Answering Bible Contradictions: Part 7

Back to answering acclaimed Bible contradictions! Contradictions are in bold, my answers are in regular type.

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; (various trapsing)

You have assumed that the account of Jesus' baptism in John is in the present tense, as it is in Mark, when it is not.

1. John 1:19 sets the context. The things which are present are John the baptist's testimony explaining who he is (John 1:19-25), and of the One who is among them who is greater than he (John 1:26-27).

2. John 1:28 describes the location where this conversation happened, and where John was baptizing.

3. In John 1:29, on "...the next day...", John sees Jesus and expressly says that He is "...the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." John says He is the One that he was speaking about on the previous day, from John 1:30.

4. In John 1:31-33, John tells how Jesus was revealed to him (and to Israel). It was by His baptism. Notice, John's words don't inevitably imply that Jesus had been baptized on that particular day. He makes no mention of when he had baptized Him at all.

5. In John 1:34, having seen, John testifies that Jesus "...is the Son of God."

6. In John 1:35-36, on "...the next day...", John again points to Jesus, directing his own disciples to the Lord.

You're deriving a contradiction by inferring something in which the scripture doesn't.

Since John 1:35 talks about John seeing Jesus the day after he spoke of baptizing him, and further in the context Jesus is going to a wedding in Cana, and not the wilderness, it should be understood that John is speaking of Jesus' baptism at least 40 days after the fact.

I might see a guy, and point out to someone, "That woman is a Christian! I baptized her into Christ!" Does this necessarily imply that she was baptized that same day? Of course not! Neither do John's words reveal anything about the time of Jesus' baptism.

How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?
1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)
MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

There were eleven men who filled the position of apostles between the time of Jesus resurrection and ascension.

The event Paul refers to in I Corinthians 15:5, is either that which is recorded in John 20:19 (at which there were only 10 present) or John 20:26 (which only 11 were at).

Is Paul wrong when he speaks of the "twelve" apostles? The use of the word "twelve" took on more meaning with these chosen disciples of the Lord than simply a number. Any reference to the "twelve" would automatically be understood as the apostles of Christ. Whether all were present or not, the use of the term is not out of line. Jesus, speaking to these men said,

"...Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

--Matthew 19:28

Jesus knew that one was a betrayer, and that one of those present would not sit on a throne, and yet He referred to "twelve." Why? The reference to the "twelve" was more than an counting of heads, it was in reference to the seat of authority which would be given to the apostles, as judges over the twelve tribes of Israel (spiritually).

Judging1 Cor 3:15 " The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)
1 Cor 4:5 " Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

First of all, I think you mean I Corinthians 2:15, not 3. But, I still really don't see where the contradiction is. "Judges" or "judged" in most translations is rendered as meaning, "discerned." Paul emphasizes difference between the spiritual man, and the natural man.

The natural man can't know the things of God because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man is able to discern all things revealed by God.

The words "...he himself is rightly judged by no one", would seem that the apostle is saying that the natural man cannot understand the spiritual man. Those who have lived and served before the Lord for any length of time, and dealt often with those outside Christ know this to be true.

When I Corinthians 4:5 is put into its context, Paul mentions his stewardship before the Lord, and about the judgment of the Corinthians, a human court, or even himself on his stewardship. He warns the Corinthians against making severe judgments, which is especially needed in consideration to emotion and character. He identifies the Lord as being the judge upon whom we wait, who will compose the final judgment.

Good deeds
Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

You are confusing two separate issues. In Matthew 5:16, Jesus encourages his followers to live a good life so that their works will draw people's attention to God. However, Christians are not to blow a trumpet before themselves to draw attention to their "goodness" (Matthew 6:3-4).

One scripture deals with making sure you do good deeds, another deals with how you do them.

For or against?
MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.(default is for)
LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.(default is for)

There is no in-between; it is black and white; you are a child of God, or a child of Satan; bound for heaven, or bound for hell.

If you consider yourself indifferent or undecided towards the perfect Son of God who died for you, then you are against Him. You can change from one camp to the other, but you can not hide in-between the two.

Whom did they see at the tomb?
MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

God change?
malachi 3:6
james 1:171
samuel 15:29
jonah 3:10
genesis 6:6

1. Are you saying that Luke's reference to men is contradictory to the "angels," simply because he describes them having white, but yet, in another passage, shining garments? Please. The fact that they are "in shining garments" should indicate that these men were angels, just as if they were in white garments. The reference that they are "men" does not contradict, but only describes them in a different way.

The same writing occurs in Genesis 19:1, when "...two angels..." came to Lot in Sodom. However, when the men of the city came to Lot's house, they asked, "Where are the men who came to you tonight?" (19:5). There are all kinds of scriptures that do this, simply because the angel has probably appeared in a form that men can understand: a man.

The fact that Matthew mentions only one angel, while both Luke and John mention two, is completely foolish to say to be a contradiction, when Matthew probably just never included that detail. It isn't a contradiction, just something left out. There were probably two angels. It's also possible that Mary saw one angel, and then afterward, two. So what? As I said before, what's the purpose for all four gospels if they are all written exactly alike? It is folly to say this is necessary.

2. About God "changing," God never changes. He only changes as we change, but this doesn't mean He changes His mind either. He would have known about our actions already, and being prepared to do He would when that time came, in our realm of time. God is not in time either. We're the ones stuck in time.

Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)
MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

zechariah 11:11-13
(nothing in Jeremiah remotely like)

It looks like it references the quote in Ezekiel. Back then, the priests read the scriptures on scrolls; there was no Bible. Many of the books of the Bible today were compiled into one book, like the first five books of the Bible now being the Torah then. The Psalms were actually three separate sections in the scrolls. Possibly, this example applied with the three books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel. Thus, were compiled together at that time and called "Jeremy." There is no contradiction.

Who's sepulchers
acts 7:16
genesis 23:17,18

Even if a contradiction could be shown here, it would prove nothing against inspiration, for Stephen was not one of the inspired writers. Luke only records what Stephen said. But of course, there is no contradiction here.

The two Scriptures do not refer to the same thing. The sepulchre mentioned in Genesis was in Hebron. The one mentioned by Stephen was in Sychem. This makes it clear that Abraham bought two sepulchres. If you look at the account of the one at Hebron, he purchased the field surrounding the sepulchre; but, in the case of the one at Sychem, no mention is made of the buying of the surrounding field. These are obviously two different fields.

Just to make things interesting, the other "contradiction" is that Genesis 33:19 states that Jacob bought the sepulchre at Sychem. But no such thing is stated in Genesis 33:19. Genesis 33:19 simply states that Jacob bought the field in the area of Sychem; and, since the bones of Joseph were buried in this field, it probably was in this field that Abraham's second sepulchre stood. This also appears from the fact that Abraham’s second sepulchre and the field purchased by Jacob formerly belonged to the same owners. So in this last case we simply have Abraham buying a sepulchre, while later Jacob buys the field in which the sepulchre stood.

Creation in the Public Schools? What the Courts Say...

