Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Death before the 'Fall'?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 121 of 230 (285172)
02-09-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Rrhain
02-09-2006 12:23 AM


Re: very good
Well, we could always take the Dantes Inferno Hell Test
"When the passions become masters, they are vices."
-Blaise Pascal
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
You have a good point, Rrhain. Technically, a "Bible Study" would invove an analysis of what the Bible actually says and/or means. Traditionally, many Christian scholars have attributed the pre-Fall Adam+Eve with having had a supernatural "covering" which was the Holy Spirit.
I will have to do some research and get back to you on where "they" actually base this information on.....
Thats one thing that I like about EvC..when I am in church, I am with people whom all are in agreement with me about what the Bible means.
I will say that often the feeling is that the wisdom is gleaned off of an "imparted Spiritual truth" coming through them and or myself as we extrapolate on our interpretations of the scripture.
It is often good to have neutral and unbiased questions as to the meaning of the text, however. It is quite true that much of what we Christians teach each other is passed down as an oral tradition that has no written grounds but that is "commonly attributed" to the Holy Spirit and to commonly accepted beliefs.
This message has been edited by Phat, 02-09-2006 08:38 AM

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 02-09-2006 12:23 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jaywill, posted 02-09-2006 12:33 PM Phat has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 122 of 230 (285206)
02-09-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Phat
02-09-2006 10:30 AM


Re: very good
neutral and unbiased
I'm not sure if it is possible to be completely neutral and unbaised about the Bible. I think one eventually has to make some decisions. Eventually one has to confront it claims and what they mean personally to the reader.
I think eventually the reader has a stake in accepting or rejecting its cardinal claims. One can be neutral about Mody Dick or the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire or War and Peace or Biographies of many many great people. But when it comes to the Bible I think a person has to get off the fence and decide where she or he stands in relation to its claims.
This is probably more the case with the New Testament Gospels than with Genesis. One method of softening its impact is to slice and dice the Bible up into supposedly unrelated segments such that one believes one part has nothing to do with another part. Modern intellectuals do a lot of that.
Then if that doesn't provide sufficient refuge from the conviction of the Holy Spirit they go on to segment up books. So there are now five Isaiahs rather than one. There are now two, three, or more Genesis' rather than one. The tendency to "divide and conquer" goes on to slice and dice up chapters into different writers for different purposes.
Then there are those who go to hide from God. The best place to hide from God is in Theological Seminary. The hiding one often assumes that if they can hide from God in a Theological Seminary then they can hide from God anywhere. And in a free land such can always pose as experts to lead others to adopt their dubious interpretations - "the blind leading the blind".
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-09-2006 12:34 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-09-2006 12:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Phat, posted 02-09-2006 10:30 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Rrhain, posted 02-11-2006 10:16 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 123 of 230 (285259)
02-09-2006 3:08 PM


God told Adam that in the day that he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would die. In the following chapters the Bible adds to the end of each descendent "and he died... and he died...and he died... etc."
We are still dying.
While we are all on our way to melting back into the dust physically and coming to God's judgement, some take comfort in going with a smirk on their face.
As for me I have learned not to take simplicity in the Bible for naivete. God has the job of communicating with the human race profound things concerning our origin and purpose. I believe that it reflects God's wisdom that He has done so on the most basic things in a manner in which is nearly universal comprehension. Discovering that one is naked upon disobeying God may sound childish to some. But I think somehow God has chosen an aspect of our self consciousness which is easily understood by most people, to communicate more profound matters.
Cain, the one on whom Adam and Eve set their hopes for some deliverance, turned out to be a murderer. If being naked seems trivial to us, murder should not be. I'm sure it was no laughing matter to the first family to lose two children in a single day. I'm sure it made them consider their ways deeply. It would have been better to have listened to God and not doubt His intelligence and the love in His heart for them.
Most people, when they come winding down to the last moments of their lives, I think are reaching out for God. Some hold outs may melt away with a whimsical smirk to the end, jesting at God's word. Anyway, I think simplicty should not be mistaken for childishness in the Bible - "The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man"
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-09-2006 03:10 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-09-2006 03:11 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-09-2006 03:13 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-09-2006 03:14 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Rrhain, posted 02-11-2006 10:30 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 124 of 230 (285914)
02-11-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by jaywill
02-09-2006 12:33 PM


Re: very good
jaywill writes:
quote:
I think eventually the reader has a stake in accepting or rejecting its cardinal claims. One can be neutral about Mody Dick or the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire or War and Peace or Biographies of many many great people. But when it comes to the Bible I think a person has to get off the fence and decide where she or he stands in relation to its claims.
Oh? Why? Why is the Bible different from any other book?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jaywill, posted 02-09-2006 12:33 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Phat, posted 02-12-2006 9:34 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 125 of 230 (285915)
02-11-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by jaywill
02-09-2006 3:08 PM


jaywill responds to me...I think...he doesn't say:
quote:
God told Adam that in the day that he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would die.
And yet, just like the serpent said, Adam didn't die. Instead, he lived for nearly a thousand years after. It would seem that god was lying to Adam while the serpent was telling the truth.
quote:
As for me I have learned not to take simplicity in the Bible for naivete.
But how do you take inconsistencies, contradictions, and incredulities? Have you considered the possibility that the Bible is simply poorly written?
quote:
Discovering that one is naked upon disobeying God may sound childish to some.
No, the problem is not that it is childish. It's that it is a ludicrous response given the context. Adam and Eve have been given one and only one commandment: Don't eat from the tree. But, since they are innocent and thus incapable of understanding good and evil (since they haven't eaten from the tree, yet), they don't understand the point and eat from the tree, anyway.
Now, given the fact that they have never known a moment in their lives when they weren't naked, why would their first reaction be shame over their dishabille? One would think that the very first thing in the mind would be desperation over the fact that they just did the one and only thing that they were told not to do. Even if being naked were a sin, that would hardly be the most pressing issue at hand. I should think direct disobeyal of god would be the foremost thing on their minds.
Even when they have time to think about what they've done, they're obsessed with being naked. Why do they hide from god? Not because they ate from the tree, disobeying the one commandment they have ever been given, but rather because they are naked.
This makes no sense. What a sloppy narrative. We've just had a story with huge consequences ("Eat from the tree and before the sun sets on that very day, you will die") and what happens? Everybody seems to forget about that: Suddenly we're all focused on the fact that Adam and Eve aren't wearing any clothes. But wait a minute! They were supposed to die! What a letdown!
quote:
Cain, the one on whom Adam and Eve set their hopes for some deliverance, turned out to be a murderer.
There's another huge problem: Where on earth did Cain's wife come from? There's only four people on the entire planet, three of them male, and Cain manages to find a wife? And he manages to build a city? And people it with whom? Where did all of these people come from?
What a sloppy narrative.
I ask you again: Have you considered the possibility that the Bible is simply poorly written?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jaywill, posted 02-09-2006 3:08 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 126 of 230 (285938)
02-12-2006 6:18 AM


