Bible Contradictions by Ptah Un Nefer

[1dell]

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 in- creaseth 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."

Dude, I love this kind of stuff because it just proves a point. That people who have not read the WHOLE book do not deserve to criticize the book. Because when a person is a TRUE student of the scriptures such discrections as this is vanquished with TOTAL understanding of how God talks and Operates. First of all The bible speaks of 2 types of wisdom. One in which Shlomo/solomon speaks of is the Wisdom of the righteous or the godly and he states that the FEAR of IHaVaH is the beginning of Wisdom, then he speaks of those who THINK they are wise because they have made study of various subject yet they are without the FEAR of IHaVaH which would distinquish the 2 types of wisdom. In fact Ya'aqov, the brother of Ishua explains it best:
Jam 3:13 Who [is] a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
Jam 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
Jam 3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but [is] earthly, sensual, devilish.
Jam 3:16 For where envying and strife [is], there [is] confusion and every evil work.
Jam 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
Jam 3:18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

I say this is self explainitory from here. And proves ONCE AGAIN that this is NOT a contradiction because IHaVaH is specifically speaking of a destruction that belongs to the judgement of evil doers. NO ONE ELSE incures the wrath or judgement of IHaVaH save those who DO EVIL!!!!!! ONce that principle is understood then we can understand what type of wisdom is being spoken of! Not to mention that verse in 1 Corinthians 1:19 is ACTUALLY a quote from a verse in YeshaIHavaH:
Isa 29:14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, [even] a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise [men] shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent [men] shall be hid.
Another verse from YermiIHaVaH further explains.
Jer 8:9 The wise [men] are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom [is] in them?

As far as Ecclesiastes goes where is there a contradiction? In much learning there is grief and sorrow. The more we know about a situation the moor we have to deal with. In fact it's greiving to know that "the moor I learn the moor I realize how much I don't know" Tis why it is said "ignorance is bliss" And if one was to READ the WHOLE chapter and the one proceeding this one they would come to understand what this sorrow and grief is that is being spoken of. The futility of life and the unability to change things that must be. The moor one knows the moor one is accountable, moor so than others. The burden of information and putting it to use.

Man I swear if people would just read the book and TRY to understand it instead of using it to make some sort of game out of, then they would see it plainly as a book without contradictions but full of paradox.

[1dell]

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, ac- cording 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 togeth- er, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

I just got one question: "Who let the dawgs out? Roof Roof roof roof!" the reason I ask that question is because it's just like that "contradiction" It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with ANYTHING!!!! First of all where is the "contradiction" I fail to see it!!! First of all IF the person responsible for "finding" these "contradictions" is TRYING to say that that verse in Acts is saying that the Messiah coming from the Loins of David is suppose to mean that he was not impregnated by the Ruach HaQodesh, then I am pleased to inform him/her that this AGAIN just proves they lack proper biblical scholarship and don't belong in the book and is unworthy to judge it. Because in both geneologies of both parents (Yosef in Mattityahu/Matthew chapter 1 and Miriyam in Lukas/Luke chapter 3) we find David within them BOTH So if the Ruach HaQodesh impregnated Miriyam, is that NOT still DAvid's seed? I mean shooot! If Miriyam is DAvids great great great great great grand daughter and she becomes pregnant then wouldn't that child still be Davids offspring? I think so. What does that have to do with who the father is? absosmurfly NOTHING! So whether by Spirit or by man this question is irrelevant and a pathetic attempt to try to find fault with scripture! This does NOT disprove that the Messiah was born without Divine intervention.

NEXT!!!!

[1dell]

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 chil- dren, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

This is actually a good one and is a bit tricky, but then again to the above normal student this is easy to cypher. First and FOREMOST we MUST understand that IHaVaH has conservations with different people throughout the book and he is NOT always talking to the same person. So is the case with this "contradiction" IN the book of D'variym/Deuteronomy he is talking to the sons and daughters of Ya'aqov ben Ytzakh (Ysrael) and giving them the declaration of Torah and to THEM has this promise been made NOT to the rest of the world. He is speaking singularly not to the plurality that involves all of mankind. More specifically he is talking to the JUDGES of Ysrael and how they are to administer/mete their judgement! that THEY are not to put to death a son for what his father has done. BUT by time we get to YeshaIHaVaH/Isaiah IHaVaH is talking to an altogether different audience. MAN THIS IS SO SIMPLE!!! If one was to read the WHOLE chapter (this is most common rememdy for the ingorant READ things in context!!!!) they would find IHaVaH is not talking to the Ysraeliym at ALL!! He is talking about 3 distinct "people" the "Son of the Morning (Lucifer) the Babylonians and to Assyria. We can tell he is not talking to Ysrael becayse he tells Palestina to rejoice because these things would happen to their enemies. I could explain this further but if I get resistance then and only then will be get moor involved in my explaination

