Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-28-2017 10:59 AM
367 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,790 Year: 19,396/21,208 Month: 2,155/3,111 Week: 376/574 Day: 31/59 Hour: 7/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   The Bible has no contradictions
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 932 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 166 of 221 (603705)
02-07-2011 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Theflyingsorcerer
02-06-2011 4:59 PM


Jeremiah - God's Anger
quote:
Book of Job. "For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and shall not keep anger forever."

Book of job, a bit further along; God speaking. "Thou hast kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever."


These verses are actually in Jeremiah.

In Jeremiah 3:12, the message is for Israel and in Jeremiah 17:4, the message is for Judah.

Read the stories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Theflyingsorcerer, posted 02-06-2011 4:59 PM Theflyingsorcerer has not yet responded

III
Junior Member (Idle past 2139 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 167 of 221 (604309)
02-11-2011 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brian
03-06-2003 10:38 AM


Other thoughts
Brian,

Actually, there are other possibilities:

1: Adam had another wife in this line that is not mentioned, one reason Cain and Abel are not mentioned in it.

2: Perhaps Cain and Abel were not of Adam's line per verse 4:1-2.

Gen 4:1

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD."

In this verse the word "knew" probably didnt mean that they had child together, perhaps just awareness of each other rather.

Per BLB/strong's concordance: the word "knew" was translated from the hebrew word "yada' " a prim root meaning "to know" where as the word "from" was translated from the hebrew word " 'eth" meaning "with, near or together".

So possibly, in this verse "I have aquired a man from the LORD" ment just that, the LORD and Eve had Cain together. This idea applies to Abel too per verse 4:2.

Edited by The Saint, : Spelling error/Correection.

Edited by The Saint, : Spelling error


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 03-06-2003 10:38 AM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by arachnophilia, posted 02-11-2011 7:31 PM III has responded

  
III
Junior Member (Idle past 2139 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 168 of 221 (604310)
02-11-2011 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by ME2
03-06-2003 3:18 PM


Other thoughts
ME2,

Actually Genesis 4:14-15 imply there are others.

"Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

"But the LORD said to him, "Not so [fn] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him."

As far as markings go, it's not like Cain traveled from Pakistan to California. He traveled by foot, within the same culture/mixed cultures. Most likely people could identify the markings and had similar understandings of markings.

Edited by The Saint, : Topic


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ME2, posted 03-06-2003 3:18 PM ME2 has not yet responded

  
III
Junior Member (Idle past 2139 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 169 of 221 (604314)
02-11-2011 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ME2
03-06-2003 4:26 PM


Other thoughts
ME2,

Actually there is nothing in the Bible that specifies other people didn't exist. The story just focuses on the two refered to commonly as Adam and Eve(the first man and woman). Adam was translated from the hebrew word "'adam" which is defined as "man" or "mankind". It's a species reference such as homo sapien. Per genesis 1:27-28, man was to multiply. The creation story in Genesis 2 was probably written as a way to deliver the story of the fall/sin. Explaining it from the vantage point that what God had created was good but then due to Satan man sinned. It's not a complicated story. I think it's hillarious when people analyze it.

I also think it's a common issue to think that the scriptures in the Bible are chronologically organized. They're likely not actually in order. Perhaps it is more logically understood if you read ch 5 before 4 for example.

Honestly, the Bible was not a book originally, it was developed into a book by " 'adam". The sciptures in the Bible were originally controlled by the power hungry Catholic church. Lol.

Edited by III, : Word Err


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ME2, posted 03-06-2003 4:26 PM ME2 has not yet responded

  
III
Junior Member (Idle past 2139 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 170 of 221 (604315)
02-11-2011 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coragyps
03-06-2003 6:53 PM


Re: 2 or 1?
Coragyps,

Actully even though Genesis 1 and 2 are in contradiction of each other, it does not mean they're incompatible. The intention was probably, in Genesis 1, to tell a creation story while, in Genesis 2, was to tell the first half of the fall of "'adam". I am sure the intention was not to tell two different creation stories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 03-06-2003 6:53 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2011 7:51 AM III has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11575
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 171 of 221 (604317)
02-11-2011 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by III
02-11-2011 6:10 AM


Hello Roman Numeral Three,

Welcome to EvC.