In the landmark ruling of 1963, the Supreme Court stated, "It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historical qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may be effected consistently with the First Amendment."(1)

The Supreme Court said, "The Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like."(2) [emphasis added]

The 8th Circut Court found that allowing public school observances which include religious elements promotes the secular purpose of, "...advancing the student's knowledge and appreciation of the role that our religious heritage has played in the social, cultural and historical development of civilization."(3)

In 1987 the Supreme Court said, "Teachers already possess" the flexibility to present "a variety of scientific theories of humankind" ... and are "free to teach any and all facets on this subject." [emphasis added]

They further said, "Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of mankind to school children might be done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."(4)

After the 1987 court case when Louisiana had passed a law requiring creation to be taught, and the court struck that law down, Stephen Gould (who hates creationists, but still knows how his own belief is faulty) said, "No statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before, and it can be taught now."(5)

The court simply said that creation cannot be required to be taught, they didn't say you couldn't teach it. That was it!

The California State Schoolboard today says, "Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth and of life are appropriate to the science curriculum."(6)

Creationism has always been able to be taught in public schools in the science classroom! But down throught the years, the ACLU has learned that they only need to threaten a suit for the school to stop teaching creationism. They know they will lose the lawsuit, but it doesn't matter. The average principal who is threatened tells the average teacher to stop teaching creation or he/she will lose her job.

Now here the teachers have a problem. The Supreme Court says they can, the State Supreme Court says they can, the Circut Court says they can, even the California State Board of Education says you can, but their boss says you can't. This is what's breaking down the schools: gutless principals that won't stand up to the ACLU, and say, "Sue me!"

References:

(1)School District of Abington; Township vs. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225, (1963)

(2)Stone v. Graham, 449, U.S. 39, 42 (1980)

(3)Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, 619 F.2d 1311, 1314 (8th Cir, 1980)

(4)Edwards vs. Augiliard, 482 U.S. 96 (1987) p. 8-9

(5)Stephen Jay Gould, The Verdict of Creationism, New York Times; July 19, 1987, p. 34

(6)California State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences

Vestigals?

Another lie used by evolutionists. In the 1960s over 200 "vestigals" were put into textbooks as evidence for evolution, including the thyroid gland (used for secreting hormones which regulate the body's metabolism) and the pituitary gland (a primary gland, located just under the brain which is used for secreting a large variety of hormones, and is at times called "the master gland"). Today, all of those same parts in the body are classified as having very important functions.

The coccyx is a bone commonly cited as "vestigal" by evolutionists even today! It is sometimes called the "tail" bone. But this is the part where you and I laugh. The "tail" bone on a human is not a tail bone at all! It is a special bone that has many muscles attached to it. If such a bone were not there, you would not be able to sit down. This bone supports the bodily structure to let a person sit upright. Other muscles on the bone allow a person to pass out solid wastes. I'm sure glad I've got it. I wonder why the evolutionists think the coccyx is vestigal...

The appendix is also considered "vestigal" by some evolutionists today as well. In reality, the appendix is used to fight off very dangerous diseases. Because it becomes swollen with infection for so much of the diseases it has fought, it is at times removed because it might explode at some point because of too much pressure put upon it while doing normal activities that involve running, swimming, etc. Sure, you could live without it, but you'll be more susceptible to diseases than before.

The tonsils play a similar part as the appendix does. And, for the same reason is removed. The tonsils are used to keep bad bacteria from going into certain parts of the body, because when breathing, the person sucks bacteria in the air. That's where the tonsils come in. You could live without it, but you're most likely to get sick more often.

On snakes, a set of bones on the underside of its body is often called "vestigal" by many evolutionists. They are said to have been legs at one point, and slowly, they lost the need for them as they became snakes. But this is also false. These "legs" are not legs. A few species, such as boas and pythons, have these bones which are similar to the pelvis. Only a few snakes have these bones externally which are often referred to as "spurs." These structures are used in reproduction, they are not vestigal.

Although this one isn't used anymore by evolutionists for the "vestigals" category, in the 60s, they thought the pineal gland, which is located in the center of the brain, was useless since they did not understand why it was there. We know now that the pineal gland regulates the body's waking and sleeping cycles by secreting the hormone "melatonin."

They still use the "gill slits" belief in textbooks today, which says that, in the baby embryo, little "gill slits" form, and they are vestigal. You'll understand if you see any picture of what I'm talking about. Ernst Haeckel's drawings of "gill slits" in human embryos was debunked about 130 years ago, and yet it is still used as evidence. These "gill slits" have nothing at all to do with the resperatory system (breathing). Rather, these devolop into parts of the face, neck, and other important glands. Haeckel was convicted of fraud by his own university in 1875. Proved wrong in 1875.

They'll say, "They've evolved into doing that now, but before they were gill slits. Natural selection right there. The body just adapted."

Ok, let me translate: "Long ago and far, far away in another mysterious land, the glands of the ear and the bones in the throat used to be used for breathing, boys and girls. Now, they've adapted and, even now, we see the stages taking place inside when you're a little fish embryo." And what does that spell? B-u-l-l-s-*-*-t. Oh yeah, long ago this happened, they say, and we can't see it happening today. Sure, I can believe that. Some evolutionists would agree with me saying, "This isn't taught anymore in the textbooks of this university," or something like, "We'll take it out of the next edition." Well GOOD! After 130 years it's about time! Unfortunately, the following highschool and college textbooks still use it:

BSCS Biology: An Ecological Approach, 9th Edition, 2002 Edition
BSCS Biology: A Human Approach, 2nd Edition, 2003 Edition
Prentice Hall Biology, Texas Edition, 2004 Edition
Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life, 1st Edition, 2004 Edition
Biology: 8th Edition, 2004 Edition
Biology: The Dynamics of Life, Texas Edition, 2004 Edition
Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 10th Edition, 2004 Edition
Homework Helper's Biology, 2004 Edition
Cliff's AP Biology: 2nd Edition, 2004 Edition
Kaplan AP Biology, 2004 Edition

Of course, there are many books from the year 2000 and other 90s dates that use it, but posting the most recent dates already implies that the writers are either ignorant, or liars. I compiled this list back in the year 2005 and haven't researched since. No telling how many textbooks are still using it, college textbooks especially.

Evolutionists simply do not want to admit they are wrong, and would rather lie than tell the truth, as history of the evolution cause clearly shows. All of the above examples (besides the pineal gland, pituitary gland, thyroid gland, and not counting the "gill slits") you can live without. But this does not mean you don't need them. Many evolutionists say that if you can live without it, it's vestigal. Well I've got an answer for those people: You can live without both your arms and legs; are they vestigal? Just because you can live without 'em, doesn't mean you don't need 'em!

The Grand Canyon

The Grand Canyon is another regarded "evidence" for evolution, because of "erosion marks," even though there are none found. The entire canyon was obviously once mud, according to geologists who really study the patterns on the rock. Over a few years it hardened and became solid rock. The evolutionists also regard the layers as each representing one year. This is simply not so. I'll explain how the Grand Canyon is actually better evidence for creation than evolution.