Rrhain,
And yet, just like the serpent said, Adam didn't die. Instead, he lived for nearly a thousand years after. It would seem that god was lying to Adam while the serpent was telling the truth.
The serpent said ”You shall not surely die!” (Genesis 3:4)
Genesis 5:5 says “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, and he died.”
Did he ”surely die” or did he not ”surely die?".
You may object that he didn’t die within 24 hours so the serpent told the truth. But this is not the case because Adam did ”surely die”. And it is likely that the process of dying began as soon as Adam disobeyed. This fact would dispense with the objection that it took over ninehundred years for death to have its full effect. It could be that in the eyes of God entering into the degrading and irreversable process dying was what Him meant by ”in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (2:17)
I think it is terribly twisted and self deceiving to argue that God lied and the serpent told the truth.
But how do you take inconsistencies, contradictions, and incredulities? Have you considered the possibility that the Bible is simply poorly written?
The most major tenets are repeated from many different angles and in many different ways. I think that some rather not very significant copyist errors are to be found. None of them effect any major aspect of my faith. And the greater weight of evidence is to me that the Bible is amazingly carefully written.
There are contradictions which are not really contradictions. And there are contradictions which I admit are difficult to reconcile according to our limited human logical powers.
As for incredulities, they manner in which they come in pairs suggests that their inclusion is quite diliberate. For instance many of the miracles mentioned in the Bible come in pairs. There are two instances of the same type of miracle or something very similar. It is as if the writer is saying “That’s right. That is what I said.” This dileberate scheme of repeating occurances of astounding things led me to believe that there was some higher intellegence directing the writing of the Bible.
Plus the fact that if you take a book like Exodus and notice that miraculous things of an encredible nature are mentioned along with other things which obviously called for both a high degree of intelligence and integrity to write, my impression is that the whole book is not to be taken frivolously.
The detailed discription of the priesthood, the ceremonies, the dimensions, measurements, and physical characteristics of the tabernacle are extremely intricate. The writer was no dummy. Some parts of it could be compared to a description of a modern computer operating system in detail.
Does this kind of detailed care given to discribing ordinance after ordinance in Leviticus reveal a sloppy minded writer? I think it does not. So the dismissal of the Bible as “poorly written” is not satisfactory to me. I concede that there are copyists errors to be noticed in the transmission of the original writing down through the centries. None of them are very serious as to the overall message of the Bible.
No, the problem is not that it is childish. It's that it is a ludicrous response given the context. Adam and Eve have been given one and only one commandment: Don't eat from the tree.
I somewhat agree with this. Aside from being fruitful and multiplying to replenish the earth, they were only told to be careful what they eat. I agree. What is your point?
But, since they are innocent and thus incapable of understanding good and evil (since they haven't eaten from the tree, yet), they don't understand the point and eat from the tree, anyway.
They understood what they were not supposed to do. They were not suppose to negate God’s authority and disobey His command. Whatever else they did or did not understand was not attributed to them as a transgression. It was the action of eating which they understood they were not to do. They understood the authority of the One Who created them.
I don’t think that we can rescue them from this responsibility by any amount of philosophical, theological, or psychological arguments.
Now, given the fact that they have never known a moment in their lives when they weren't naked, why would their first reaction be shame over their dishabille?
I don’t know what their first thought was. I know what the Bible records for us to know. There may have been many more things which constituted their reaction or details surrounding what happened. What is recorded is economically selected by God’s wisdom to teach us what we need to know that we may partake of God’s salvation.
I believe that what we are told indicates that another source of knowledge began to tell Adam and Eve of their condition. Throughout the Bible Satan is a slanderer. He slanders God toward man. And he slanders man towards God. He attempts to character assinate God in the mind of man. And he also accuses man before God. God asked Adam ”Who told you that you were naked?” God did not tell him. God had not said anything was wrong with them being naked. So under whose authority are they now? And who has informed them that they should be clothed.
I believe that the answer lies in the fact that they stepped out from under God’s authority and came under the authority of Satan the accuser, the slander, and the enemy of God. First he slandered God by questioning God’s motive and God’s heart of love. He insinuated that God was the enemy and that God was jealously withholding some blessing from them. When they took the fruit they crossed the line of God’s command.
As I wrote before, the action of the eating was the transgression. It is not important what they knew or did not know as long as they obeyed God not to eat the fruit, which command they failed to obey. We may speculate on the nature of their weakness to even listen or reason along with the serpent. But it is the action of transgressing the command at which the Bible traces the loss of innocence. And it is at that point the spirit of the authrity of the air began to operate in the sons of disobedience (Eph. 2:2). That evil spirit became parasitically attached to man’s being constituting people children of wrath - an Satanic spirit operating within them:
”And you, though dead in your offenses and sins, In which you once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience . and were by nature children of wrath . ” (Eph. 2:2)
One would think that the very first thing in the mind would be desperation over the fact that they just did the one and only thing that they were told not to do.
Don’t you see indications of the same? They ran away and hid from God. Previously they enjoyed sweet communion. Now they hide themselves in fear and shame. God comes asking Adam “Where are you?” God knew everything. He knew where they were. God was giving them a chance to realize where they now were. Their sweet fellowship with their Creator was now totally altered. And God spoke in a way of love to cause them to realize from what they had just fallen.
Even if being naked were a sin, that would hardly be the most pressing issue at hand. I should think direct disobeyal of god would be the foremost thing on their minds.
The account is economical. I think other things happened in connection to the story. I think the Spirit of God selects certain matters in an economical way to pass on to us. This is what God wants us to know. They became aware that they were naked and they tried their own inventions to cover that nakedness. And they hid from God. These are the events which God passed on to us in the account. Other things could have happened. God deems it best that we all know of these things.
We do have various devices to cover our failures, shortcomings, mistakes, wrongdoings, sins, trangressions against both God and man. Very many of us react at the Bible with the thought that God is the enemy out to get us. We doubt His heart of love. We doubt His motive. We count His perfection and holiness as contrary to our existence. And we regard His authority as oppressive.
Satan job is aways to switch man’s understanding of the universe around 180 degrees. He seeks to convince man that God is the Devil and that the Devil is God. History will eventually prove this fact. Ultimately history will come to a terrible climax in which Satan will tried to persuade the world that God is the enemy of man and that Satan the Devil is the friend and savior of man. These lies are of course the complete opposite of reality.
When you teach people as you have that it seems that God lied and that Satan told the truth, this plays right into the Satanic scheme of world deception. This is a dangerous thought to even toy with.
Even when they have time to think about what they've done, they're obsessed with being naked. Why do they hide from god? Not because they ate from the tree, disobeying the one commandment they have ever been given, but rather because they are naked.
Had they not eaten, they would not have had any problem of either a dilemma of being unclothed or fear of facing God. The problems all are traced back to their disobedience in eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The feeling that nakedness was not right, the feeling to dew fig leaves for a covering, the feeling to run and hide from God, the feeling of passing on responsibility to someone else, as in the case of Adam saying that it was the woman whom God gave him who was the culprit, or the woman passing the responsibility on to the serpent, etc. all is traced back to their eating the forbidden fruit.
This makes no sense. What a sloppy narrative. We've just had a story with huge consequences ("Eat from the tree and before the sun sets on that very day, you will die") and what happens? Everybody seems to forget about that: Suddenly we're all focused on the fact that Adam and Eve aren't wearing any clothes. But wait a minute! They were supposed to die! What a letdown!
I don’t think it is sloppy. I rather think that you would be hard pressed to find such an economical account of the major matters about human existence.
Can you point to another book which in 10 chapters of typical biblical length tells us these things:
1.) The origin of the universe
2.) The origin of matter
3.) The origin of life on the earth
4.) The origin of man
5.) The purpose of man’s creation
6.) The origin of man’s disharmony with the Divine Creator
7.) The origin of marriage
8.) The names and history of the first human beings
9.) The history of the first religion
10.) The history of the first murderer
11.) The history of the first human city
12.) The origin of industry
13.) The origin of music
14.) The origin of shepherding
15.) The events causing world judgement
16.) The events constituting salvation from world judgement
17.) The origin of human government
18.) The origin of the spread of human being across the earth.
These matter are all covered in the first ten or so chapters of the book of Genesis. Can you think of another book in which so many major and important themes about human life are covered in such an economical fashion?
So I don’t think the concisesness nor the economy of what is written in Genesis reveals “sloppiness” at all. I perceive a divine Author behind the writing communicating with the world in near universal terms in which the most number of people can get the important points.
There's another huge problem: Where on earth did Cain's wife come from? There's only four people on the entire planet, three of them male, and Cain manages to find a wife? And he manages to build a city? And people it with whom? Where did all of these people come from?
What a sloppy narrative.
It mentions three. Why do you assume that there were only three because it only mentioned three? The focus of the story only requires Cain and Abel to be mentioned. I think the sloppiness is in your assumption that the account is not logical because it is not exhaustive, i.e. the names of the hundreds of possible other people born at that time were not mentioned.
Obviously Cain married one of his siblings, which God permitted at that time. It has always surprised me that people make a big deal out of Cain’s wife.
Only two sons were mentioned because the account of the first murder only needs the focus of these two people - Cain and Abel. Genesis 5:4 says that Adam begot more sons and daughters. Cain married one of these. Even if Cain had no contemporary sister at the time he murdered Abel he could have married a sister younger to himself by decades latter. There is no problem here.
I ask you again: Have you considered the possibility that the Bible is simply poorly written?
No I don’t think it is poorly written. I think your analysis of a problem surrounding Cain’s marriage might be classified as a little sloppy with a little sloppy reasoning about a supposed biblical "problem." And I read through the entire Bible and don’t stop at one or two or more problems.
I don’t think the author of Leviticus was sloppy at all. Rather the writer was meticulously careful and evidently very intelligent. And if I do encounted problems in the Bible, I put them aside to be dealt with latter, as I would would any other book with difficultites. I don’t stop reading, throw up my hands and say “Its all just too sloppy. I won’t consider it.”
Did you do that with Origin of Species or A Brief History of Time?
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 06:19 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 06:27 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 06:29 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 07:06 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Coragyps, posted 02-12-2006 9:22 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 02-12-2006 9:48 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 133 by Rrhain, posted 02-12-2006 7:10 PM jaywill has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 127 of 230 (285949)
02-12-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by jaywill
02-12-2006 6:18 AM


