Is the Bible acceptable?

graft2vine: No. I say the Eden Narrative begins in Gen. 2:4. The allegorical aspects to any of the verses must be examined and explored, discussed and debated.The Heb. terms "male and female" are never used in the Eden narrative. The "Helper" was not found among the beasts of the field and fowl of the air. The Heb. masculine noun for "helper" is not compatable with the Heb. term for "woman." The "rib/side" issue needs further examination. There is so very much of the Narrative that cries out for a closer look.I do hope we can address some of these issues.Regards;
Ger

IMHO, the Eden story is enigmatic, without being wholly allegorical. While I do see it as allegory and metaphorical, it is fastediously alligned with the essence of reality, which makes it a center-point of human existentialism and meaning.It is metaphorical if seen only as a realistic and imperically evidential story, and one asking what is the address and location of Eden - becomes inadequate: specially so when the OT is awash with specific historical detail later, and not seen elsewhere. This answer should not be expected to be answered: it lists talking serpents and angels which bar the entrance with firey swords turning every which way - so it is not on this here earth. So where is it? perhaps it is in the mind?Equally, it also says that humans will forever be tested and pitted against laws and decisions in all they do, on every corner and turn, on the levels of both individuals and nations. Humans may given everything, yet they aspire to the unreachable, dismissing the bounty of all the fruit for one. This is its reality, which is not metaphoricial, and one understandable to all generations.Significantly, this story is placed at a transit mid point between a generic description of human emergence, and that of a historical scenario of humans. Adam is a generic term for human, then it becomes a pronoun for a real historical person on the earth. This is excellent narrative style, connecting and demanding both realms of thought. Historical rivers come out from a mysterios garden hovering somewhere between the universe and a point outside it - then becomes an identifiable one on earth: this cannot be an error in mythical prose, but appears to be intentionally inclined in being metaphoric at a deep level.It is like the verse, 'LET THERE BE LIGHT': is that actual or an expressionism? - it appears to work both ways, making it a perfect metaphor, yet it may also be scientifically viable. The term of talking serpents and one which will crawl in the dust - also says the serpent in some distant realm did talk and did not crawl - which better answers the question where are the two rivers located! IMHO, this story makes us think and is excellently placed prior to the historical contents which follows it: it is a preamble, alligning with creationism and monotheism - namely a finite created universe, and one created in supreme wisdom.So I see it more as a message than a story.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Hi IAJ, Joseph how about if Genesis 1:1 was truly in the beginning as it says. This would have been like 10^9999999999 or more. The story of the generations of Genesis 1:1 as told in Genesis 2:4-4:26 telling us what happened in that world.Then at a later date the generations of the man created in the image of God which started at Genesis 5:1 tell us of our curent history of the earth.Something to think about.BTW This is my view.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I certainly see a deep cadence in the first few genesis chapters, which has not been deciphered as yet. It is open to multi applications in any generation, and this cannot be a fluke or co-incidence. The aspect of the technical term of create - 'bara' [something from nothing] - being replaced with 'form' [something from something else] for the rest of the five books, tells me this is no typo; it also tells me that unless in the beginning there was such a phenomenon as ex nehilo, all other views end up in a cyclical brick wall scenario - the surest evidence which path is wrong.Genesis 1/1 even answers the question what preceded this beginning in its opening 4 words ['In the beginning God'], alligning this with the creation of the universe [namely the heavens and the earth]. At this same point it says in its very first alphabet, which is 'B' - not to look for proof of the 'A', which is barred, with the advocation to go forth only. As you may know, this second alphabet is a square, with only the go forth side open; all other sides of this square B [beth] are slammed shut, with no other path around it: thus science cannot find its long saught singularity factor. This 'B' is dangling nwhere with nothing else existing, being the opening first entity in the OT. Thus the A remains elusive, while the same verse is declaring there is a Creator. IOW, YES, but you wont find proof. This is oppressive, high pressure taunting to a curious creature as humans, designed with the knowledge humans wont/cant stop looking.This accounts for why we know nothing whatsoever of anything's origins, despite all of humanity's pondering and searching. IMHO, there is no lacking in our minds - we have fathomed the first nano seconds of the BBT, yet know nothing of its one single step further back origin - it is simply barred at this time. Yet humans climb mountain peaks knowing there is nothing up there - this is a yearning and calling to know our source, akin to an orphan seeking its biological parent. It is a brilliant plan. That there is nothing wrong with our thinking ability, and that the ultimate answers are purposefully barred, is in the text, when this was asked by Moses:'AS THE HEAVENS ARE ABOVE THE EARTH SO ARE MY THOUGHTS HIGHER THAN YOURS AND YOUR WAYS NOT MINE' [Ex].And Moses, who came closest to the core of knowing, departed earth w/o knowing:'THE SECRETS REMAIN WITH THE LORD'Its deeper meaning is the purpose of creation is not yet given, pending a higher vocab being reached. this is also the fundamental reason for a Messiah. We are here, and we don't know why - or where here is or where we will go to - or even if there is somewhere to go to. It borders on an unjust scenario from a judiciary and moral/ethical premise. No human knows now or before, and its not anyone's minds which is the problem.