[1dell]

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 abomina- tion: 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 lapw- ing, 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 ea- gle, 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 cor- morant, DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. ------------------------------------------------

I thought this was supposed to be a list of CONTRADICTIONS. How is this a contradiction? I could see if in one place the bible says the bat is not a bird and in another it says that it is. But this is not the case. So this is not a contradiction. But I see where you THINK there is error (no Ptah I am not talking to you bro, I know you didn't come up with this stuff) I guess they are thinking that classifying a bat as a FOWL is the same as classifying a bat as a bird which is NOT the case with the ancient hebrews. Because on the 4th day IHaVaH created fish and FOWL which are nothing more than creatures that FLY! Now if a creature can fly it would be considered a FOWL no matter if it's a rodent or whatever. Saying that a bat is not a fowl is like trying to say a dolphin is not a fish.

NEXT!!!!

[1dell]

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.

Okay here I see that the attempt is to show inaccuracy in the scripture rather than a contradiction, because this is NOT a contradiction. It's no matter. The point is NOT about chewing the cud because the eating of one's own dung is an unclean act in and of itself. Where as in this scripture this particular animal is almost considered clean BECAUSE it chews the cud. Now if a rabbit eats it's own doo doo how would that be considered clean? The thing that DISQUALIFIES this animal from being clean is "HE DIVIDED NOT THE HOOFS" When was the last time you saw a rabbit with hoofs? If he divides not the hoof then I guess that would mean that he had one hoof instead of it being split in the middle. Again when was the last time you saw a rabbit with a hoof like a horse? I hope you can say never. Evidently we are NOT dealing with a rabbit or hare as we know it. At least not one of modern era. There are over 20 million extinct species of animals since the creation of earth. Hmmm, since we are dealing with an ancient civilization, why in the world should we be so vain to consider that whatever species they are speaking of would be the exact that we are familiar with in this day and time when we have hundreds of species of animals that are TODAY on the verge of extinction?

Let's use our head people!

NEXT!!!!

[1dell]

Response from Neter Nebu Atun Re:

accurate adj 1: conforming exactly or almost exactly to fact or to a standard or performing with total accuracy; "an accurate reproduction"; "the accounting was accurate"; "accurate measurements"; "an accurate scale" [ant: inaccurate] 2: exact in performance or amount; strictly correct; "a precise instrument"; "a precise measurement" [syn: exact, precise].


inaccurate \In*ac"cu*rate\, a. Not accurate; not according to truth; inexact; incorrect; erroneous; as, in inaccurate man, narration, copy, judgment, calculation, etc.

The word accurate has its roots in the word "cure, curate, and care." The word cure means "Restoration of health; recovery from disease." It comes from the old French meaning "medical treatment."

Where am I reaching at?

The Bible and other religious texts is analogous to an "instrument,"(such as a calculators, a flask, a balance, a ruler, etc.) utilized for an experiment by Scientists, Chemists, Physicist, Biologists, Mathematicians, and the likes. Therefore, the MORE ACCURATE and the MORE PRECISE the experimenter(s) instruments are, the better are the results. In other words, the outcome of the experiment will approach the TRUE value or STANDARD; as a result, of more precise and accurate INSTRUMENTS. Religiously speaking, what is that Standard or True value? If you are a Muslim the standard is Allah; and if you are a Judahite or Isrealite the standard is Yahuwa Eloheem or Adon (Aton) . If you are a Christian the standard is Theos; We must return to the source of all things. "THE BULLS EYE." The Religious Philosophy of the Pharoah AkhenAton was that the Aton (Unique One) was the TRUE and/ONE GOD. The Aton (unique one) was either capable of being absorbed by other religions or capable of absorbing other religions.

www.egyptianmyths.com/imhotep.htm Imhotep
www.geocities.com/Athens/7837/ankhen.html Akhenaton
www.egiptianmysteries.com/egyptianpg14.htm AEO
www.mp3.com/iching (I-Ching)

Peace,

Atun Re aka Imhotep Tut Ankh Re

[1dell]

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.

