kidding me... This is the tuff question that I am cowering in fear over? I want to say so much but I won't. I will just help you to see what you seem ill equipped to understand.


Genesis 11:26 says that Terah lived 70 years and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran, so unless you know that these three were triplets, you can't successfully argue that Terah was 70 when Abram was born. Although Abram is listed first, it would be possible that he was not the first of Terah sons. I argue that Terah was 70 when his first son was born and that this was, say, Haran; then some time later, Nahor was born, and at still a later date, Abram was born.

The fact that Abram was listed first would not necessarily mean that he was the eldest son, because sons weren't always listed in the order of their birth. We can see this in the case of Noah's sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. They are consistently listed in this order (Gen. 5:32; 6:10; 8:18), yet Genesis 9:24 identifies Ham as the "youngest son" of Noah. So an inerrantist could argue that just because Abram was listed first in Genesis 11:26 cannot be seen as proof that he was actually the firstborn son of Terah. Just as Genesis 5:32 does not teach that Noah was 500 when Shem was born, Genesis 11:26 does not teach that Abraham was born when Terah was 70. This verse basically means that Terah began having children at age 70, not that all three children were born at that age.

According to other passages, Terah was 130 when Abraham was born. Those who allege these passages contradict Genesis 11:26 simply are misunderstanding the text.

Oh and btw, you need to learn some manners son.

Oh and here is the link so everyone can see me running scared!

http://www.mma.tv/TUF/UpdateMyThreads.cfm?TID=257302&FID=71&MYid=6073041&v=677

"thread you insinuated that I did not resolve your supposed contradictions and actually had the gall to say that I was avoiding "questions that he can't handle"! "

Well, it´s not my fault that you abonded the thread. What was I supposed to believe?

Thanks for your explenation though, your knowledge of biblepassages is really impressive. However that doesn´t change the fact that what I was asking for wasn´t explicitly written in the Bible. Thus, your suggestion to solve the problem is ad-hoc and quite far-fetced to say the least.

I´m not interested in how you *could* argue, I asked for written passage that explicitly solves this problem.

If it satisfies you, great. It doesn´t do it for me.


"Oh and btw, you need to learn some manners son. "

LOL, you are still the same pompous and self-important Tulkas. Take a deep breath and relax a bit, will ya´.

"[Y]our suggestion to solve the problem is ad-hoc and quite far-fetched" Please demonstrate how this explanation is 'for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application' (ad hoc; Merriam-Webster) and how it is 'unlikely to be true or to occur; and unlikely to be real or true'.

I asked once: "Do you understand what constitutes a genuine contradiction? I ask this not to be a jerk. I only ask because it seems that if you are reading these and trying to reconcile them yourself and can't then maybe the problem is not your reading comprehension maybe it is you not understanding the term contradiction."

And I repeat:
"A difference is not a contradiction. Just because two texts differ in the way they relate the facts does not mean that there is no possibility of reconciliation.
A contradiction is a statement that is necessarily false. It is the simultaneous assertion of a statement and its negation and as such it is a violation of the 'Law of non-contradiction.'

For there to be a genuine contradiction, the statements must be referring to the *same thing * in the *same sense* at the *same time*. Again that's all three at once: The same thing *and* in the same sense *and* at the same time.

If it cannot be shown that these three things are all the same, then one cannot honestly say there is a contradiction. It's never justifiable to assume a contradiction until every possible means of reconciliation has been employed."

Again, I hope that helps.

Also: "[Y]ou are still the same pompous and self-important Tulkas." You shouldn't talk about Tulkas that way; he really is a nice guy! (Sorry, but you just rub me the wrong way with the whole 'Tulka§' dodges tuff questions' thing. I have been more open and intellectually honest then most and it really irks me that you would even say such a thing!)

-Tulka§

P.S.: I left not because your questions where "difficult" but because you where obviously not even trying.

Your definitions of what constitutes a contradiction, just serves to make your belief bullet-proof before-hand. There is nothing that I or no-one can point to that you will *ever* admit is a contradiction with your standards. You will always just say that one of those criteria isn´t fullfilled (and who decides that? You of course.. LOL how conveniant!)




"Sorry, but you just rub me the wrong way with the whole 'Tulka§' dodges tuff questions' thing."

Ok that´s fine, I also apologize for that assumption I made about you (since you just disappeared for many months I didn´t know what to believe). I stand corrected.

Again, thanks for your efforts.