In Message 167, you wrote:

Gen 4:1

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD."

In this verse the word "knew" probably didnt mean that they had child together, perhaps just awareness of each other rather.

Naw, there's plenty of other parts of the Bible where to "know" someone means to have sex with them. Its an idiom. Search an online Bible for all the times it says that someone "knew" someone else and read them honestly and see if you think its talking about sex.



Added by edit:

I took the liberty of looking some up for you:

quote:
Genesis 4:17 (King James Version)

17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


quote:
Genesis 4:25 (King James Version)

25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.


How could he "know" someone again if its just talking about awareness and not sex? And why put it alongside baring a son if its not talking about sex?

quote:
Genesis 38:26 (King James Version)

26And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.


Would you say this means that he lost his awareness of her or that he stopped having sex with her?


The only reason to change "he knew her and she had a kid" in one verse, to being two totally different and unrelated events is to remove any errors it would cause to read it the way its written.

From Message 170:

Actully even though Genesis 1 and 2 are in contradiction of each other, it does not mean they're incompatible. The intention was probably, in Genesis 1, to tell a creation story while, in Genesis 2, was to tell the first half of the fall of "'adam". I am sure the intention was not to tell two different creation stories.

What makes you sure?

Did you know that Gen 2 was written before Gen 1? They're just two different folklores that were compiled next to each other into the Bible. One doesn't go with the other.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by III, posted 02-11-2011 6:10 AM III has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by III, posted 02-11-2011 1:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

III
Junior Member (Idle past 2139 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 172 of 221 (604356)
02-11-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2011 7:51 AM


Other thoughts
Catholic Scientist, thanks for the welcome! I have a long history of this debate.

So, I conclude that they had sex based on the entirety of the verse context "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived" not based upon the fact that it read "Cain knew his wife".

Example, "Cain knew his wife, and she died". Did she die naturally or did Cain kill her? There is enough room for skepticism so I don't conclude either.

Catholic Scientist writes:

How could he "know" someone again if its just talking about awareness and not sex? And why put it alongside baring a son if its not talking about sex?

He can take a leave of "absence" and then return. They didn't have cell phones..... Men were providers in historic society, they took leave often.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Would you say this means that he lost his awareness of her or that he stopped having sex with her?

Both Actually. If he is not aware of her anymore naturally they don't have sex. Another point, usage of words is not always the same, historically and currently.

Catholic Scientist writes:

The only reason to change "he knew her and she had a kid" in one verse, to being two totally different and unrelated events is to remove any errors it would cause to read it the way its written.

If you're saying that because the phrase is being used in two different events and can be interpreted to mean they had sex, this does not mean that in both verses it actually means they had or are having sex..... That's one interpretation. I simply conclude what it reads "he knew his wife" or "he knew his wife no more" and conclude other points with that, if he didn't know his wife probably they are not having sex(I suppose you don't have to KNOW someone to have sex with them).

Catholic Scientist writes:

"Did you know that Gen 2 was written before Gen 1? They're just two different folklores that were compiled next to each other into the Bible. One doesn't go with the other."

Yes I've heard this claim but this is just simply "according to some"..... Ideas change over time as to what something means... You should realize that simply due to writing style or perhaps the fact that it seems as if it was a copy from another document, does not MEAN that it is.... "Nothing is higher than a bit of skepticism"... I've provided that skepticism... Also it does not make the Bible any less authoritative simply because these documents are contradictory.

Edited by III, : Added 2nd response(missed it by accident).

Edited by III, : Added responses(Missed a couple of points)...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2011 7:51 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by ringo, posted 02-11-2011 2:07 PM III has responded
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2011 2:15 PM III has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13330
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 173 of 221 (604364)
02-11-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by III
02-11-2011 1:32 PM


III writes:

So, I conclude that they had sex based on the fact that it read "and she conceived" not based upon the fact that it says "Cain knew his wife".

Example, "Cain knew his wife, and she died".


A better example might be, "Cain shot his wife and she died." There's a clear connection between the shooting and the death just as there is between the "knowledge" and the conception. Ignoring context isn't skepticism. It's just wrong.