This one is a victim of translation, but I never expected the coach potato scholar that picked these "contradiction" to actually pick up a book of hebrew to learn the truth behind the error of TRANSLATION and understanding. First of all the MISUNDERSTANDING is that this scripture is talking about legs when it is not! everything is wrapped up in this one verse: "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;"

What one MUST understand is that in the King James translation there are words that are either in brackets or italicized because these are words that DO NOT appear in the actual manuscript but are IMPLIED to conform to english syntax. This is a case here where when this is done it throws off the WHOLE translation. That word ALL in "that goeth upon ALL four" is such a word. it is NOT in the manuscript but is added to give proper syntax protocol. This should not have been because it makes the verse succumb to an ENGLISH idiom: to go on all fours. Apply to an animal with 4 legs and feet. But this is NOT the case because it sets up redundency in the verse. First of all the subject of the clause is Insects that fly or FLYING creeping thing and the goes upon (taking out the ALL) four. The verse SHOULD be "Yet these may ye eat of every FLYING creeping thing that travel upon FOUR" This would imply 4 wings. This verse deals more so with their 3 methods of travel WINGS, Feet THAT HAVE LEGS, and Leaping. It's important that the feet have legs above them. But the number 4 does not describe the amount of legs or feet it deals more so with the wings.
Just one moor look at this verse shows how redundent it would be to if "upon all fours" were talking about the legs "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;" In the ORIGINAL manuscript there are no punctuations or grammatical marks such as periods and commas and sort. Here is the verse again without the marks: Yet these may ye eat of every FLYING creeping thing that goeth upon FOUR which have legs above their feet to leap withal upon the earth. Grammitically how could four describe the legs when the description comes AFTER the subject? If this was refering to legs it should have been written "...which have 4 legs above their feet to.." if you read the rest of the bible you will notice this syntax does is not followed throughout the rest of Moshe's writting and thus is not his style to speak this way. But since Wings preceed the amount it is to be implied that Four refers to the amount of wings. And study of the species in question would lend itself to the truth of the fact that Locust (this particular breed) have 4 wings

Man! speak of redundent! I beat this horse to death! Gotta stop talkin so much. Anyway


NEXT!!!!!!

[1dell]

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.

HUH?!!!!! Now THAT is reaching!!! If this is supposed to be 101 contradictions I guess it should be 101-5=96 "contradictions" cuz again this is NOT a contra-DICK-shun! Never the less this is REALLY reaching!!! Grabbing at air. because snails DO melt!!! If you don't believe me find one, pour salt on it and watch it melt like the wicked witch of the west! MAN!!! If you come at me with "well the snails in shells don't melt" thats some skraight up bullschiznit cuz I did it just this summer! I saw a snail crawling (I guess snails don't crawl either huh?) up the banner on the outside of my house and I got some salt and watched him melt (wither away) and it was all good. In fact snails come in a variety, a slug is a snail too and I be daggone if EVERY kid isn't familiar with the fact that you can make a slug melt by pouring salt on it. THIS is pathetic!!! it seems liek at all cost and intelligence these enemies of the scriptures are going beyond the measure to discredit the most holy writ! For what? they look like uneducated fools in the process and this took the cake!!!! If the clown that came up with this one doesn't think snails melt, he must've been not allowed to play when he was a kid and was banned from handling wild life. Because it's just such common gnawledge that snails/slugs melt!

NEXT!!!

[1dell]

"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."