There is so much amusement to be found in iano's style of argumentation, so many clever variants on the same basic solipsist theme... What a shame more people don't accept it as the humor that it really is. (Yes, iano, I do believe that most of your posts are intended merely to pull our collective leg. Keep smiling, bro!)And the really cool thing is that every now and then, he drops a seed that is just so rich in its potential... Exactly so -- indeed, who is to say that God would not use the same basic technique: manipulate the senses of the intended audience in such a way that both sight and sound seem to present a coherent and consistent perception that they are being spoken to by a snake? God made the ears, eyes and brains of the audience, and he can make those things do whatever he likes. What more proof is needed to sustain this line of argument?(Let's see... what were folks arguing about here? Accuracy and Inerrancy in the Bible? And iano's consistent position: of course it's accurate and inerrant, so long as you believe it to be so, because your personal belief defines reality for you! External evidence of any physical nature has no bearing on this position, because the position is founded on solipsism. Ergo, refutation is futile.)Of course, if I understood the basic story, it wasn't supposed to be a case of God talking by way of a snake, but rather Satan (or some such other, lesser entity) doing the actual talking. Well hey, if God and CGI can do it, why not Satan too? The point is, it's all just a show, really. Of course there's no way that the respiratory and oral physiology of any snake could perform the articulations and air-flow control needed to actually produce speech. So what?In order to produce an actual acoustic signal resembling human speech, the snake would need the lungs, larynx, tongue, teeth, nasal cavity, velum and lips of a human, and the presence of all those things would, presumably, preclude any visual perception of a snake. So in the absence of all that, given that the listener in this case is "seeing" the speaker as a snake, we can safely conclude that the words are being "spoken" either internally (inside the listener's head) by way of hallucination or dream, or else by some synthetic contrivance that places a good-quality sound production system directly adjacent to a plausible 3-D image of a snake. (Well, obviously, if the sound is synthesized in some way, there's no reason to assume the snake isn't synthesized as well). If I can choose to believe anything in Genesis, I can certainly believe that, which means it must be true (for me at least). But seriously, folks, let's not get too carried away in this vein. If you place any value at all on the role that objective physical reality plays in your lives, don't argue with iano about that, and understand that your physical reality (which I honestly believe is something I share with you) will occasionally conflict with particular things that are said in the Bible. If the conflict bothers you, and you would prefer to stick with the biblical version, that's your choice, but don't expect that your belief will change the physical reality.If the above comes across in any way as personally offensive to iano, I sincerely and humbly apologize, for that is not my intention. I am responding only to iano's method of debate (which I find highly amusing), and I honestly do respect him as a person. I mean that.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

IamJoseph: You are really infatuated with this "something from nothing" concept. The Heb. verb "bara>" literally means "to shape". There is nothing in that verb that implies "ex nihilo=from nothing."Furthermore, Gen. 1:1 is connected - "vau=hook" - to Gen. 1:2 by the bound morpheme conjunction prefix "v=and, so, then, thus" which links the first verse to the second. In Gen. 1:2 the author states:

quote:

---

veha>aretz=then the earth hayethah=she was thohu=formless [but existing] vabohu=and empty [but existing](BHS Heb.)