"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by III, posted 02-11-2011 1:32 PM III has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by III, posted 02-11-2011 5:36 PM ringo has responded

New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11575
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 174 of 221 (604366)
02-11-2011 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by III
02-11-2011 1:32 PM


Re: Other thoughts
I have a long history of this debate.

I guess that means you won't be changing your mind no matter what I type

So, I conclude that they had sex based on the fact that it read "and she conceived" not based upon the fact that it says "Cain knew his wife".

Huh?

Regardless, as I've shown, in the Bible when it says that some guy "knew" some girl then it means that they had sex.

In Gen 4:1, Adam had sex with Eve and she birthed Cain.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Would you say this means that he lost his awareness of her or that he stopped having sex with her?

Both Actually. If he is not aware of her anymore naturally they don't have sex.

How can you become not aware of someone? That's a ridiculous interpretation.

Another point, usage of words is not always the same, historically and currently.

Indeed. Like, we don't use the word "know" to refer to sex anymore like they did back in them Bible days.

Catholic Scientist writes:

The only reason to change "he knew her and she had a kid" in one verse, to being two totally different and unrelated events is to remove any errors it would cause to read it the way its written.

If you're saying that because the phrase is being used in two different events and can be interpreted to mean they had sex, this does not mean that in both verses it actually means they had or are having sex.....

Huh?

That's how languages work. You could just as well argue that just because it says there were ten commandments, doesn't mean that it really meant that there were 10 of them, it could have been 9, just because ten means 10 in other passages doesn't mean it doesn't mean 9 in this one

Really!?

To know someone meant to have sex with them.

My actual point was that there's no reason other than an attempt to rationalize a potential error to interpret this as anything else but what it says it is.

I've provided that skepticism...

I'm not seeing it.

Also it does not make the Bible any less authoritative simply because these documents are contradictory.

Maybe not, but it is obvious that the Bible cannot be both literal and inerrant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by III, posted 02-11-2011 1:32 PM III has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by III, posted 02-11-2011 2:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 180 by III, posted 02-11-2011 5:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

III
Junior Member (Idle past 2139 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 175 of 221 (604369)
02-11-2011 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Brian
03-07-2003 3:26 PM


Brian,

You forgot to add "possibly". These stories are POSSIBLY from different traditions. Perhaps the two traditions came from the scripture in the Bible. The Bible does read to the affect that it is coming from the creator.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Brian, posted 03-07-2003 3:26 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
III
Junior Member (Idle past 2139 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 176 of 221 (604370)
02-11-2011 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2011 2:15 PM


Re: Other thoughts
Catholic Scientist,

You may want to re post. I added some responses to my post. When you "re post" I will respond here again.

Edited by III, : Added message.

Edited by III, : Added message


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2011 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2011 2:32 PM III has not yet responded
 Message 178 by hERICtic, posted 02-11-2011 4:24 PM III has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11575
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 177 of 221 (604371)
02-11-2011 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by III
02-11-2011 2:27 PM


Re: Other thoughts
Don't do that. Its frowned upon here anyways.

Just respond to what I've alread posted and repeat anything I've missed.

Please and thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by III, posted 02-11-2011 2:27 PM III has not yet responded

hERICtic
Member (Idle past 1991 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 178 of 221 (604380)
02-11-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by III
02-11-2011 2:27 PM


Re: Other thoughts
Hi Roman Numeral 3.

Just curious, do you believe the Bible contains any contradictions?

Heres one I found a few years ago, not sure if other sites have brought it up or not.

John 18:

19 Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
20 I have spoken openly to the world, Jesus replied. I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21 Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.

22 When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. Is this the way you answer the high priest? he demanded.

23 If I said something wrong, Jesus replied, testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me? 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

Here Jesus is being questioned. The context of the verses is quite clear. Jesus is brought before Annas then sent to Caiaphas the high priest. Do you believe Caiaphas and Annas in this scenario are standing side by side? Same room? Different parts of town?

