I love the way you dissect parts of my sentences without ever touching the meaning of them. I wasn't talking about anachronisms as you should know.
actually, i very well did touch the meaning of it. you said the hebrew wrote something they didn't understand. you're claiming that phrase is an anachronism, or rather a prophesy. they're more or less the same the study of the bible, btw. the only prophesies we know were written before the fact are the ones that failed. (because who'd fake a failed prophesy?)
Women didn't have seed!
they're called ovum. mabe by ovaries. but then, you knew that, right? however, please look up the other 280-some times the word "seed" is used in the bible, and tell me exactly what you think the word means?
oh, look, here's one now:
quote:Gen 4:25 And 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.
did you see that? eve called seth her seed. and abel as well, actually. here it's CLEARLY used in a sexual meaning, and CLEARLY means "child." are we done with this debate yet?
if not, look up a couple of lost gospels, inter-testamental stuff. it's either the book of adam ever or jubilees that contains the fulfillment of this prophesy: seth bashing in the snake's head, after it bites him on his heel.
although i suspect it might have something to do with this story:
quote:Psa 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, [and] gavest him [to be] meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
similar theme, breaking the head of a serpent. this has to do with an earlier mythology, that both the author of this psalm and the authors of genesis seemed to have drawn on. later author combined these themes to have a different meaning, regarding an angel who had nothing to do with anything in either story, and metaphorically condemning a real-life person: the emporer of rome.
I like the way I read it.
ok, let's run with it.
is satan the son of a snake, literally? where does satan bite jesus on the heel? where does jesus bash satan's head in? where does satan crawl on the ground? where does satan eat dust?
please give me verses for those.
Well, my version says that Job was blameless, not that he never sinned or was perfect. It even mentions that he was making extra sacrifices for his children in case they had sinned without realizing it. At one point in the narrative he asks God how many sins he has that he's not aware of.
the story becomes pointless is job's punishment is deserved.
What motive would an animal have to subvert God? Satan, the fallen angel, one of God's creations that was so great he wanted to take God's place, would have a motive.
we don't have any verse about god telling the serpent not to eat from the tree of knowledge, do we? maybe he had, i dunno.
what motive would anything else have to subvert god? it's not like satan is the only thing to try it. in fact, i would go so far as to say that a lot of other people have, but not satan. (yet, anyways)
in fact, in the traditional view, satan is an angel. a son of god. in the strictest orthodox belief, consistent with the torah, the sons of god do not have free will. which would make satan incapable of subverting god. starting to see how this doesn't line up?
Because of the talking snake. I'm waiting to see how it turns out.
Since when does theology consider the consciousness, morality, or eternal salvation of animals?
*cough* or humans for that matter? (well, i guess about 30 ad or so...)
i'm going to phrase the story another way. genesis 3 is about the birth of morality, not original sin, and not even the first sin. why? because to sin, we have to first have knowledge of good and evil, right? we have to be able to tell one from the other.
now, it doesn't say, but if i had to bet money, i'd place it on the idea that serpent ate from the tree as well. otherwise, how would he have known what effect it would have?
although genesis is a collection of folk tales, this is the only example of a talking animal in the entire book. i'm willing to bet also that the authors knew animals, even snakes, couldn't talk.
could the snake talk because of the tree of knowledge? and if so, why can't all snakes talk? did the effects wear off? not get passed down? what does that mean for human morality?
what a muddled and confusing way to start off a book.
The truth does not only consist of facts. It also rests on motive and interpritation. Whith what motive was the facts presented and how was it interpreted. There is and example of this in the passage of the temptation of Christ.
sure. the serpent tells the truth in the respect, well, he was right. and god tells the truth because he embodied the badness of the idea. i'm find with that.
but god still lied. it's just the same way we lie to our children about santa claus.
PS Are you just playing Devils Advocate or whats your belief?
literally, i suppose i am. but then i don't believe in The Devil.
i am a christian, sort of. i'm in the process of redefining my faith at the moment, as i can no longer seem to justify my christianity. i still have firm faith in the god represented in the hebrew bible, but no faith whatsoever in the bible itself. this all comes from studying it closely, of course.
even with my belief in christ, i reject whole-heartedly the gospel of john (as blasphemy) and the letters of the apostle paul.