---

When God shaped the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and empty. However, in its "formless and empty" state the raw materials that would become the earth when "shaped" existed in the darkness of the deep.I look forward to your reply.
Ger

Well said, Otto.Ger

The premise of something from nothing is derived from a creation made w/o tools and elements - as in a snap of the fingers ['GOD SAID - AND IT WAS SO']. There can be no other view here. The aspect of form from the void does not negate the ex nehilo, but affirms it: both the unformed and the means to make it into 'formed' is also factored in the equation in the text: both the unformed void and the formed order [2nd verse], appear after everything in the universe was created/given in the first verse.I dont think the special term of bara appearing only in the first creation chapter is a typo - not with such a document which is fastidious with every alphabet, which has a numeral value: no errors are possible here.

quote:

---

The word bara as "to shape". There is nothing in that verb that implies "ex nihilo=from nothing."

---

Not so when the context is regarded. One cannot shape what does not exist. Here, it refers to a uniqie making/creating - without tools and other products. What happens is, because this type of unique creation is not ever seen, we simply use the term create as form, in everyday speech. We say a song was created by the Beatles, but they used already existing notes which were always dangling in the air - and they put it together in their own mode: this is not exactly the kind of creating pointed out in Genesis ch. 1. Here, first the Beatles would have to 'create' the notes which make a song possible - without using any existing tools and products.Analogy: there is clay and there is a sculpter of the clay. Both were created.Yes, I see this as a fascinating premise, because it is the only explaination for the emergence of the universe. Everything else ends up in a cyclical brick wall: proof it is wrong. Its fascinating an ancient document makes such a premise. The ex nehilo is taken up very seriously in an ancient science called kabalah, going to extreme lengths to justify it, even by listing some transit points how it was processed: like the first action [verb] was the action of an IMPARTING of the original entity of itself - and that nothing can happen without this. Its hedy and deep, and I dont profess to understand ex nehilo or explain it - except that I see no alternative to it.Remember at all times - the universe is finite [there was a 'BEGINNING'/Gen]. Once, there were no tools, products, energy, space, particles- these are all post-uni. So even BB Booms are out -this too is post uni - or better, post ex nehilo. This finite premise must be the preamble when discussing such issues.Cheers.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, but being who I am, I have to say that I find your question rather ridiculous. I was taught and truly believe that the Bible is the word of God. How can you argue with His authority? I understand about evolution, but to me it seems as though man is trying to define an existence that is truly beyond his scope, since only God can truly design and create. All who revoke His word shall go to Hell, so my recommendation is to pick up a Bible and start reading, because that is the only truth in this world.

Welcome SteelyPhil!There is lots to learn and to enjoy here.Could you help a bit when you post? If you use the little green arrowed reply button on the lower right of the message you are replying to it makes it possible for readers to figure out what post you are replying to.This also will send a notification to the poster you are responding to if they have that turned on.It is useful when trying to follow the discussion to see the links between messages as well.

Muslims tell me the exact same thing regarding the Koran. Mormons say the same thing about not just the Bible but also the Book of Mormon, as well.Since these and other religions all make the same mutually exclusive claims regarding their holy texts, how am I to determine which is true?More importantly, what distinguishes your Bible from a nearly identical work of fiction? If I found a book identical to the Bible including apparent age of the text and for which there existed an equally old following, but instead of the word "god" it used "the flying spaghetti monster," how would I know which one to believe?How do I know they are not all fictional?

SteelyPhil writes

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but being who I am, I have to say that I find your question rather ridiculous. I was taught and truly believe that the Bible is the word of God.

---

Suppose you were born in a remote part of Africa and that you had never heard of the bible or the word of God. Will you go to hell after you die if you spent your whole life never heard of either the bible or the word of God?

It depends on whether or not one excepts that the Bible is absolutely do. If either person does not agree that the Bible is absolutely true, the debate ceases and the discussion becomes useless.

Actually, I would say that the same is true if a person insists that the Bible is absolutely true. How can discussion proceed in that case?

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

Exactly!! Man IS trying to define an existence that is beyond his scope; hence, the field of science. Science attempts to explain the universe; religion (Christianity) generally claims to already have all the anwsers. Or, religion claims to personally know the Being that knows all the answers. It seems that as soon as science doesn't understand something or is unable to explain a phenomenon, the "Hand of God" is conjured up.It's interesting that when someone someone doubts the existence of God or questions whether or not God is who Christians claim he is, Christians immediately state, whether overtly or not, that the person questioning is doomed to everlasting torment.Makes you wonder why...