Can you point to another book which in 10 chapters of typical biblical length tells us these things:
1.) The origin of the universe
2.) The origin of matter
3.) The origin of life on the earth
4.) The origin of man
5.) The purpose of man’s creation
6.) The origin of man’s disharmony with the Divine Creator
7.) The origin of marriage
8.) The names and history of the first human beings
9.) The history of the first religion
10.) The history of the first murderer
11.) The history of the first human city
12.) The origin of industry
13.) The origin of music
14.) The origin of shepherding
15.) The events causing world judgement
16.) The events constituting salvation from world judgement
17.) The origin of human government
18.) The origin of the spread of human being across the earth.
It's almost equally incredible that, where any independent verification is available, the Bible gets every one of these wrong! Really! We have flutes from 22,000 BC Europe, evidence of sheepherding at the earliest known city from 11,000 years ago in Turkey....we have meteorites that are 4.56 billion years old by four independent methods of dating. I could write ten chapters with those eighteen items included, and I'd even try to only have a single origin for mankind in there.
It's not "astonishing" at all: it's just sloppy editing of folktales from here and there into a single story the was preserved because it was "holy."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2006 6:18 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 128 of 230 (285950)
02-12-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Rrhain
02-11-2006 10:16 PM


Bible Study
We have been having a discussion in Administrative forum about the difference between Bible Study and Biblical Accuracy/Innerrency. Admittedly, I made the mistake of mixing the two up in this thread. I wanted to philosophically connect with Rrhain rather than stick to strict faith about the Bible and its meaning---interjecting a bit of humor and lighthearted insights into the mix. Jaywill, on the other hand, is passionate about his faith-based interpretations of scripture (Genesis in particular) and showed me how aptly this topic belongs in Bible Study rather than in Accuracy/Innerrency.
In Brief: Bible Study is for the faith based interpretations (philosophically and theologically) of the text.
Accuracy/Innerrency is the scholars and their attempts at explaining the history of the authors, the identity of the authors, and the secular based questions and academic disciplines surrounding the text.
I am thus attempting to be philosophical rather than strictly theological in this thread, and I am seeing Rrhain in a new light as I watch him artfully critique the text (philosophically) while Jaywill attempts to defend the text while perhaps clarifying and internalizing his own beliefs in the process.
(BTW, Jaywill, Rrhain used to annoy me insanely when he tore into my pre-conceived beliefs that were taught to me by others concerning the common sense--or lack of--in Bible Stories. I now respect him more for causing me to actually think.)
I believe that the Bible influences and speaks to each of us in a different way, and I am now unafraid to throw challenges out to its meanings and authenticities. Think about it like this: IF the book actually is divinely inspired and without major contradictions, it SHOULD be immune from attack and discredibility, right? Here are my concerns about Genesis:
1) I know that I am in Bible Study and that we are discussing faith based interpretations of the text.
I have no problem with "In the Beginning, God created...". It makes much more sense to me to declare that In the Beginning, God rather than In the Beginning, matter.
As to the inevitable followup question of "Who created God?" I would assume that this question is a personal matter between the inquisitive human and the Omnipotant God. It is a philosophical question designed to be asked of God and not from other clueless humans.
But...
2) If we are quite apparantly one little planet in one system of planets around a medium sized star in the midst of a hundred billion estimated stars in our galaxy alone which quite appears to be one of a hundred billion galaxies, why should I think that a God so powerful as to create such a vast array of matter and reality need to create a woman out of a rib? Symbolic, perhaps?
3) If the authors were divinely inspired, why did they describe much of the life around them in such a limited way? Was it part of Gods overall purpose? And why does God limit His revelation to us to this one set of books and writings? Can He not speak to each of us in a unique and internal way concerning His character, love, and purpose for each of us?
4) I believe that much of the Bible was written for us (as a study tool concerning human nature and fallibility) but that only some of the Bible was actually written TO us. If we were ever to actually be judged for our actions, we could say "But God, it was a poorly written fable? However was I supposed to know?" God would then judge you based on the stuff that you read that you actually take seriously. Even human teachers give their students a break! What makes us think that God won't allow us many chances to "pass" ?
5) In conclusion, whenever debates about this sort of stuff arise, I pay attention to the attitude behind the points and assertions made, rather than simply the philosophies and assertions themselves. That being said, I believe that Genesis can be a tool that God uses to teach me certain points that He wants me to know, but I also believe that He never intended to limit me to Genesis in regards to my understanding of Him. (or of myself) If I am wrong, I repent, God!
This message has been edited by Phat, 02-12-2006 07:36 AM

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Rrhain, posted 02-11-2006 10:16 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2006 6:22 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 134 by Rrhain, posted 02-12-2006 7:44 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 129 of 230 (285952)
02-12-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by jaywill
02-12-2006 6:18 AM


Bible Study: Gods intent in speaking through Genesis
OK...IF we conclude that Genesis was divinely inspired, was it written for the people of a time long ago, or was it written for the modern rationally minded person of today?
The rational mind would ask: Why does it take God 7 days---be they 24 hours or 7000 years or 17 billion years---to create everything? Surely such an omnipotant Creator could create everything in 7/10 of a millisecond as well as a 17 billion year Big Bang? Personally, I never thought about it much...and I have never had a problem with theories and science clashing with God.
Why should we humans try so hard to defend Biblical Literalism? Is not our God more than capable of defending Himself and His eternal purpose??
Perhaps He foreknew that issues would arise and He intends for it to be another test (like the story of the Fall) to see how multiple cultures within humanity will get along.
If I did not believe in the Bible, would I ever meet Jesus?