Man!!!!! moor of this type of stuff? okay since cool moe B wants to pick and piece the bible like a buffet but leaving the most important parts out I will do his homework for him:

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 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

There are a couple of ways to attack this. My first choice is to say that this surely appears to be somewhat of a contradiction until closely investigated. If using 20/21st century sentence recognition understanding verse 20 appears to be saying let the waters bring about moving life AND fowl. This would seem to indicate that the water brought forth BOTH life forms, but this is not biblical logic NOR biblical science. All this indicates is that both were created in the same day and reading the next 2 verses shed moor light on this: In verse 21 the supreme subject is And God created: then supporting descriptions are He created great whales are all water life forms that the waters were responsible for bringing forth (as if the waters were responsible and participants int heir portion of creation) and God ALSO created Fowl but it is not to be deduced that both fish and fowl are of the same incredient or from the same source and the next verse gives us the keys to the principle. In fact the whole creation process gives us the key and you will see it in the next verse. The key is each creature is subject and accountable to environment from whence it was created. Thus Since Fish are created from water they are to LIVE in the water and not upon the earth, doing so would mean death, hence Birds created from earth cannot live in water the result would be death. Because certain animals are created from certain environs they have respiratory systems conducive to those environs, like the respiratory system of a fish is not conducive to life on earth where there is oxygen and the respiratory system of a man is not conducive to life underwater it's just as simple as that. And verse 22 gives us that principle because God predetermines where each creature should be homed. The Fish is homed in the environ from whence it was created: "Fill the waters in the seas" and "Let the fowl fill the EARTH"

Another angle could be God created these creatures from the WATERS because in Genesis 1:6-9 IHaVaH is in the process of dividing the waters, the waters ABOVE the earth and the Waters below the earth one is called the seas and are gathered into one place and the others are above the earth and called the heavens. On is now called the firmament and we see that word in verse 20 where the fowl are to fly within the FIRMAMENT of the heavens. The funny thing is that the firmament has "earth" within it too but I am just arguing this for argument's sake.

Another angle is that during the sixth day God created man and we find that he created replicas of all the other creatures he created WITHIN the Garden of Eden because research into the 2nd chapter shows us that God TOOK Adam from the PLACE where he created him Genesis 2:7,8 and we find that when they messed up and were kicked out of the garden IHaVaH took them out of the garden and placed them BACK from where He created man Genesis 3:23. I said all that to say, when he PLACED man in the garden he was the ONLY being in there! So the Garden of Eden (the ENCLOSURE of pleasure) was obviously the prototype civilization in the process of being created and the first to inhabit it was Adam. How do we know this? because IHaVaH said "it's not good for man to be ALONE" Then he goes about creating ANIMALS to accompany him IN the garden to see what he would name him and what sort of animals he would create. So in the process of creating we find only a few of the species that God ORINIGINALLY created. We do NOT see fish(es) LOL! being created at this time do we? NO! WE ONLY see earth based creatures in the catagories of beasts of the field and fowl of the AIR. Hmm! Does that THEN mean that there are different sort of fowl? Fowl of the HEavens AND Earth AND Air? maybe.

But from the data we have gathered there is no contradiction just a lack of understanding of the mysterious writings and the works of God in creation.

NEXT!!!!

[1dell]

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

SO!!!!! and??!!!!? Another noncontradiction. Farmers Almanac has some strange stuff in it to help livestock and vegetation grow, but I ain't complaining. The Ancient ones also knew of the power of the Mandrake root to make a man perform (sort of like an ancient day Viagra) hey don't knock it til you done tried it.

[1dell]

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.

Hey give the guy a break! He is speaking of the earth and creative term as metaphors! GEEESH!!! No one ever faulted Shakespeare or any other literary personality for being poetic in their descriptions! check this out: "and the inhabitants thereof ARE AS grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens AS A curtain, and spreadeth them out AS A tent to dwel" The word AS is key to the fact that he is speaking metaphorically and poeticly! You know people are allowed to have their own descriptive style and way of saying things in their OWN book. The Book of YeshaYahu/Isaiah IS HIS book. HE wrote it. Since when did he have to follow 20th century protocol for authorship? I figured a prophet who is known for speaking in dark riddles and mysterious sayings would be expected to be a bit aesthetic in his descriptions of things. You silly people expect so much

As far as Shatan taking Ishua upon the mount to see the cities of the world:
"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"

LEt's look at some key words here:
the word for WORLD is Kosmos where we get the word Cosmos:
2889 kosmos {kos'-mos}

probably from the base of 2865; TDNT - 3:868,459; n m

AV - world 186, adorning 1; 187

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order,
government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars,

