Vadergirl123
Active Member
Did your sources say how the babylonian cubit was measured?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biblical Contradictions
- Thread starter Vadergirl123
- Start date
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
They might have, I just looked for the length of it. The cultures that used these measurements had more or less standardized sizes, just like a foot is 12", no matter how big or small feet you have. Measuring rods have been found
Last edited:
SnackerBob
Member
I'd also like to know the guy's credentials. The "info" link provides nothing that states that he is qualified to make these declarations.
SnackerBob
Member
So, is the concept now abandoned? Because I could DEFINITELY continue bringing up links from the Limestone Church that attempt to rationalize Biblical contradictions.
Solely as a way to inform the confused masses, of course.
Solely as a way to inform the confused masses, of course.
Biblical cubit from elbow to tip of the middle finger.
Indications of 17.5 inch cubit is in the Siloam inscription of 1,200 cubits as the length of Hezekiah's water tunnel. Modern measurements makes the tunnel 1,749 ft long. At face value that makes the cubit of 17.49 inches.
Besides the 'common' cubit, Ezekiel's visionary temple figured a 'larger' cubit of 20.4 inches [Ezekiel 40 v 5]
Besides a 'larger' cubit span there could have been 'short' cubits.
- Judges 3 v 16.
[Elbow to the knuckles of the clenched hand 15 inches]
SnackerBob
Member
Here in the United States, we still use a measurement that is based in body length. It's still a standard measure; if I were to interpret a foot as less or more than 12 inches, I would be mocked.
The creators of early empires would have set up a standard version, and we do indeed have cyborg measuring rods.
It is far more likely to me that biblical writers flubbed the maths, as they weren't important to the theological method that they were attempting to communicate.
The creators of early empires would have set up a standard version, and we do indeed have cyborg measuring rods.
It is far more likely to me that biblical writers flubbed the maths, as they weren't important to the theological method that they were attempting to communicate.
Deut 13:1
Well-Known Member
Okay, I skimmed through this thread.
Vadergirl, please just stop. This is just silly. You've admitted that you haven't even read the whole bible, but are posting arguments about sections of the bible you've never read. I encourage you to stop, read the bible, then re-read it, and re-read it, then buy books about it. I have a small collection of books, maybe 50 that I own about the TaNaKh, I have a feeling that is dwarfed by Jayhawker and some of the others.
When it comes to translation, there is no perfect literal translation out there. Even the very first word of the bible is not the most literal translation you can achieve. This is why Jews are encouraged to study the Torah as it was originally written, in Hebrew. It's why we also study the hundreds of different scholars that make comments about the meaning behind verses.
Jay and I have had long, long, long arguments about how a specific verse should be translated. Isaiah 7:14 comes to my mind. What I've drawn from these past discussions is that the way they choose to interpret some of the verses may not be the best way or the most honest way, but it is still an acceptable translation. The conclusions they draw from the way they choose to interpret the verses is where the real debate is. I can debate for hours about the word almah and betulah in Isaiah, but the real argument isn't simply about which word should have been used, its more about the conclusion that christians draw from the way they read Isaiah. They draw the conclusion that Isaiah was talking to Ahaz, and telling Ahaz that the sign for him to look for was jesus in 700 years. That is where the debate is.
Vadergirl, I implore you, stop the silliness. You have no concept about what a Passover is or what a sedar is. Go and read about it before you comment on it.
Just my two cents..
Vadergirl, please just stop. This is just silly. You've admitted that you haven't even read the whole bible, but are posting arguments about sections of the bible you've never read. I encourage you to stop, read the bible, then re-read it, and re-read it, then buy books about it. I have a small collection of books, maybe 50 that I own about the TaNaKh, I have a feeling that is dwarfed by Jayhawker and some of the others.
When it comes to translation, there is no perfect literal translation out there. Even the very first word of the bible is not the most literal translation you can achieve. This is why Jews are encouraged to study the Torah as it was originally written, in Hebrew. It's why we also study the hundreds of different scholars that make comments about the meaning behind verses.
Jay and I have had long, long, long arguments about how a specific verse should be translated. Isaiah 7:14 comes to my mind. What I've drawn from these past discussions is that the way they choose to interpret some of the verses may not be the best way or the most honest way, but it is still an acceptable translation. The conclusions they draw from the way they choose to interpret the verses is where the real debate is. I can debate for hours about the word almah and betulah in Isaiah, but the real argument isn't simply about which word should have been used, its more about the conclusion that christians draw from the way they read Isaiah. They draw the conclusion that Isaiah was talking to Ahaz, and telling Ahaz that the sign for him to look for was jesus in 700 years. That is where the debate is.
Vadergirl, I implore you, stop the silliness. You have no concept about what a Passover is or what a sedar is. Go and read about it before you comment on it.
Just my two cents..
Those ages are reasonable when you know what they pertain to.As apposed to worrying about the contradictions, I always wonder why nobody cares about the wild claims like people living to be 200, 400, 900 years old. That right there tells you the stories are simply that... stories,
Merlin was over 1000 years old... (oh wait...just a story)
Those are the ages of flesh and bone beings.
For example, how old did the Roman Empire get to be?
There are some contradictions in the Gospels (MMLJ) that you won't be able to reconcile with the standard approach that takes those books as verbatim historical accounts of past events.
But, if you take the 4 books of the Gospels and handle them as oracles (meaning as documents written for the purpose of prophesying of things to come) then you will see how those apparent contradictions are essential.
The Gospels are coded texts where each Gospel pertains to a separate dispensation of time. You have to know the seer's tongue to be able to decipher it such that the apparent contradictions all resolve.
Hosea 6:2?
Deut 13:1
Well-Known Member
What does that have to do with jesus?
waitasec
Veteran Member
Come, let us return to the Lord.
He has torn us to pieces
but he will heal us;
he has injured us
but he will bind up our wounds.
After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will restore us,
wouldn't this be understood as we were the ones being crucified and they after 2 days we were revived?
As far as I'm concerned, absolutely nothing, but that does not prevent some Christians from making the claim.
Not so much Jesus, although God resurrected Jesus out of the Bible's hell [sheol] on the third day.- Acts 2 v 32; 1st Cor. 15 v 4
Rather more likely Hosea 6 v 2 dealing with the symbolic 'two witnesses' of Rev. 11 vs 3, 11.
Also in Ezekiel's day wasn't there the 'rebirth' of the nation after the 70 years captivity ?
-Eze. 37 v 14
The 4 [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John] make up one singular 'gospel'.
There is one gospel with four writers.
There are corresponding passages that 'when put together as a whole' make up a complete gospel.
Deut 13:1
Well-Known Member
I don't know much about christianity but I wouldn't bet one shekel that the majority of christians will agree with that statement.