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by III, posted 02-11-2011 2:27 PM III has not yet responded

  
III
Junior Member (Idle past 2139 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 179 of 221 (604389)
02-11-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by ringo
02-11-2011 2:07 PM


Other thoughts
ringo,

ringo writes:

better example might be, "Cain shot his wife and she died." There's a clear connection between the shooting and the death just as there is between the "knowledge" and the conception. Ignoring context isn't skepticism. It's just wrong.

If it was that specific, there would be very little need for doubt hence the skepticism. This is just right. I am not ignoring context, you're, read below...

Skepticism:

skepticism
   /ˈskɛptəˌsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[skep-tuh-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
skeptical attitude or temper; doubt.
2.
doubt or unbelief with regard to a religion, especially christianity.
3.
( initial capital letter ) the doctrines or opinions of philosophical Skeptics; universal doubt.

Synonyms
1. questioning, probing, testing. 2. disbelief, atheism, agnosticism.

Antonyms
2. faith.

Yes you took this debate to this level. Now we're talking about definitions. I question the thought that when the Bible words "xxx knew his wife" that it means xxx had sex with his wife. This is skepticism. I don't care what is commonly accepted, this changes with time.

REF: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skepticism

Edited by III, : Reference


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by ringo, posted 02-11-2011 2:07 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by ringo, posted 02-11-2011 6:59 PM III has responded
 Message 186 by arachnophilia, posted 02-11-2011 7:23 PM III has not yet responded

  
III
Junior Member (Idle past 2139 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 180 of 221 (604392)
02-11-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2011 2:15 PM


Re: Other thoughts
Catholic Scientist writes:

Huh?

Regardless, as I've shown, in the Bible when it says that some guy "knew" some girl then it means that they had sex.

In Gen 4:1, Adam had sex with Eve and she birthed Cain.

You have not shown that though. You have provided evidence that can be interpreted several different ways. We have a clear difference of opinion with respect to the evidence provided. This is skepticism. I will even acknowledge, I could be wrong. Again, this is true skepticism.

The real Gen 4:1

And Adam knew Eve(was aware of Eve) his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD(Cain was possibly a descendant of God and Eve per the Evidence)".

Catholic Scientist writes:

How can you become not aware of someone? That's a ridiculous interpretation.

Take a leave of absence.

aware
   /əˈwɛər/ Show Spelled[uh-wair] Show IPA
adjective
1.
having knowledge; conscious; cognizant: aware of danger.
2.
informed; alert; knowledgeable; sophisticated: She is one of the most politically aware young women around.

Synonyms
1. mindful.

See conscious.

Antonyms
1. oblivious.

When you are away from somebody you're not aware of them. You may know their name, You may know of them but you have no idea if they are breathing or what else they are doing. This is all part of awareness. People change or die. Your thought of that person may be accurate for the time but as soon as you take a leave you are not aware of them in the deep meaning of the word awareness. So to know this person is to say you are aware of them, you know them currently per the moment.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Indeed. Like, we don't use the word "know" to refer to sex anymore like they did back in them Bible days.

1: They may not have used it in that context then.
2: People may use it in that context now.

This is skepticism.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Huh?

That's how languages work. You could just as well argue that just because it says there were ten commandments, doesn't mean that it really meant that there were 10 of them, it could have been 9, just because ten means 10 in other passages doesn't mean it doesn't mean 9 in this one

Really!?

To know someone meant to have sex with them.

My actual point was that there's no reason other than an attempt to rationalize a potential error to interpret this as anything else but what it says it is.

Flawed logic.

It's not how language works. Language is different for everybody just like how psychology is different for everybody.

FYI: We know there is 10 commandments because we can count them.
FYI: To know someone COULD be to have sex with them.
FYI: You don't KNOW what it is... You believe you KNOW what it is. This is FAITH. Read below.

My point is we don't know. This is skepticism. The nature of my posts are skepticism. The nature of your posts are faith. Faith is not skepticism. You're not being skeptical.

Edited by III, : Err in OP

Edited by III, : Added meaning.

Edited by III, : Err

Edited by III, : Err


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2011 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by arachnophilia, posted 02-11-2011 7:18 PM III has responded
 Message 194 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-12-2011 11:12 AM III has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017