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2006 6:18 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by arachnophilia, posted 02-12-2006 10:12 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 131 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2006 1:02 PM Phat has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 130 of 230 (285954)
02-12-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Phat
02-12-2006 9:48 AM


Re: Bible Study: Gods intent in speaking through Genesis
If I did not believe in the Bible, would I ever meet Jesus?
i assume that's rhetorical, but the obvious answer is: yes!
most christians meet jesus first as an unbeliever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 02-12-2006 9:48 AM Phat has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 131 of 230 (285963)
02-12-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Phat
02-12-2006 9:48 AM


Re: Bible Study: Gods intent in speaking through Genesis
Phat,
I am answering posts somewhat in random order today.
OK...IF we conclude that Genesis was divinely inspired, was it written for the people of a time long ago, or was it written for the modern rationally minded person of today?
I think one should come to the conclusion by reading the Bible with an openess to God. I came to the conclusion. But I originally came to the Bible with a very large “filter” of skepticism.
To answer your question, yes, I believe Genesis was written for people of ages ago. And the record of Genesis contains enough indications to me that skepticism was not invented in the 2rst Century by any means.
The rational mind would ask: Why does it take God 7 days---be they 24 hours or 7000 years or 17 billion years---to create everything? Surely such an omnipotant Creator could create everything in 7/10 of a millisecond as well as a 17 billion year Big Bang? Personally, I never thought about it much...and I have never had a problem with theories and science clashing with God.
I agree that a Creator of infinite power, ability, and knowledge could create the univese and life in any manner desired.
My opinion is that since I have been a child I think I have seen cosmology inch closer to what I see in the Bible concerning Destruction / Reconstruction. In the future science may move away from this closeness again. But when I was young I don’t remember so many popular theories about what may have caused mass instinctions of species. I don’t recall that much talk about killer comets and killer meteors or catatrophic release of gas or mass volcanic cataclyisms. If one these theories are true, it may have something to do with why the earth was found waste and void in Genesis 1:2. God could use such things to bring judgement to the earth in pre-Adamic times.
Why should we humans try so hard to defend Biblical Literalism? Is not our God more than capable of defending Himself and His eternal purpose??
You don’t really have to. I like to heed the New Testament exhortation to be ”ready” to give an answer to someone who asks for the reason of your hope:
”But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, being always ready for a defense to everyone who asks of you an account concerning the hope which is in you” (1 Peter 3:15)
Perhaps He foreknew that issues would arise and He intends for it to be another test (like the story of the Fall) to see how multiple cultures within humanity will get along.
I think that God knows how we will do. I agree with you insofar that He allows things to happen that WE may see and understand what He already knows.
If I did not believe in the Bible, would I ever meet Jesus?
That we will all stand before Christ is inevitable.
”Therefore God highly exalted Him and bestowed upon Him the name which is above every name, That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, And eery tongue should openly confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9-11)
So I believe that it is inevitable that every human being ever created will confess Jesus is Lord, bowing the knee - acknolwedging that all authority as been put into the hands of this Lord Jesus.
So I like to practice daily by calling on His name and telling Him that I love Him - thanking and praising the Lord.
As you spoke before about God being able to create the universe in any time span He desired - so also I believe that God could in one second hold billions of people simultaneously before Himself in Christ, to judge the entire human race in an instant all at one time. I believe He is powerful enough to do that if He wished to.
The short answer is, yes you will meet Jesus. By all means introduce yourself to the Lord Jesus as soon as possible. He loves you and died for you that you may have eternal salvation. You can simply thank Him for doing this and receive Him by faith.
Things will then occur within you which will confirm that you have indeed touched something real and genuine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 02-12-2006 9:48 AM Phat has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 132 of 230 (286018)
02-12-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Phat
02-12-2006 9:34 AM