1. The supposed strata found in the Grand Canyon is a very interesting subject to ponder. What they don't tell you is that there are only five of the twelve major strata systems in the Grand Canyon. Totally missing are the second, third, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth. How strange...

2. Evolutionists explain the Colorado river cutting through about 8,000 feet of solid rock, with the help of wind and other natural processes. The problem here, is that they say it only took "a few million years" to cut through, even though the actual rock itself took 500 million years to lay down. The strata shows absolutely no evidence of any erosion whatsoever. Evolutionists are liars on the topic of the Grand Canyon.

3. If the Colorado had carved the Grand Canyon out of solid rock, we would find huge tumbled boulders in and alongside of the stream bed. This is what a river does if it carves. But this is not found.

4. The Colorado River lies at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, and yet it is a typical winding river: the type found in fairly flat terrain. Winding rivers don't cut deeply, it is the straighter, steeper rivers with swiftly rushing water, which deeply erode soil and hurl loose rocks along its side downstream.

5. The river starts in the canyon at a lower elevation then the highest point of the canyon. In order for that little river to carve out such a big canyon the water would have to run up hill for millions of years. Water does not run uphill for millions, and millions, and millions of years.

The probable reasons for these things in the Grand Canyon is that the Colorado River must have drained an huge area in Utah and eastern Nevada during the global Flood. A lake covered that entire area, and an uplift caused the water to rather suddenly drain out. When you look at it it even looks like a former lake.

Shortly after the flood, while volcanism was at its height and the strata was still soft, the ground heaved upward over a vast area, which emptied Lake Bonneville. The water drained toward the southwest, forming Grand Canyon. The Great Salt Lake in Utah is all that remains of the ancient lake.

If you ever visit the area, you will see the former shoreline of the lake, high on the surrounding mountains. Why is this found?

Answering Bible Contradictions: Part 6

Back to Bible contradiction answers! As before, acclaimed contradictions are in bold and answers are in regular type.

Who bought potter's field
ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

In Acts, Luke indicates that Judas purchased the field, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is only difference in perspective, not contradiction.

The chief priests conducted the transaction for the field. However, it was neither with their money, nor would they have claimed the money. In Matthew 27:6, the evil nature of this money is talked about. They would not allow it to be included in the treasury, and certainly did not take possession of it for themselves. It had to be disposed of somehow. Thus, they purchased the field with it. Was it their field? No, for it was not their money that purchased the field. Remember, the priests did not want the money. The field was purchased by means of Judas, thus it was Judas' field. There is no contradiction here.

Who prophesied the potter's field?
Matthew 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13

Matthew regards this prophesy to Jeremiah when it seems much like the credit should go to Zechariah.

"And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD."

--Zechariah 11:12-13

Matthew didn't make any mistake. He simply quoted from two prophets but only mentioned Jeremiah. Matthew mentions the purchase of a field, but however, Zechariah does not. This is where Jeremiah comes in. Jeremiah 18:2-12, 19:1-13, and 32:6-9 speak of potters as well as the purchase of a field. There is no mess-up.

Who bears guilt?
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

You are taking the scripture out of context, again. In Galatians 6:1-2, the apostle Paul teaches that Christians ought to look out for one another; that our love is to drive us to help one another to overcome the tricks of Satan.

Though we are commanded to aid one another, the apostle acknowledges that we will stand before the Lord alone. Thus, each one is to "...examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone..." When it comes to our judgment before the Lord (cf. v 7-9; Romans 2:6; 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10), we will not stand with another, but alone.

Do you answer a fool?
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I have no doubt you have probably heard of a 'catch 22'. To act in one way brings an unwanted result, to act in another fashion brings a different unwanted result. Dealing with a fool is a 'catch 22'. If you answer him, it may happen that others will equate you with the fool. If you don't answer him, then he will probably consider himself wise from what he has said, for he has silenced you.

And almost the exact same kind of thing is occurring here. Guess who the fool is.

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

Before being returned to David, Michal gave birth to five sons to Adriel, the son of Brazillai (II Samuel 21:8).

However, on account of her conduct, it appears that the Lord made her unable to bear children. The writer's comment in II Samuel 6:23 would seem specific to her barren nature before David, as the same writer shortly thereafter mentions the five sons bore to Adriel.

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Where's the contradiction? Isn't it possible that at the age of eight, Jehoiachin was exalted by his father to reign along side him for the remaining years of his life (10 years), and upon the death of his father, in II Kings 24:5, at the age of eighteen, Jehoiachin began to reign alone. It appears that he "apprenticed" under his father, learning his father's evil ways, and then repeating them according to later scripture.

Marriage?
Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)

The Bible constantly talks about marriage as a good thing, even from the very beginning of creation. Paul, who wrote the words under consideration by the question in 1 Corinthians, certainly did not think it wrong to have a wife. In the same letter, he asks,

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

--I Corinthians 9:5

If it were wrong or bad to have a wife, he would definately not speak of his right to have one.The words in I Corinthians 7 must be understood in their historical context. He says,

"I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be."

--I Corinthians 7:26

There were circumstances that faced the church at the time of Paul's writings, which dictated the attitude of his words concerning marriage.

In I Corinthians 7:32, Paul speaks as he does that the saints might "...be without care." And again, he says,

"And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction."

--I Corinthians 7:35

He understood that a person who was married had to try to please his spouse (I Corinthians 7:32-34), which could be a distraction to serving the Lord. However, Paul commands elsewhere,

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."

--Ephesians 5:22

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it..."

--Ephesians 5:25

Paul was never against marriage.

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Refers to Paul hearing the voice, but not knowing what it said. Simple logic.

Weird News

I had a English project a long while back where I had to gather certain news stories and put them into my own words in headline-main paragraph form (which explains the reason some don't explain too much). I decided to have some fun with it and got a few strange stories. The first news bulletin about Barbie wasn't on the project and I didn't write it, although I forgot who did. Just found it on Yahoo News one day and decided to save the information since it was very unusual. That one's just for fun.

-------------------------------------------------------------

2003: Saudi Arabia's Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (the muttawa or religious police) declares that Barbie's provocative clothing is offensive to Islam, saying that "Jewish Barbie dolls, with their revealing clothes and shameful postures, accessories and tools are a symbol of decadence to the perverted West. Let us beware of her dangers and be careful."

The doll is already banned in the kingdom as a "Jewish" toy, but are available as contraband. Mattel loses a legal battle against American artist Tom Forsythe. Forsythe had made images of Barbie showing her nude and in sexual and other situations. The court decided that the images qualified as satire, and were thus legal.

------------------------------------------------------------

And these are from me:


A Chinese couple from Beijing sought for a unique name for their child. They chose "@."