'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God,
and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages,
pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting,
stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause
of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
8b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47
1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

and he was taken up INTO an exceedingly HIGH Mountain. Dude tell me something, Is it possible to see the sky from a VERY tall mountain? And should this be taken literally as you are taking it? Because with the other temptations involved the Devil also took Ishua up to the top pennacle of the temple. Please tell me how in the world did they get up there? and do you REALLY think that the devil and Ishua went rock climbing without any gear? I mean I can see it now Ishua in a long white rob and sandles rock climbing the breadth of some mountian with out a rapelling rope and whatnot. grasping for the nearest peice of mountain edge to pull himself up upon while the devil is barking down at him to hurry it up. Man, the Message was capable of some magnificant things and the very fact that he was speaking face to face with the devil is supernatural in and of itself. It is obvious these temptations wer of a supernatural nature. Just as while Shlomo was dreaming IHaVaH came to him (in II Kings) and asked him what did he want because He was prepaired to give him anything he wanted, yet Shlomo asked for wisdom (which by the way pleased God) And if not under His own supernatural power by the supernatural power of the devil was this made possible. In fact in the book of Enoch there is something similar, how Enoch was able to see the kingdoms of the world by being on the top of a mountain. Within the bible there are incidents of people appearing and reappearing, time travel and all sorts of stuff. In fact in the book of Yechezekel/Ezekiel there is an angel that takes Ezekeil from place to place supernaturally. In fact Ezekiel is able to see thru walls because of the presence of this being.

Hey don't knock it til you done tried it

NEXT!!!!

[1dell]

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:

Okay okay, first of all would you believe me if I said that the person that tempted Eve was NOT a snake and all throughout these verses it's not talking about a snake? But I will humor you because even what you are saying is untrue. Snakes DO "eat" dust! The hebrew word Akal means to eat or to consume. So a snake in a dusty place crawling on his tummy consumes dust. How you might ask and I can tell you HAD to ask because if you think these are errors it just goes to show how mentally handicapped you are. A snake is CONSTANTLY ejecting his tongue into the air and dust particles are in the air and debris (which Aphar the hebrew word for dust) and whatnot are picked up by the snake's tongue and that is how a snake smells! DUH!!!! In fact the word for dust Aphar means: dust, debris, ashes, rubbish. Now let's say we use the word rubbish. Ask anyone from english what rubbish is and they will tell you that rubbish is junk or undesireable foods. And this book was translated by whom? You guessed! a scholar from england!!!

But do you NOT find it funny how IHaVaH tells the snake that he will eat dust the rest of his day and 2 or 3 verses down we find IHaVaH telling Adam "From dust you were taken and to dust shall you return"?Hmmm? Somethings up with that and I will say this, these verses give light to great mysticism but I will not bother to explain it to the dunce asking these questions! AGain another NONcontradiction. So I guess we are down to 92 "contradictions" of the bible and 9 braindead observations.

[1dell]

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.

WOW!!!! I admit!! you got me!!! Oh agony!!! This is too hard to answer. I guess the bible is REALLy flawed! I guess it does have contradictions! Oh woe iz me!!!! NO!!!!! Hey nutty buddy, the word earth in hebrew can mean the planet in it's totality or land, country, piece of territory. JUST like in english! So give it up to Job for being a supreme scientist and knowing that the earth is suspended in space. Then what you say is a contradicting statement is NOTHING more than God asking Job to give an account of his participation in the creation or show and prove his might above God. Let me explain

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding

I GUESS what you are trying to say is that by saying "the foundations of the earth" you are saying that this contradicts the fact that the earth is NOT supported? I don't get it dude, even my kids understand this one! The foundation of the earth is called bedrock or molten rock or the magna plates (I think I am saying that right) Just like laying the foundation of a house. the earth/land is foundated on ROCK the core of the earth even. But just for fun let's look at the word foundation in hebrew:

03245 yacad {yaw-sad'}

a primitive root; TWOT - 875; v

AV - foundation 15, lay 8, founded 8, ordain 2, counsel 2, established 2,
foundation + 03117 1, appointed 1, instructed 1, set 1, sure 1; 42

1) to found, fix, establish, lay foundation
1a) (Qal) to found, establish, begin
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to fix or seat themselves close together, sit in conclave
1b2) to be founded
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to found
1c2) to establish, appoint, ordain
1d) (Pual) to be founded, be laid
1e) (Hophal) to be founded

So I guess there is moor than one way to translate this verse:

"Where wast thou when I established the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding"

OR

"Where wast thou when I founded the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding"

Dude that's why I tellz people like you to learn the language and it ALL becomes as plain as the nose on your grill!