Re: Bible Study
Phat,
Here are my concerns about Genesis:
1) I know that I am in Bible Study and that we are discussing faith based interpretations of the text.
I have no problem with "In the Beginning, God created...". It makes much more sense to me to declare that In the Beginning, God rather than In the Beginning, matter.
As to the inevitable followup question of "Who created God?" I would assume that this question is a personal matter between the inquisitive human and the Omnipotant God. It is a philosophical question designed to be asked of God and not from other clueless humans.
Do you mind if I let the Bible speak for itself in that issue?
” O Lord, You have been our dwelling place, In all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, And before You gave birth to the earth and the world, Indeed from eternity to eternity, You are God” (Psa. 90:1,2)
Here Moses says that God not only pre-existed before the earth but from eternity to eternity He existed. God always ways and God always will be.
”Thus says Jehovah the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts, I am the First and I am the Last, And apart from Me there is no God.” (Isa. 44:6).
He is not only ever existing from eternity. He is the First Being period. And apart from Him there is no God.
” . Is there a God besides Me? Or is there any other Rock? I do not know of any” (Isa. 44:8)
God informs us that He is the unmovable One, a "Rock" upon which we all can rely our trust and depend. He knows of no other God. He has not known that another God is in existence like Himself.
”Surely You are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, the Savior” (Isa. 45:15)
Though He is the only pre-existent and ever existent God, He hides Himself. He does not reveal Himself cheaply or superficially,
”For thus says Jehovah, Who created the heavens - He is God Who formed the earth and made it; . I am Jehovah and there is no one else” (See Isa. 45:18)
There is no other God but the Creator. He is uncreated. No one preceeded God and created God.
And He incarnated in the form of man - Jesus of Nazareth. He declared that He is the ever existing and self existing I AM (John 8:58). Only He is. Only He is independent of all things and dependent upon nothing. He the self existing I AM THAT I AM (Exodus 3:14) He is the ground of being itself.
Probably time and space are matters created by Him for our existence. We need the realm of time and space. It is prepared for our existence as those contingent upon the Ultimate. Only He IS eternally, perpetually, self existingly, and the ground of all being.
To me, by definition “God” means that there is nothing greater. There therefore is no one greater who is responsible for the existence of God.
2.) If we are quite apparantly one little planet in one system of planets around a medium sized star in the midst of a hundred billion estimated stars in our galaxy alone which quite appears to be one of a hundred billion galaxies, why should I think that a God so powerful as to create such a vast array of matter and reality need to create a woman out of a rib? Symbolic, perhaps?
If we walk by sight and not by faith we would be swallowed up in insignificance. I agree and the Bible agrees. According to the apparent appearance of things we are microscopic and insignificant. The Psalmist says:
”When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is mortal man, that You remember him, or the son of man, that you visit him?” (Psalm 8:3,4)
But we are not to walk by sight but by faith. And this is what faith should respond to:
”For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38,39)
Nothing can separate us from the love of God manifested in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ Jesus the Lord. Height itself in its infinite possibilitites cannot separate us from the love of God. Depth itself as an infinite entity cannot separate us from the love of God.
By sight, yes, we are dwarfed into insignificance. But by the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ we are led to believe that God’s unbreakable and unseparable love transcends and overspowers the sheer magnitude of the universe and all its creatures and issues. Our God came in the Man Jesus Christ and laid down His life for us. As much as it is possible for us to comprehend - the ever existing God laid aside His life because of His undying love for man.
As for Eve coming out of Adam as a rib built into a woman? That is too profound for me to address in this post. But it is very significant. It is a window into the heart of God desire for an other to dwell with Him who comes out of Him. The Bible ends with a marriage of this corporate city that is the Bride and Wife of the Redeeming God brought back to Him to be His romantic counterpart for eternity, the New Jerusalem.
The story of the man’s wife coming out of the man is also a window into the heart of God. He desires that He would not be alone but would have a counterpart as His Wife. I would encourage you to read Genesis 1 and 2 and then read Revelation 21 and 22. Read them with prayer asking God to reveal something of His eternal purpose to you.
That is all I will write in this post. But I think your other questions are good ones to be discussed latter.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 06:23 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 06:23 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 06:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Phat, posted 02-12-2006 9:34 AM Phat has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 133 of 230 (286026)
02-12-2006 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by jaywill
02-12-2006 6:18 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Did he ”surely die” or did he not ”surely die?".
Non sequitur. Please try again.
The simple answer to the most intelligible part of your comment is that no, he did not surely die. Remember, you have to look at what god told Adam in comparison. God told Adam that if he were to eat of the tree of knowledge, then he would die a physical death before the sun set on the day he ate. That's what Gen 2:17 means: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
It didn't happen. Ergo, god wasn't telling the truth.
quote:
You may object that he didn’t die within 24 hours so the serpent told the truth. But this is not the case because Adam did ”surely die”.
If he did, then how did he manage to live for nearly a thousand years afterward? "Surely die" means "physical death." Adam did not physically die, therefore he did not "surely die" and therefore, god wasn't telling the truth.
quote:
And it is likely that the process of dying began as soon as Adam disobeyed.
For nine hundred years? If you told anybody that something would happen by the end of the day and it didn't actually happen for another nine hundred years, would you really claim that he was telling you the truth?
quote:
This fact would dispense with the objection that it took over ninehundred years for death to have its full effect.
Incorrect. It merely shows that not only was god not telling the truth, he was telling a whopper of a lie. God told Adam that he would die a physical death by the time the sun set on the day he ate. Instead, Adam didn't die his physical death until nearly a thousand years later. Ergo, god didn't tell the truth.
quote:
It could be that in the eyes of God entering into the degrading and irreversable process dying was what Him meant by ”in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”
No, it couldn't. That isn't what the text says.
quote:
I think it is terribly twisted and self deceiving to argue that God lied and the serpent told the truth.
And I think it is terribly twisted and self-deceiving to argue the plain language of the text doesn't actually mean what it so clearly indicates.
quote:
The most major tenets are repeated from many different angles and in many different ways.
As you would expect from a book that was redacted from sources who were drawing on common source material. This is not a plus for you. Multiple people telling the same sloppy narrative simply means none of them could get it right.
quote:
I think that some rather not very significant copyist errors are to be found.
Excuse me? We're not talking about spelling mistakes. We're talking about major continuity errors as well as errors of fact. As an example, take Shakespeare's Two Gentlemen of Verona. Valentine is sent from Verona to Milan...by ship. Excuse me? You can't get to Milan by ship from Verona...it's inland. It isn't even on a river.
quote:
There are contradictions which are not really contradictions.
Of course. When the text says black is white, it doesn't really mean that.
quote:
And there are contradictions which I admit are difficult to reconcile according to our limited human logical powers.
Of course. when the text says black is white, then it means it in a way that we can't understand. Humans don't really understand what "black" and "white" are.
quote:
As for incredulities, they manner in which they come in pairs suggests that their inclusion is quite diliberate.
Huh? I'm not talking about the duplications. I'm talking about things that on their face are impossible such as the flood. In order to flood the earth, it would require an order of magnitude more water than the earth has...and you can't use any of the water actually present on the earth because it's already at the lowest point and we need to get above that. The earth only has on the order of 108 cubic miles of water. We need an additional 109. Where did it come from? And even more importantly, where did it go?
Forget all the other problems with the concept of a global flood such as the nonexistence of a global flood layer, no water damage on the Great Pyramid which was completed four hundred years before the flood going by biblical chronology, etc. All those things require examination of specific details. I'm talking about just the sheer concept. It is physically impossible to do.
quote:
For instance many of the miracles mentioned in the Bible come in pairs. There are two instances of the same type of miracle or something very similar. It is as if the writer is saying “That’s right. That is what I said.”
No. It's as if the two people were cribbing the same story. When two of your students turn in the exact same paper down to the spelling mistakes, we don't claim that a miracle occurred. We claim that they were cheating.
quote:
Plus the fact that if you take a book like Exodus and notice that miraculous things of an encredible nature are mentioned along with other things which obviously called for both a high degree of intelligence and integrity to write
BWAHAHAHAHA! By this reasoning, all scifi/fantasy books are works of god. Such miraculous things of incredible nature are mentioned along with other things that obviously called for both a high degree of intelligence and integrity to write. All hail Diane Duane. Surely Spiderman exists.
quote:
The detailed discription of the priesthood, the ceremonies, the dimensions, measurements, and physical characteristics of the tabernacle are extremely intricate.
Hmmm...a priestly caste writes details about priests. This is a shock? You are forgetting that the Bible wasn't written by peasants. It was written by theologians, edited by theologians, compiled by theologians, none of whom had any direct experience with the subjects of which they were writing, editing, and compiling.
quote:
The writer was no dummy.
Then why is it such a lousy book? Back to the flood again: They can't even figure out how long it is. Forty days or 150 days? Did the animals go in by pairs or by sevens? Why do Noah and his family enter the ark TWICE?
Well, a simple bit of literary analysis shows why: It's actually two stories being told simultaneously. Pull them apart and each one makes individual sense. But who was the fool who thought you should try to tell them both at the same time? They contradict each other.
quote:
Does this kind of detailed care given to discribing ordinance after ordinance in Leviticus reveal a sloppy minded writer?
When you read the whole thing? You bet.
quote:
I somewhat agree with this. Aside from being fruitful and multiplying to replenish the earth, they were only told to be careful what they eat. I agree. What is your point?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Didn't you read my post? The point is that they have been given only one commandment. They break it which allows them to understand what "breaking commandments" means. Do they immediately panic over having broken that one commandment? No. Instead, they panic over something that nobody has ever told them is wrong and they have been doing constantly from the moment they came into existence.
quote:
They understood what they were not supposed to do.
No, they didn't. That's what innocent means: You don't understand what you're not supposed to do. It isn't that they were stupid. It's that they were innocent. In order to understand disobeyance, you have to understand right and wrong. But they don't know right from wrong because they haven't eaten from the tree yet.
quote:
They were not suppose to negate God’s authority and disobey His command.
And how are they supposed to know that? They don't know right from wrong. They haven't eaten from the tree yet. They're still innocent.
quote:
Whatever else they did or did not understand was not attributed to them as a transgression.
Why not? The very first thing they panic over is being naked. Nobody seemed to mind that they were naked before. Why should it be such a big deal now? If they were incapable of understanding why being naked was wrong, then they were also incapable of understanding why disobeying god was wrong. That's the point behind innocence: You don't understand the difference between right and wrong.
quote:
It was the action of eating which they understood they were not to do. They understood the authority of the One Who created them.
Impossible. They were innocent. Understanding authority requires understanding the difference between good and evil, which they didn't have yet since they hadn't eaten from the tree.
quote:
I don’t think that we can rescue them from this responsibility by any amount of philosophical, theological, or psychological arguments.
Only because, once again, you are starting with the conclusion and ignoring any evidence that doesn't lead to it.
quote:
I don’t know what their first thought was.
Yes, you do. The Bible tells you:
Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Are you about to say that the Bible isn't telling you the whole story?
quote:
I know what the Bible records for us to know. There may have been many more things which constituted their reaction or details surrounding what happened.
Yep, you are. This is very strange. For someone who practices such idolatry of the book, claiming that it holds so much wisdom and truth and perfection, you are very quick to point out that it has flaws when you can't find any justification for your claims.
quote:
What is recorded is economically selected by God’s wisdom to teach us what we need to know that we may partake of God’s salvation.
And the great wisdom we need to take from this event is that it's a sin to be naked? Wouldn't the better lesson be that it's a sin to disobey god?
quote:
I believe that what we are told indicates that another source of knowledge began to tell Adam and Eve of their condition.
That's not what the Bible says. Why do you feel the need to contradict the Bible?
Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
No other source is ever mentioned. Why would god try to mislead you into thinking that it came from somewhere else? The name of the tree is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
quote:
Throughout the Bible Satan is a slanderer.
Satan? Who said anything about Satan? Satan isn't in the garden. It's a snake. You're not confusing the snake with Satan, are you?
quote:
God asked Adam ”Who told you that you were naked?” God did not tell him. God had not said anything was wrong with them being naked. So under whose authority are they now? And who has informed them that they should be clothed.
Their new-found knowledge from the tree has told them that they were naked. That's what the Bible says:
Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Who are you to contradict the Bible?
quote:
I believe that the answer lies in the fact that they stepped out from under God’s authority and came under the authority of Satan the accuser, the slander, and the enemy of God. First he slandered God by questioning God’s motive and God’s heart of love. He insinuated that God was the enemy and that God was jealously withholding some blessing from them.
But none of that is anywhere in the text. Where do you find anything even remotely like that in Genesis 3? The snake in the garden is not Satan. It's simply a snake. The Bible directly says so:
3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
"Beast of the field." That means the snake is a plain, ordinary animal.
quote:
When they took the fruit they crossed the line of God’s command.
But they had no idea that that was what they were doing. They were still innocent. They did not know right from wrong.
If you have a priceless, delicate Mhing vase that you want to protect from being shattered, you don't put it on a rickety pedestal and leave your toddler alone in the room with it. No matter how much you tell the toddler, "Don't touch," the kid cannot be responsible for disobeying you: He doesn't understand. It isn't because he's stupid. He knows what you've said. He just doesn't understand the moral point behind it because he's innocent.
When we hear the crash from the next room and find the vase in pieces around the child, we don't blame the child. We blame the parent for thinking that it was a good idea to leave such a delicate item around people who don't know any better.
quote:
As I wrote before, the action of the eating was the transgression. It is not important what they knew or did not know as long as they obeyed God not to eat the fruit, which command they failed to obey.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? It isn't important that they were innocent? Doesn't that form the whole foundation of just punishment? You don't throw a temper tantrum against people who don't know any better. It was only a matter of time before Adam and Eve were going to eat from the tree. They were innocent and didn't know any better not to disobey god, especially when they were told the truth about the tree by the serpent. God says don't eat from the tree or you'll die. The serpent says you won't die, you'll just know the difference between good and evil.
Now, how on earth are Adam and Eve supposed to know that they should believe god over the serpent? They don't understand good and evil. They haven't eaten from the tree, yet.
Here. Time for you to make a choice: Beetaratagang or clerendipity. One of these is the commandment of god and the other is the foul evil of the devil. Choose carefully for your immortal soul is on the line. Which is it? Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Why do you hesitate? This is such a simple choice.
quote:
We may speculate on the nature of their weakness to even listen or reason along with the serpent.
We don't have to speculate at all. The Bible comes out and tells us directly: They were innocent. They hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge, yet, and thus didn't know the difference between good and evil.
quote:
But it is the action of transgressing the command at which the Bible traces the loss of innocence.
Irrelevant. Their action is not one of sin because sin requires knowledge of good and evil and willed choice to do evil. Since Adam and Eve did not have any knowledge of good and evil, none of their choices could possibly be deemed sin, no matter how wrong they are. That's why we don't punish people for having an accident. Back to the vase example above: Recently in a museum in Cambridge, England, a man tripped on some stairs and fell down. Unfortunately, some vases from the Qing dynasty were in sconces along the stairway and in falling down, he knocked them over and they shattered.
No charges were filed, no accusations made, the museum's statement was that they were happy the man didn't hurt himself.
This shouldn't be a shock to anyone: The man had an accident. He didn't break the vases on purpose. He committed no sin. It's sad and tragic and I'm sure the man feels awful about what he did, but he didn't commit any sin and it would be wrong for anybody to punish him for it.
So why does god throw a temper tantrum when the inevitable happened?
quote:
And it is at that point the spirit of the authrity of the air began to operate in the sons of disobedience (Eph. 2:2).
Excuse me? What does Ephesians have to do with anything? We're talking about Genesis 3 here. Stick to the topic at hand.
quote:
quote:
One would think that the very first thing in the mind would be desperation over the fact that they just did the one and only thing that they were told not to do.
Don’t you see indications of the same? They ran away and hid from God.
Because they were naked, not because they had disobeyed:
3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Why do you feel the need to contradict the Bible?
quote:
The account is economical.
See, here you go again proclaiming the book is flawed when just before you were claiming it was perfect and without flaw. When the plain text contradicts your preconceived opinion as to what it should have said, you claim that the narrative didn't include the justification you so desperately seek but that it is really there.
Why do you feel the need to contradict the Bible? The story simply doesn't say what you claim it says.
quote:
I think other things happened in connection to the story.
Why? I thought the Bible was a well-written, complete, and perfect story. And yet, here you are saying that there are things that aren't included in it that are critical to understanding the plot and intent. But if it's missing the character development required to understand the motivations of the key players, then it's not a very good piece of literature.
So we're back to my original question: Have you considered the possibility that the Bible isn't written very well?
quote:
Had they not eaten, they would not have had any problem of either a dilemma of being unclothed or fear of facing God.
That's my entire point: They hadn't eaten from the tree yet when they ate from the tree so they cannot be held responsible for eating from it. They committed no sin. Sin requires knowledge of good and evil and the willed desire to do evil. Since Adam and Eve had no such knowledge, they could not possibly sin.
quote:
The problems all are traced back to their disobedience in eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Precisely. You seem to want to ascribe motivation to that act that they couldn't possibly have since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet. You can't sin without knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, they were completely incapable in all ways of ever sinning. Their disobeyal of god was not a sin precisely because they were innocent.
quote:
I don’t think it is sloppy.
Of course you don't. You're working from the conclusion backwards, ignoring all evidence that doesn't lead to your preconceived notion of the work.
quote:
I rather think that you would be hard pressed to find such an economical account of the major matters about human existence.
No, not "economical." Piss poor is more like it. The text does not put god in a very good light. He puts innocents into the lion's den, lies to them, and then when the inevitable happens, he throws a temper tantrum and curses the victims having the temerity to destroy the one character who told the truth.
quote:
Can you point to another book which in 10 chapters of typical biblical length tells us these things:
Any good book on Greek mythology should do it. You act like there are no other authors out there.
These matter are all covered in the first ten or so chapters of the book of Genesis. Can you think of another book in which so many major and important themes about human life are covered in such an economical fashion?
So I don’t think the concisesness nor the economy of what is written in Genesis reveals “sloppiness” at all. I perceive a divine Author behind the writing communicating with the world in near universal terms in which the most number of people can get the important points.
quote:
It mentions three.
Because there are only three.
quote:
Why do you assume that there were only three because it only mentioned three?
Because it directly states that there are three and only three.
Adam was created, but Adam is alone.
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
So god creates Eve. Thus, there are now only two people in the entire world. Eve has two children, Cain and Abel.
4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
So now there are four people in the entire world. Cain kills Abel.
4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
So now there are three and only three people in the entire world.
But wait, Cain is worried about what other people will do to him if they find him:
4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
Huh? Who are these "every one" of which Cain speaks? There's only two other people in the entire world: His parents. Remember, Adam and Eve are the first two humans. You even say it, yourself: "The names and history of the first human beings." Therefore, if there are any humans at all to be found, they necessarily must be the children of Adam and Eve. But the only children Eve has had thus far are Cain and Abel. So who are these other people? Where did they come from?
quote:
The focus of the story only requires Cain and Abel to be mentioned.
Incorrect. The Bible doesn't skip over generations of people. Genesis 5 makes it very clear that Adam's other children come after Cain and Abel. Seth doesn't show up until Adam is 130 and only then does he have other sons and daughters.
Remember, when Seth is born, Eve directly and distinctly declares that he is a replacement for Abel:
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.
Thus, there are no other children other children between Seth and his sole brothers, Cain and Abel. Why do you feel the need to contradict the Bible?
quote:
I think the sloppiness is in your assumption that the account is not logical because it is not exhaustive, i.e. the names of the hundreds of possible other people born at that time were not mentioned.
No, the problem is not that it doesn't list every name. It's that it doesn't list any. It doesn't even mention the existence of these other people until the plot has painted itself into a corner and the only way to save it is to introduce a fact out of thin air, completely unjustified by anything that has happened before.
It's like listening to a story told by a four-year-old. "And then he went out into the woods and then he wandered onto the lake and then the ice started cracking and then he fell in and then...um...oh, yeah! His dog pulled him out!" Dog? What dog?
Perfect example of this in the new movie, Firewall. Near the end of the movie, Harrison Ford is looking for his family. For some reason, the kidnappers have taken the dog along with the family (there is no scene showing how the family is kidnapped or any discussion as to why to take the dog...it's just there.) How on earth is he going to find them? Oh, that's right! The dog's collar has a GPS signal in it! See, the dog was always running away so they got a special collar with a GPS unit in it so they could find him!
In classic Greek dramaturgy, it's called "deus ex machina." The plot of the story has painted everybody into a corner and there is absolutely no coherent way to get them out of the predicament. So rather than realize that you've created a bad narrative, you physically bring in Zeus on a machine to wave his magic wand and make everything alright again.
And that's precisely what we have in Genesis 4: The author, having forgotten that there's only three people in the entire world suddenly realizes that the only place for Cain to go is back to his parents. That won't work. He has to go out into the world. But he can't just be cast out alone in the world. God has already said that it isn't right for people to be alone. Damn. Have to give him a wife. Oh, yeah! There's other people! That's it.
Well, no. No, there aren't.
quote:
Obviously Cain married one of his siblings, which God permitted at that time. It has always surprised me that people make a big deal out of Cain’s wife.
Perhaps it's because we're under the impression that sin doesn't change. If it's a sin to have sex with your sister (Leviticus 18), then it has always been a sin to have sex with your sister. Cain couldn't have married his sister because that would be a sin. Adam and Eve, who know good from evil, would never allow it.
That's why the text doesn't say Cain married his sister. Instead, it invents an entirely new set of people out of the blue, hopes you'll forget that there aren't any other people around, and lets Cain slink off into the margins.
quote:
Only two sons were mentioned because the account of the first murder only needs the focus of these two people - Cain and Abel.
Incorrect. It only mentions two people because there are only four in the entire world. The Bible does not skip generations.
quote:
Genesis 5:4 says that Adam begot more sons and daughters.
Sorry, but that's my argument to you. Those sons and daughters only happen AFTER Cain kills Abel and flees with his new wife. They only happen AFTER the birth of Seth who, as Eve directly declares, is a replacement for Abel. Thus, there are no other people in the entire world at the time Cain kills Abel than Adam and Eve.
quote:
Cain married one of these.
But that's a sin, always and forever. Adam and Eve would never allow it. They know good from evil and no other sin is ever ascribed to them.
quote:
Even if Cain had no contemporary sister at the time he murdered Abel he could have married a sister younger to himself by decades latter. There is no problem here.
Except that there were no sisters for him to marry. He runs off with his wife BEFORE Adam and Eve have any other children. Seth is the replacement for Abel. Thus, there are no other children between Seth and his sole siblings, Cain and Abel.
Where did Cain's wife come from? There are no other people in the world.
quote:
And if I do encounted problems in the Bible, I put them aside to be dealt with latter, as I would would any other book with difficultites.
See, you prove my point: You have a preconceived notion as to what it is suposed to say and then ignore all evidence to the contrary.
quote:
I don’t stop reading, throw up my hands and say “Its all just too sloppy. I won’t consider it.”
Ah, but you should. It's what adults do. Sloppy narrative results in sloppy stories. Any attempt to derive meaning is lost as the details of the narrative defy any coherent analysis.
quote:
Did you do that with Origin of Species or A Brief History of Time?
Of course. But then again, those books aren't stories. They're scientific treatises. Thus, I treated them the same as I did A History of Mathematics. It's only a little over 600 pages long (ignoring the references and index and such), but it took me seven years to get through it. Why? Because I worked on every single problem that was described on my own before moving on. When the book describes the work that was done in an attempt to square the circle, it describes some of the accomplishments that were made along the way such as the method to square the lune. OK, time to stop and figure out how to do it on my own. It's not enough to simply look over the description, I have to know that I could do it for myself (being a mathematician). And once I knew how to do it, I would compare notes with my method to the one that was presented.
The book that managed to kill me was Godel, Escher, Bach. But then again, I find that a lot of people are in the same predicament I am in: Lots of attempts to get through it, but everybody dies. I don't personally know anybody who has made it all the way through. I am certain that if Martin Gardner had written it instead of Douglas Hofstadter, it would have been a much better read. Some day.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2006 6:18 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jaywill, posted 02-12-2006 9:18 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 221 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2006 6:49 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 134 of 230 (286033)
02-12-2006 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Phat
02-12-2006 9:34 AM