The couple was cited by a government official as an example of citizens bringing "...bizarre names into the Chinese language." Government officials found it "annoying" for the couple to call their child such an "unorthodox" name as the emailing internet symbol, "at." Li Yuming, vice director of the State Language Commission, said at a news conference that the father "...said 'the whole world uses it to write e-mails and, translated into Chinese, it means 'love him.'"

~~~

An Indonesian bearded baby attracts hundreds to a small town in Central Sulawesi where he was born.

"I hope my son grows up to have a special gift," 16-year-old mother Mitra told the English Language Daily. The baby was born Monday, July 9th with, according to the Indonesian News Blog, "a tuft of soft whiskers flowing from his chin." Doctors said, "This is a strange baby." Central Sulawesi Health Office head, Abdullah, told The Jakarta Post, "I don't have the medical explanation for the beard and whiskers on this baby." Stranger yet, the baby's father, 20 year-old Rifai, said the placenta to be extraordinary, colored red, white, and blue. The baby's beard was grey in color, and measured at 3 centimeters.

~~~

An unlikely object exploded, destroying a Georgia home: a lawnmower.

Danny Fendley just wanted the grass to be cut, but instead burned down his house. It occured on a hot Tuesday in Johns Creek, Georgia. Inside his garage, Fendley said he was tugging at his mower's pull-chord, when the machine suddenly burst into flames. Before he could extinguish the fire the entire garage was blazing. His wife then tried tossing a gasoline can out a window but missed, spreading the fuel "everywhere" he explained. In less than a minute the entire house was engulfed with flames, but the couple escaped with no serious injuries.

~~~

A lucky cat hides in a loveseat from a fire, giving it only 8 lives to live.

In West Orange, New Jersey a fire broke out Saturday night in a two-story house. No one was injured, but the tenant's cat was thought by firefighters to have been killed by the flames and smoke. "To our amazement, it had survived," Fire Chief Peter Smeraldo told The Star-Ledger of Newark. "They should change that cat's name to Lucky." The thrilled owner took the cat with him to reside at a relative's home for the time.

~~~

After 55 years of torment, a German woman has a pencil removed from her brain.

As a child, Margaret Wegner was carrying a 3.15 inch-long pencil and fell, boring it through her check and into her brain. According to Wegner it went, "...right through the skin and disappeared into my head. It hurt like crazy," she told Germany's best-selling newspaper, Bild. She lived with it since there was no safe way to remove it at the time. Chronic nosebleeds, headaches, and the loss of her sense of smell were the results of the incident. Doctor Hans Behrbohm, however, was able to pinpoint the exact location of the pencil using modern techniques, so that he could determine the risks of removing it, and then take most of it out. The operation was successful, with the exception of a small piece that could not be removed, but poses no danger, says Dr. Behrbohm.

A Silly Episode I Had

I was in a chatroom, but I was alone. Totally alone, and didn't know what to do. It was a chatroom from a website for "Lord of the Rings" but it got a bit unpopular a few years after "Return of the King" came out.

So anyway, I was there and no one was in the chatroom, so I decided to talk with myself. My sister read it and thought it was pretty hilarious, spending my time idly. Anyone reading this might not think the same, thinking I have no life and what I said was dumb and unnecessary. But some might like it. Whatever. I'm posting it here. Just for the fun of it (and personally, taking a break from posting serious stuff all the time).

--hi
--i wish more people would come here more often
--and here i am, talkin' to myself
--why?
--because i don't have a single friend to talk to anyway
--is there a moderator here?
--monitoring me?
--if you're here, say something
--talk
--i'm so bored
--lonely
--SAY SOMETHING!!
--ugh
--look at those comments
--Truman, Truman, Truman, Truman...etc...etc...
--GOD! please, is there anyone here who just doesn't have a visible name?
--anyone?
--please?
--one day there was a small bear named Millard
--He liked to eat gummy bears
--why?
--i don't know why
--anyway, he ate gummy bears...
--and one day he fell down a well
--luckily, one of his gummy bears was stuck to his mouth
--the stickyness of the gummy was so strong that when it hit the wall of the well on the way down, it stuck fast
--saved by his own food
--yes, i know it's stupid
--well who do you think i am, Shakespeare??
--Damn, you can be annoying for an invisible friend
--oops
--did I say, "damn"?
--I really meant "Gosh-darn-it-geez-fooey-i-can't-believe-it's-not-butter"
--makin' jokes to myself
--i am such a *bleep*
--*bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep*
--oooh, that felt good.
--yueah
--*yeah
--i'm correcting my typos to satisfy NO ONE!
--there's no one here, so why do I stay?
--because I'm stupid?
--yes
--yes, I'm am a bloody fool to stay here waiting for no one
--after Return of the King came out, this place started to get scarce of people
--now, I'm the only idiot who still comes here to check and see if anyone still visits
--am I stupid?
--AM I STUPID???
--yeah. i'm a bloody fool
--why the hell--er, I mean, "heck" am I using the word "bloody"?
--I'm not british
--I'm not Aussie
--I'm American
--pure bred
--standard horsepower, genuine leather upholstry
--real American
--yeah
--I'm talking away
--why?
--I'm gonna check out what I've written so far and then I'll make a comment. My comment will be:
--What a fool I am.
--Stupid, dumb, idiotic, foolish, jocular...
--I can't believe it's not butter
--now doesn't that make you WONDER!
--now when I go to the store, I don't know what to believe anymore
--what's butter?
--if it's "i can't believe it's not butter", then what is it?
--margarine?
--slime?
--butter-flavored ****?
--I can't believe it's not butter
--Who's this "I" in the title anyway?
--"I" can't believe it's not butter.
--who said that?
--If he couldn't believe, maybe it's butter, but he just doesn't believe it
--Cynic
--Cynic of butter
--butter goes on bread
--bread is a basic culprit in the scheme of the butter-flavored world
--what the hell does that mean?
--I don't care anymore
--it's like those burgers we're being served
--1,000 cows in one burger
--what if it's like that with pork?
--man, before you ate babe.
--now you eat his family, along with all the neighbors.
--you offended just one pig. now, a colony?
--it's like a dictatorship
--well, no, not that.
--just a...
--a...
--what happens if the movie "Soylent Green" becomes a reality?
--talk about burgers
--i'd rather eat the soylent orange, if you know what I mean...
--if pigs could fly, would it be a different world?
--it'd be harder to eat pork, that's for sure
--would they become "fowl"?
--The new predator
--Hawk, eagle, there's a new bird in town
--pork bird
--and he's hungry
--wow, what if pigs actually preyed after squirrels and stuff?
--Squirrel: Watch out!!!! Porkbird: OOOink, OOOink.
--a new bird call
--imagine waking up.
--OOOink, OOOink, OOOink... WEEIIH, WEEIIH.
--Sweet morning mood
--duck hunters would change their ways
--wobble world
--that could be a new theme park
--welcome to wobble world
--where you can't build a house of cards
--the whole place would quake all the time, hence "Wobble World"
--hey, you could have it, "Wobbleworld"
--that's like trying to say "waterworld" with a speech impediment
--"I wubba wap wobblewold. I woah ip wated au, bup I wuma wap ip amyway!"
--Translation: I wanna watch water world. I know it's rated "R", but I wanna watch it anyway!"
--Now read them together and imagine a guy with this problem.
--Imagine him in school
--Wobbleworld
--where nothing stays still
--talk about toddler heaven
--Take your small child there and see your dreams become reality
--you wonder, how long can he really run around, bounce, kick things, and be crazy till he runs out of gas?
--special booth just for this purpose
--the loon room
--there's a timer and everything. see how long he can go until he passes out in frustration and tires out
--it's like a fun place for kids, and an educational place for parents
--the parents learn how long the insanity will last, so they'll be ready when they get home.
--sure, he/she will be the same, but now you'll know when he'll crash and take a long nap
--"ok honey, time for your nap."
--"but i'm not sweepy!"
--"3, 2, 1--"
--"zzzzzzzzzzzzz"
--Toddler + Wobbleworld = 1 happy parent
--Let's talk about red pickles
--strange, but did you know there are really red pickles in the world?
--bad-ass pickles
--they're the redneck pickles.
--been on the rough side of life
--they're tougher than the regular happy green pickle.
--they roam around. being all red
--I bet if the green pickles and the red pickles had a war, the green pickles would win
--why?
--they've got the "I can't believe it's not butter" ally
--red pickles might have some sourkraut come in at the last moment. save a few warts on their part. but then the green's artillery, the rye bread. that'll sink all the reds back into their slimy pool of bloody broth that they arose from previously.
--thus, the pickle war would be brought to a cold, crunchy end when the "wobbleworld" speech impediment guy comes over and bites his way through a smooth, pickle captain
--I just thought about how sick I'm sounding
--I never even thought for a second, you know?
--kinda got caught up in the pickle battles
--I'll stop now.
--...
--nah, I'll keep talking.
--Balloons
--flying in a helium balloon
--no one thinks about that
--they automatically think "hot-air balloon"
--but take a helium balloon
--the whole day you'd laugh and laugh
--especially if you had a friend with you
--bring a recorder up there
--no, better
--bring a megaphone.
--when you fly over a town...
--yeah.
--People'd look up.
--"What the-?"
--Fly over Washington
--got some important people talking. the president comes out...
--"HELLO DOWN THERE!"
--damn, the chipmunks go global
--fly over tokyo
--they'd love it
--they love anything like that
--fly over london
--parliament dismisses
--comes out, "FOLLOW THE YELLOWBRICK ROAD!"
--see the looks on their faces
--being all superior
--fly over mexico
--they'll think their radios are on too loud.
--fly over Iran
--it's the minaret call for prayer time.
--you could just happen to be in the direction of Mecca
--watch em all get down in the street and pray in your direction
--fly over the congo
--they'll think you're one of their gods
--the new SQUIRREL GOD!
--The zoo.
--During the winter there was a particularly cold day. The zookeepers leave the lions and elephants out since they can stand the weather.
--Sure, THEY think that. Yeah, and then they become desperate. I knew a guy once. He went to the zoo during this day. The lions were at the end of their rope, man.
--Starting to poop all over each other to keep themselves warm. He laughed and laughed and then thought... that's not funny. It was kinda sad.
--These animals are trying to survive in any way possible. The zookeepers were idiots.