So since the 2nd verse does NOT negate the first. read my lips NO CONTRADICTION!!!!

as far as this: "The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof. " Goes, another incident where the functions of creation are poetically described. I mean you find this ALL over middle eastern literature from the egyptian book of the dead to modern indian poetry. It's been around for millenia and I am sure a book you have read lately had within it some sort of idiom or figure of speech. I don't know why everyone else is permitted to such while the bible attracts criticizers when the prophets and song writers do it. Get over it! The bible is a book of linguistic art at times and the hebrews were a VERY artistically speaking people. HECK the hebrew language is heiroglyphical which means even their language is a language of pictures how much more when it rolls of the tongue? Fools from Europe say the Sun rises and the Sun falls when modern science KNOWS that the Sun stays still yet it's the earth that moves and the sun rises and falls by mere appearance yet this is not true. I don't see you hitting them up for their casual poetics.

Remember you are NOT getting paid to do this and you have just proven that you are WASTING your time.

NEXT!!!!

NEXT!!!!!!

[1dell]

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

Dude! You need a girlfriend! You got tooo much time on your hands. Nit picking at EVERY little thing! First of all we are AGAIN dealing with artistically explainitory people. What Solomon is doing in the book of Ecclesiastes is NOT trying to be scientific. What he is doing is making a point and using the water flow as an analogy to support his point. And by the way the word ocean is called seas in the bible, look up genesis chapter one, God created the SEAS not the ocean, this should be understood throughout the book. What he is saying is that water from rivers flow into the sea yet the sea does not overflow because the cycle continues over and over. I'm sorry I fail to see the contradiction and/or error!

As for that last verse dude, the snow and hail ARE stored or shall I say in treasures or magazines. They don't just pop out of no where! They accumulate! Just like the rain is stored in clouds that turn grey then the clouds empty themselves and rain happens. Dag we learnt that in elementary school! So I guess you can say the storehouse or treasurey is the clouds, which by the way is also called heaven (one of the heavens)

[1dell]

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)

Take a look at how the "first" creation account ends
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
From this we can react. How should we read the NEXT following events? Should we read them as the 8th day or part of the 6th or starting all over and think that Moshe was dumb enough to put 2 different creation accounts BACK TO BACK like some kind of idiot? NAY! we shall read these as 6th day specifics because the NEXT following verse have NOTHING to do with the creation of earth as a WHOLE but the "planting" of the Garden of Eden as done by the hand of God himself. Why should we read it like this? because we find occurances already in progress from the creation of the previous days for example? We find the earth is being watered by a geyser of some kind: Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. which would imply that 1) the earth was now exposed and the waters were gathered into one place for the ground to have some sort of exposure but to keep things moist and fertile a geyser was keeping the whole land fresh. Which ALSO implies that the waters have been divided above and below. Also which would imply that for God to make man from the DUST of the earth there would indeed need to be dust ergo earth exposure of the 2nd day. According to the great account God created man on the 6th day. And if you do some research you will find that these are NOT 24 hour literal days, this is a process that took 1000s of years which is why this could NOT be the 8th day. So all this can very well take place on the 6th day given a 1000 year window. Which would also explain how the earth became so wicked later on in Genesis. Because if God took the 7th day off AWAY from his creation and left it to run itself and came back to find it wicked and corrupted then that also explains why God repented that he made man on earth. Anyway the events that occur in chapter 2:7 throughout the rest of the chapter are SPECIFICALLY centered around this one idea:
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And we are given the PROCESS of HOW God planted that garden! Not only did he plant every tree that he previously created throughout the rest of the earth within this garden but he ALSO put animals there that were in previous sections of earth. Every detail of this creation account is Garden of eden specific and NOT the whole earth.

As far as that Elohim thing is concerned. Yeah it's a plural word but it's a word like Fish, Sheep, Deer in english. These words are BOTH singular and plural whether talking about a group of creatures or a single creature. So too with elohim and we know this because the hebrew words are singularly conjugated around Elohim as if to speak of one individual. In fact in the 2nd chapter where YOU read "And the Lord God...." that's actually And IHaVaH Elohiym. Now tell me, where else in the bible is IHaVaH or Jehovah as you erroneously call him is refered to as being a group of people?

NEXT!!!!!