Re: Bible Study
Phat writes:
quote:
In Brief: Bible Study is for the faith based interpretations (philosophically and theologically) of the text.
Accuracy/Innerrency is the scholars and their attempts at explaining the history of the authors, the identity of the authors, and the secular based questions and academic disciplines surrounding the text.
But don't you think that before you can possibly get into a meaningful discussion of the interpretation of the text, you have to have a solid grounding of what the text actually says? Of the structure of the piece? Of the plot and the characters, the timing and sequence of events, etc.?
I'm reminded of a coworker who had gone to see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. She said she didn't like it because there was no reason for anybody to be worried about this sword.
Huh? Well, after some further discussion, we find out that she had fallen asleep at the beginning of the movie and had missed the first 45 minutes or so. That makes a huge difference in how you're going to handle the rest of the story, don't you think?
There's a rule in what is considered a "good" murder mystery: No character is irrelevant. If you have spent the time and energy to create a character and involve him in your plot, then he better have a good reason to be there. And, indeed, that's what we see in the literature that is best received: You don't understand how all of these people are involved, but by the time you get to the end of the tale it becomes obvious how each had a hand in getting you to where you are. Every detail is important and must be included in the analysis.
Only then, once you understand how each part led you from beginning to end can you truly come up with a coherent analysis of what it all means. This doesn't mean that there is one and only interpretation that can be gleaned from a story. Instead, it means that any intepretation you come up with needs to take into account everything the story includes.
There's a play by Baraka called The Dutchman. It takes place on a subway between a black man and a white woman. Question: Who is the main character? In my script analysis class, we all had our justifications for why it had to be her or him. The professor told us, however, that we had forgotten a third option: The other people on the train. They don't have any lines. They don't directly interact with two people. But they bear witness to what happens. The play does not take place in a vacuum that looks like a subway train. It takes place in front of other people. You have to remember that and include it in your analysis. You may conclude that they aren't the main character, but you cannot forget them. If you decide that it is the man or the woman, you have to take into account that their actions are happening in front of others and you must consider that effect upon why they say and do what they say and do and how they say and do it.
So any interpretation of the Bible has to take into account the actual text first.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Phat, posted 02-12-2006 9:34 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Phat, posted 02-13-2006 7:37 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 135 of 230 (286043)
02-12-2006 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Rrhain
02-12-2006 7:10 PM