I don't know that the animals sinned, sin had an effect on all creation, and the verse says all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. It doesn't talk about consciousness, morality, or salvation of animals.
The script seems to define the contextual meaning of 'flesh.'
quote:My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh ..." 6:3 RSV
Look up the word (flesh) in your Strong's Concordance. Notice that the primitive root means "Fresh." I don't yet know what to make of that, but I find it interesting that this word is also translated 'messenger,' 'preach,' 'good,' and 'tidings'.
What value do books like Susanna have? What message of spiritual import is imparted?
From the introduction of The Book of Susanna as found in the GOOD NEWS BIBLE, American Bible Society, Thomas Nelson Inc. Publishers, 1979.
quote:The Book of Susanna is a story that was added to The Book of Daniel, evidently when th latter was translated into Greek. The book tells how the beautiful and virtuous Susanna, falsely charged with adultery, is cleared by the wisdom and courage of Daniel.
The early church accepted Susanna as inspired; on a par with Daniel [parts of which have also been removed], or Jonah; both of which are rather tall tales.
Even so, - What right does anyone have to modify the Bible? I'm just asking. Personally, I'd get rid of a lot more of it. But ... If it is "The Word of God" then what gives ordinary men the right to tweak it?
what a muddled and confusing way to start off a book.
Yes it might seem so, but in recent times we have discovered the roots of Hebrew culture in the formerly lost cities of Mesopotamia.
The serpent in the tree is iconic of Mesopotamian religious culture; specifically: the Sumerian tale of Nanna's coming of age. But then, the serpent is a popular theme in ancient religions everywhere. The following webpages may be helpful to get one started in this line of inquiry.
Now there is an example of how later beliefs and prejudices affect the reading of an ancient story.
At the time that Genesis was written, the concept of 'Satan' was not yet introduced into the Hebrew religion. Therefore, it is a later interpretation to say that the 'snake' was satan. Sometimes, a snake is only a snake.
because the ground is different for a frog compared to a snake in our human terms. Have you snuked up on snake eating a frog for lunch? I thought I had walked on water. So having seen that in nature I start from say:
quote: In response, The LORD God curses the ground (3:17) and later brings a flood to wipe out every living thing, because:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "... the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (6:5) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after the flood, the LORD God apparently changes his mind. He seems to have learned something. He says,
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" (8:21) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HELLO!!! Like he didn't know that before he decided to kill off all the "evil" Bunnies and Bambie's and unborn Babies. Like he didn't have a clue about human nature.
If this LORD God is Omniscient, then how can he be learning?
to wonder about: Man was creeping not the creeping things creeping and man still learns from the creepy things.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-23-2005 20:35 AM
The LORD God's attempt to eliminate evil has failed repeatedly hasn't it? The man creature goes wrong, so he throws it out the Garden. It multiplies, so he tries to drown it. It gets organized so he kills Jesus. (Yeah, that'll show 'em.)
And the Umpire says " Strike three, your'e out of there god."
That's all i meant- to get BACk to Genesis. Specifically the creatures before the flood. The problem is that to be as careful in the letter as Evolutionists in France WERE fails to notice that "flexibility" of the gene DID NOT mean that seperate creations or different kinds or taxanomic rigidity BETWEEN reptiles and amphibians takes away the organism of then environment but it also did not intend to be so obvious that creation and biology might wish to divide what God left to those that could read the letter of the law rather than the word as it came to man as he wrote about the gene, the organism and its environment because that does depend on a specific translation in space and form-making which I had associated with whatever in the BIBLE is "creeping thing". I am reading it in translation so I can be corrected on things such as this just as easily as I can on math. But from knowing the difference of the frog and the snake it is often curious to me how other people think about these creatures especially in relief with mammals. We can certainly keep the flesh out of it. good luck with the threaded discussion.