----------------------------------------------------------

And then I left. No one came. Oh well...

Answering Bible Contradictions: Part 5

Back to Bible contradiction answers! As usual the "contradictions" will be posted in bold and the responses in regular type.

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)

What happens if someone says to you, "I hate you! You are so bad and mean!" Does this account for your every action? God is both. He is sore at sinners and kind for righteous. What's your point?

Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

You take the two scriptures out of context. In James 1:13-15, it is apparent that the context deals with being tempted to sin. No man is tempted to sin by God, "...for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man..."

--James 1:13

This is the work of the tempter.

The text in Genesis 22, from the King James Version, does say that the Lord tempted Abraham, which, in other translations, means to "prove," "test," or "try." God wanted Abraham to learn through his trial. However, the Lord does not tempt Abraham "with evil". Jacob, if you can show me one scripture where the Lord tempted someone with evil, then you've got a contradiction, my friend.

Ascend to heaven
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)

Again, you take the scriptures out of context. In John 3, Jesus is talking with Nicodemus. After speaking with Nicodemus about the need to be born again, Jesus said,

"Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

--John 3:9-13

Of course there had been a few times before Christ where men had entered heaven and returned. The only one who has come from heaven, and is able to speak authoritatively regarding the heavenly things is the Lord (Jesus). These scriptures do not say no one has ever ascended to heaven, but that none are liked the Lord, who has come down from heaven to reveal heavenly things to us.

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34
Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30

I can't see the contradiction. If I were to predict, "Jacob will die before 'I' the church clock chimes." Then suddenly, a driver loses control, running his car over Jacob, killing him just before the clock chimes twice. Did my prediction fail just because it chimed TWICE? Certainly not. In fact, some might make the case that I was psychic!

How many times did the cock crow?
MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.
JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

It probably crowed more than twice (if it was anything like a typical rooster). These scriptures may not record the second one, but they certainly don't preclude it. Just because these certain gospels don't mention the second crowing of the cock doesn't mean it didn't crow again!

Who killed Saul
SA1 31:4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
SA1 31:5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
SA1 31:6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.
SA2 1:15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.

If you would read the Bible, you might understand. The record of Saul's death in I Samuel is the inspired writer's account of Saul's death. This is the actual way in which Saul died, taking his own life by falling onto a sword.

II Samuel is the Amalekite's account of what happened. Quite simply, the Amalekite lied, thinking he might bring honour upon himself by killing the enemy of David. However, the man's falsehood cost him his own life, as David did not delight in the death of Saul.

So far as the Amalekite's story being similar in some respects to the actual event, perhaps he was nearby and witnessed it, or it may be that upon coming to the spot, he perceived what had taken place. Regardless, he twisted the truth, eventually to his own destruction.

How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount
MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

Just as I said before, "Jesus was an itinerant preacher who no doubt gave this message many times as He traveled about."

These two scriptures were probably different occasions which Jesus spoke. All the gospels have some extra in them that the others did or did not have. This doesn't mean they contradict.

Does every man sin?
KI1 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

CH2 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;
PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?
ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

In I John 3:6 it says, "...whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him not known Him."

Those who are born again do not sin lightly. This doesn't mean that people who are born again never sin again, but that it isn't part of their lifestyle. The same is with I John 3:9.

Big Bang?

I've decided to take a break from posting Bible contradiction answers (but I will resume soon). Here's some info I gathered on the big bang theory taught in the area of astronomy, which I'd like to call "Cosmic Evolution," because it really is a part of evolution.

The Big Bang is the most widely accepted, and yet the most impossible concept in all of evolutionary thinking! Many evolutionists say, "The Big Bang isn't part of evolution, for it was not a part of the process for making life. Evolution is this process." And yet, it was the cause of it! Also amazing is the fact that there is a property of evolution known as "cosmic evolution." They put the subject of the Big Bang into this category. Pretty strange how they wouldn't call it a part of evolution.