Non sequitur. Please try again.
I see no need to try again.
God: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17)
The Serpent: “And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die!" (Gen. 3:4)
The serpent lied. Adam and Eve did ”surely die.
The simple answer to the most intelligible part of your comment is that no, he did not surely die. Remember, you have to look at what god told Adam in comparison. God told Adam that if he were to eat of the tree of knowledge, then he would die a physical death before the sun set on the day he ate.
It simply says that he would surely die. It is a fact that from the time we are born we begin to surely die ourselves. That Adam embarked on a downhill inescapable process in which he must surely die is enough of the indication of the truthfulness of God’s word.
Besides Genesis 2:4 [/d] says ”These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven” (1901 American Standard Version). The Hebrew word for ”day” is the same as is used in Genesis 2:17 - “for in the DAY that you eat of it you shall surely die”. Preceeding 2:4 we are told that God made the heaven and the earth not in one day but in six days (Gen. 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). So the usage of the word ”day” in 2:4 is general time span not necessarily one sunrise to sunset span. My Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary for entry # 3117 - yowm, - is not restricted to this meaning for that Hebrew word, as you would like to have it. Other usages are:
”(a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used aqdv.]:- age . presently . season . space . process of time . These words appear in addition to the definition - ”(from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next).” [Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance - Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, pg. 48].
Accordingly, you cannot insist that because Adam’s heart did not stop beating before that day’s sunset, therefore the serpent told the truth and God mislead Adam.
It didn't happen. Ergo, god wasn't telling the truth.
I don’t have a interesting logical fallacy term to defind this statement, like “non sequitor.” I’ll just say that it is wrong.
You lose the case because you insist that sunrise to sunset could be the only valid usage of yowm.
And I think it is terribly twisted and self-deceiving to argue the plain language of the text doesn't actually mean what it so clearly indicates.
You lose the case because you insist that sunrise to sunset could be the only valid usage of yowm in Genesis.
As you would expect from a book that was redacted from sources who were drawing on common source material. This is not a plus for you. Multiple people telling the same sloppy narrative simply means none of them could get it right.
I don’t see anything “sloppy” in the narative. I did notice your sloppy insistence that yowm can only mean one thing when the Hebrew Dictionary in Strong’s Concordance shows that that is not the case.
Excuse me? We're not talking about spelling mistakes.
I wasn’t refering to spelling mistakes.
[ We are ] talking about major continuity errors as well as errors of fact.
Like errors concerning how many horses Solomon really had.
Of course. When the text says black is white, it doesn't really mean that.
While you are concerned about things being turned around to made the opposite of what they really are, you might consider this passage:
”Woe to those who call evil good, And good evil; Who put darkness for light, And light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, And sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20,21)