I'll give a little history on the subject and then explain how it really cannot happen in actual reality.

The regular theory accepted today about the Big Bang is that nothing exploded. There are many claims that something did explode, but let's go by this idea. It is more widely accepted than the theory of something exploded, because the something had to come into existance somehow, and they haven't been able to explain that yet, except through philosophy (not science).

M-theory is based upon this idea that the superstrings made a closed brane of gravitational forces, and collided with another one of these. Now, I wonder where these came from, and who in their right minds would call this science. It's imagination. This theory assumes that the force of gravity is a material object when it is not. Gravity is a force, and cannot be contained by anything, only produced. If the "M" is left alone in "M-Theory," it stands for "mystery," or "mysic," since there are still many properties unexplained by it, as in, how did these gravitational forces decide to pack up and collide, and how can nothing explode? I'll explain their side.

George Gamow, a well known evolutionist, coined the name "Big Bang," and made the idea really sell through the cartoons he drew concerning the details.

According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness began to condense, by gravity, into a single, tiny spot; and decided to explode!

That explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which shot outward at incredible speed throughout empty space: there was no other matter in the universe.

As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at extreme speeds, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atom structures of orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms, despite the frictionless environment of the universe.

Over time, the outward-racing atoms are said to have started to circle each other, creating gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then, all of those stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow, a well known evolutionist of the past, described it in "scientific" terms. And yet, in violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space, and rushed into a superdense core, that had an extreme amount of density, and a temperature in excess of 1,039 degrees absolute. That's a lot of nothing getting hot!

Where did this extraordinarily dense core come from? Gamow sadly came up with a scientific answer for this: it came as a result of "the big squeeze," when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true scientific assurance, he named it "ylem." Many thought the theory to be "scientific" since it had a scientific-sounding name. So then, Gamow added numbers to produce an additional scientific gift: it was 100,000,000,000,000 times the density of water!

Then, it all exploded. Does this sound like science? Why do they call it science?

1. Nothingness cannot pack together. Gravity would have no way to push nothing into a pile.

2. A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and therefore exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

3. There was no fire, and no match. It couldn't be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed, and it could not be an atomic explosion, because atoms didn't exist either.

4. How can you expand what isn't there? Even if that magic vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause that big, giant pile of nothing to push outward? The "gravity" that brought it together would keep it from expanding.

5. The intense heat caused by the exploding emptiness is said to have changed the emptiness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. Let's get a few things straight here: first, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Secondly, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter, and thirdly, there can be no heat without an energy source. Where did the energy come from? You have to have energy to make something move.

6. Too perfect an explosion would have to be required. On many points, the theoretical math calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out. Scientists call them "too perfect." The theory is next to impossible. The limits for success are simply too tiny, and nothingness can't explode anyway.

R. H. Dicke, an evolutionist astronomer, says,

"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."(1)

7. Roger L. St. Peter, another evolutionist, in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the speculated Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the imaginary explosion would fall back on itself and make an imaginary black hole.

8. Another big problem with this little theory is that there is not enough antimatter in the universe. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter, and negative matter (which is antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. Even Isaac Asimov and Victor Weisskopf admit this problem. There should be as much antimatter as matter, but there is not.

9. A well known fact to physicists is that as soon as positive matter and negative matter are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another; another problem.

"Evidence" for the Big Bang?

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation-- There is a miniscule amount of heat radiating throughout outer space. It comes commonly from every direction and is believed that it is the same everywhere else in the universe. But, this is an exeedingly tiny amount of "heat," and is only a little less than 30 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. This radiation is only a microwave kind of "heat," but there isn't much "heat" in it at all. The temperature of background radiation comes out as being -2700 degrees Celsius.

The problem? Background radiation comes from every direction, but the Big Bang theory demands that it come from only one direction: from where the supposed explosion took place.

I leave this subject alone now with a quote from evolutionary physicist Hannes Alfven and Professor Asoka Mendis from the UCSD.

"The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents.. [But] The claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation." (2)

Blackbody CMB-- According to Science News,

"Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions.

"Not any more. Five or six years ago we began to hear of a possible dipole anisotropy [two-directional source]. Then at the beginning of 1980 came hints of a quadruple anisotropy.. A quadruple anisotropy [radiation coming at us from four directions, each at right angles to the other] has to belong to the substance of the radiation of the universe itself." (3)

In other words, if this "background" radiation is radiating toward earth at four equal sides at right angles from each other, the existence of a single big bang wouldn't make sense. It is highly unlikely, but if this radiation is from the big bang, there would had to have been four separate big bangs occurring at exact right angles of each other, trillions of lightyears away from each other, yet symmetrical in their distance away from earth. The probability of this occurrence is beyond calculating.

The radiation we observe isn't from a big bang(s). As Science News stated, the radiation we see is "...radiation of the universe itself."

References:

(1) R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62

(2) Hannes Alfven and Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698

(3) Science News, 1981

Answering Bible Contradictions: Part 4

Righteous live?
Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Pslams refers to David talking about the righteous in the end.

David is not talking in Isaiah and it refers to the wicked who condemn the righteous at the present time.

Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

Judas was a three time loser. As a weak, greedy man, he determines to join the disciples, hoping to make it big in Jesus' kingdom. When this vision falls apart, he decides to steal from the communal purse and finally betray Christ for a paltry sum. Even this act leaves him feeling empty and guilty. His final decisive move was to commit suicide by hanging himself. Even in this final act he fails! Perhaps the rope held long enough to kill him before breaking. Perhaps as he jumped the noose gave way immediately. Falling from a great height, Judas' mangled body is splattered down below.

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Jesus was an itinerant preacher who no doubt gave this message many times as He traveled about. Paul was not a Christian at the time Jesus preached. Later, however, he specifically references Christ's message and then draws a distinction where he augments it (I Corinthians 7:12).

Jesus' last words
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

You fail to understand that a gospel writer choosing not to record a given detail mentioned in another gospel is not necessarily a contradiction. If each gospel covered the exact same details, there would be no purpose to having four gospels!

Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

Now first of all, from this scripture, all the way to David's choices of punishment for his sin before the Lord were:

1. Three years of famine

2. Three months to be destroyed before his enemies

3. Three days of pestilence in the land

In I Chronicles 21, these three choices are given to David. Notice, that the next two choices are parallel in II Samuel 24, but the first choice is different, both in the number of years mentioned and in the way the punishment is worded. The Lord there does not invite David to chose 3 years of famine, but rather asks, "...shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?"

In 2 Samuel 21:1, it says,

"Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites."

Three years of famine had already occurred. Add to this the current year (the time which passed from II Samuel 21:1 to II Samuel 24:13), and then the three years of famine as recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:11, and you have seven years of famine. There is no contradiction.

Moved David to anger?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.

God does not tempt any to do evil, but does permit Satan to tempt man. At times, when the Lord permits temptation to come upon an individual, He is described as doing what He has permitted to occur.

On account of the Lord's anger against Israel, He permitted Satan to tempt David, and Satan prevailed against him.

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus(PBUH). The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

1. The two different genealogies of Jesus come from each of the parents: Joseph and Mary.

2. The writers of the New Testament describe Joseph as being the earthly father, but not the father who made Mary pregnant to have Him. Joseph was of the seed of David. He married Mary and they became the earthly parents of Jesus, but not the spiritual parents. Is there something wrong with this here? There is no contradiction.

3. Well, let's see. Maybe because they're all right? (Muslims, however, do not know the real Jesus.) Jesus never had a physical father, only an earthly one in name. Plus, Joseph had to be Mary's husband, otherwise everyone would think Mary got pregnant before she married, and that is very bad. Mary was also of the line of David, so we have no contradiction here.Jesus was born of the line of David (Mary). He had an earthly father, but only in name, not physically.

God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

No man can see the Lord as He is. One scripture of yours states that He

"...alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen."

--I Timothy 6:16

When you read of someone in the Bible seeing the Lord, they have not seen Him in this unapproachable form.

For there to be a contradiction, you need to produce a passage which states that someone has approached the Lord's "...unapproachable light..." We find several times in Scripture the Lord appearing in various forms, such as -- a burning bush (Exodus 3); with the appearance of a man (Ezekiel 1:26); as the Angel of the Lord (Numbers 22:27; Judges 6:22); and through a cloud and pillar of fire (Numbers 14:14).

The only time it seems that a man came close to seeing the Lord in His unapproachable form is Moses in Exodus 33. The face to face meeting with the Lord in verse 11 is not with His "unapproachable light", for in verses 20-23, the Lord tells Moses he cannot see His face. Moses could not see while the glory of the Lord passed by.

Answering Bible Contradictions: Part 3

Odd genetic engineering
GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

There is nowhere in scripture whether the use of the rods was commanded by God or if it was Jacob's own idea.The key to the flocks coming forth ringstraked, speckled, and grisled was not the rods placed before the cattle, but the fact that "...God hath taken away the cattle..." of Laban and given them to Jacob. Whether God told Jacob to place the rods before the cattle or not doesn't matter. If he was commanded to do so, it was his obedience to God's word that brought forth his prosperity. If God tells you to do something, do it. Don't ask questions, just do it!

The shape of the earth
ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

Refers to Satan showing the kingdoms of the world to Jesus spiritually. Satan is beyond the realm of men. He wasn't literally showing all the kingdoms to Jesus physically. What's your point here?

Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Snakes do indeed eat dust. Have you considered that there is an organ in the roof of a snake’s mouth called 'Jacobson's organ'? This helps the snake to smell in addition to its nose. Its darting, forked tongue samples bits of dust by picking them up on the points of the fork, which it then presents to its matching pair of sensory organs inside its mouth. Once it has 'smelt' them in this way, the tongue must be cleaned so the process can be repeated immediately.

Earth supported?
JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Heaven supported too
JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

Metaphores.

The hydrological cycle
ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, Storehouses are not part of the cycle

More metaphores. God has power over everything. What's your point?

Order of creation
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good".
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

1. Yes, God created the sky, Earth, and light on the first day.

2. You seem confused about how there was water in the sky. Let's talk about that a bit.

First, let's quote Genesis 1:6-8:
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

From this description you can easily conclude that the firmament consisted of two layers of water that were separated from each other with a firmament centered inside, enclosing the globe.

Some people would say, "No, no. There were two layers. Were you aware that there are subterranean water chambers below the surface of the earth? Then there are also oceans above the earth's surface. So the firmament could be the dirt!"

Sounds reasonable, and yes, there are indeed subterranean water chambers below the earth, but the Bible says that the birds flew in the firmament. The birds fly in the air. The birds do not fly in the dirt. They fly within the firmament. So we understand that the firmament consisted of two layers of water above the earth.

Many people still think this to be the "sky" or the "atmosphere," and some believe in the "water-vapor canopy theory," which says that the whole of the earth was cover with a thick covering of water vapor. There are numerous problems with this theory, however, like the heat on earth it would produce, for example.

There's another theory, however, called the "solid canopy theory" which is especially supported by creationist Dr. Carl Baugh, who wrote a book entitled "Panorama of Creation" which includes his idea of what the firmament really was. He described in his book:

"We believe the firmament was approximately eleven miles above the surface because there exists a heat sink at that elevation. Nearer to the earth it is warmer for at least some space. If we were to amass the amounts of water present on the earth, and assimilate the greater amount of water within the earth, this would leave the approximate remainder of a few inches thick lineal deminsion double encasement in solid crystalline form as the firmament."

The Hebrew word used in Genesis to describe "firmament" is "raquia," which Hebrew scholars recognize as meaning "to compress or pound out, and stretch out this arch of heaven in thin metal sheets." ... Thin metal sheets? This is very interesting, considering the fact that the helmets of the astronauts have an extremely thin sheet of solid gold lining the whole of their helmet window. They can see fine through it. Was this what the firmament was?

That may be an interesting fact, but it was not what composed the firmament. According to Baugh in his book (that I've previously mentioned),

"Researcher Dan Cook spoke to one of the physicists involved in the hydrogen bomb project at Laurence Livermore National Laboratories. That physicist related to him that scientists there, some years back, took the elements of water and compressed them under super cold, cryogenic circumstances. Hydrogen became near-metallic in form, and took on the characteristics of metal. It became crystalline, transparent, fiber optic, superconductive and ferromagnetic."

If there were two layers of crystalline water eleven miles above the earth, the "firmament" in the center would be pressurized. If it were under this tremendous super cold pressure the the center would become what the Bible described as being "thin metal sheets," which gives us a perfect understanding of the Hebrew word used.

If this was the canopy, Baugh described,

"On day number four, when the sun was created, the energy of the sun upon this hydrogen would have caused a gentle pink glow. At high noon there would have been a light pink coloration in the sky; at sunrise and sunset there would have been a vivid pink coloration; and at midnight there would have been a gentle pink sky. In other words, the sky before the flood was never totally dark."

Remember, God said that the lesser light should rule the night, not the darkness. Many have thought that to be the moon, but the moon isn't always visible, is it? What a beautiful world it would have been before the flood.

Harmful shortwave radiation would have been blocked by the canopy with the beneficial longwave radiation filtered in for us. The firmament would have acted also as an enhancer for light, making the stars at night more clear, and some starlight waves from afar off visible. The magnetic field would've acted as the support for the firmament because of the magnetic nature of the pressurized hydrogen. The harmful x-rays would have also been filtered out. X-rays bombard us everyday, eventually making us wrinkled up when we age. Adam lived to be 912, the Bible says. He probably looked 25 when he finally died.

Baugh also said in his book,

"Scientists and researchers are finding that the most important color of the spectrum is pink. This is the color that is produced by energized hydrogen. They find that plants grow better under pink light and that individuals respond more positively in mood to pink light. Researchers have fould that when a person is affected by the right spectrum of pink light, the brain secretes norepinephren. Norepinephren is a natural tranquilizer and neurotransmitter. Before the flood, man was dominated by various spectra of pink light. The tranquility of his environment offered him the ability to have his brain work at maximum efficiency. The firmament made that possible with greater light ruling the day and lesser light ruling the night."

3. Correct.

4. Right again.

5. Correct again! Good job!

6. Where does it say humans? It says man. And no, God did not create them both simultaneously.

7. Correct.

8. On creating light before the sun and stars, let us look closer at this scripture. God said, "And let there be light" and there was light. When you read factual books about sound and its miracles it can produce, you will see that this is indeed possible. It has been proven in the lab that if you heat sound in a condensed area underwater, it will produce a small sphere of light which can illuminate, heat, and energize the area, or room which it is in. Now, it says that God said, "Let there be light." But even before it says this, it says,

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

He moved toward the earth and said "Let there be light." This huge reaction of massive sound must have produced an acceptable source of light, heat, and energy for the plants to have survived until the time when He created the sun, moon, and stars. These were literal days, not "periods of time" as some day-age theorists claim. But of course, God is God, and doesn't need these sources of nature to make something happen. I'm just saying that it has been proven that this can be proved rationally without only blind faith to believe on. But if there is an evolutionist talking to me, then he would ask such a question as "Where did god come from?" and I don't know. Evolutionists believe that there was a Big Bang that created the universe from a piece of dirt that spun 'round and 'round until BOOM: Big Bang. Now, I would ask that certain evolutionist, "Now then where did the dirt come from?" and he doesn't know either. Now we have two declarations. There was either:

In the beginning God...

or

In the beginning Dirt...

Which one sounds more logical to you? Think about it.

9. You are also wrong on "Elohim" being plural when it is not. There's a certain scripture: "Thou shalt not revile the gods." --Exodus 22:28 This supposed scripture on "gods" is not speaking of "gods" at all! The scripture says, "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people."

The Hebrew word for "gods" in this passage is a singular plural for "God" or "Elohim." It could also mean "the judges," and not be speaking of God at all. But either way, it does not mean 'gods' literally."

10. Desolate earth? You are going by what the Gap Theory teaches. This is clearly not true and very unscriptural. Why do you use it? Where is it in scripture?

11. On Genesis 2, this isn't referring back and doing a recap of the exact order of creation. It isn't talking about the creation here. It's talking about Day 6 alone. God made man, then He made the garden. Then He put Adam into the garden and made each animal out of the ground before him to name. Then He made Eve.

How orderly were things created?
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days".
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

1. See #8 on my previous answer.

2. Who said God "fixed up things as He went"? Where in scripture does it say this? Also, where does it say God forgot anything? Hm? God wanted Adam to choose who he wanted for a mate. Adam did have free will. So finally when Adam didn't want any of the animals as his mate (Genesis 2:20), and he wanted a mate in the likeness of himself, God made the woman for Adam (Genesis 2:21-25). How unclear is this to you?

How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

1. Who said God labored?

2. No, God never "fixed" the creation as He went. Who said the first man and woman were "primordial"? It was Adam and Eve who sinned, not God. God just gave them free will, just as He gave you free will to turn your back on Him. God never "forgot" anything as you seem to presume.

Moses' personality
Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

This was God's command to Moses. They were in the middle of a war. You take much of these scriptures out of context. Moses was wroth at the generals. Moses killed only the women who had sex and were therefore a bad example for the people of Israel because they might teach Israel's children to do the sins of adultery, fornication, etc., and teach them sex in the wrong way. They were evil people. Moses killed the male children because they were a threat to the nation and might rise up and demolish the people. All the women children were kept alive to be children of the Israelites and learn not to be in sin like the people they had just destroyed in the war.

Answering Bible Contradictions: Part 2

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Refers to man who has worldly wisdom of man, and not God. It is good to be wise in the Lord, not in worldly knowledge. For instance, you could have a great amout of porn knowledge. Does God like this?

Human vs. ghostly impregnation
ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Yes. Before they came together and had sex, Joseph found that Mary was pregnant with Jesus. God had put the child in Mary's womb, because if the child had a father from sex, it would be born with sin. Acts talks of Jesus being the son of David through the line of David. Mary was a daughter of David, and therefore, Jesus was in the family line. Joseph was also of the family of David. But Jesus was not born through natural purposes of the mother and father, but God made it possible that Jesus was born without sin. There is no contradiction here.

The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

If taken into context, Deuteronomy 24:16 says that God establishes a number of laws by which the people would be judged and kept. In 24:16, He acknowledges that an individual is personally responsible for what they do. If a man commits murder, his son is not to be put to death for the deed, neither, if the son has committed adultery should the father be executed. The Bible says, "...every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
In Isaiah 14, this is not speaking of a son being executed for the sins of his father. If taken into context, this is to be a prophecy concerning the coming destruction upon a nation. Because the nation had evil leadership of their king, God pronounced destruction upon the Babylonian people. And guess what? In about 540 B.C., Babylon was overthrown by the Medes. The city was left in ruins, it stayed in ruins, and we found it in ruins.

The bat is not a bird
LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

For Leviticus: The Bible, when referring to "fowls" actually means "flying animals" in the Hebrew. Also, the word "bat" in the Hebrew is translated from the Hebrew "tinshemeth." Scholars are uncertain that this even means "bat," so it could have referred to another species of bird, possibly the swan.

For Deuteronomy: This also means "every kosher bird" which translates yet again as "flying animal."

Rabbits do not chew their cud
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

Jacob, you're assuming that the Bible is talking about modern coneys and hares when it is not. The coney is actually, in Hebrew, is called "Shafan" in Hebrew. Shafan, translated back into English is called Hyrax syriacus or Procavia capens syriaca. The hyrax is a small mammal, around 20 inches long, living in the Negev mountains. It has short feet, covered with elastic, a flexible tail-less body, and pads. It nests in the clefts of rocks (Psalms 104:18), and lives in small groups (Proverbs 30:26). Since it has a maw like a ruminant, it is considered to "bring up its cud." On the speaking of the hare, in the Hebrew, this word is called Arneveth, which, translated into English, is the angora rabbit, whose wool is prized. It could be considered to "bring up its cud" since it regurgitates its food in the early morning hours and then eats it again. Once again, the Bible is not wrong.

Insects do NOT have four feet
LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

The Hebrew is translated as "Ezrath Kohanim on Sifra" Or, "that walks like a quadruped." Insects have six legs, but members of the grasshopper family use four for walking and two for hopping.

Snails do not melt
PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

Naturally, anyone would know that a snail does indeed melt when salt is sprinkled onto it. But if we look into the Hebrew, the word "melt" is "tememc," which, translated back into English means "dissolutes its substances." Where do you think the slime comes from?

Fowl from waters or ground?
GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Once again, Genesis 2:9 is referring to when God made each animal out of the ground for Adam to name them. 2:9 does not refer to the creation model.