I think you should consider this passage in the light of how wise it is for you to teach people that God lied and the serpent told the truth. I think this is calling evil good and good evil, putting darknesss for light, and making the bitter the sweet. You are twisting things around terribly.
quote:
And there are contradictions which I admit are difficult to reconcile according to our limited human logical powers.
Of course. when the text says black is white, then it means it in a way that we can't understand. Humans don't really understand what "black" and "white" are.
I don’t think that most serious Bible readers would not want to admit that there are deep paradoxes in the Bible which are hard to reconcile. For example God as one God yet Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Or perhaps free will and predestination are difficult to reconcile. These matters are difficult to reconcile.
quote:
Huh? I'm not talking about the duplications. I'm talking about things that on their face are impossible such as the flood. In order to flood the earth, it would require an order of magnitude more water than the earth has...and you can't use any of the water actually present on the earth because it's already at the lowest point and we need to get above that. The earth only has on the order of 108 cubic miles of water. We need an additional 109. Where did it come from? And even more importantly, where did it go?
Do you think the writer meant the entire planet? I’m not sure. I think he could have meant where all the human beings were living. At any rate whatever Moses meant Genesis 1:1 indicates that it should not be a problem for God to carry out what He wants to do. He created the heavens and the earth. His power has no limit.
I came to believe Genesis indirectly through trusting Jesus Christ. It is because I came to the conclusion that the integrity of Jesus was without question, that I gradually began to take seriously in the Hebrew Bible what Jesus Christ seems to have taken seriously.
Knowing and trusting Christ was my intrance into accepting the rest of the Bible as reliable.
Sometimes we do have to determine what is actually said and what is not said.
Forget all the other problems with the concept of a global flood such as the nonexistence of a global flood layer, no water damage on the Great Pyramid which was completed four hundred years before the flood going by biblical chronology, etc. All those things require examination of specific details. I'm talking about just the sheer concept. It is physically impossible to do.
I guess some who are insistent that a globe wide flood engulfing the whole planet might want to take up a debate on it. I’m not sure what Moses meant. But judged is judged. All the people and animals were wiped out except for the 8 souls in the ark. I think that is the important point of the record. I don’t know if Moses meant that South America or Australia were under water.
The queen of Sheba ”came from the ends of the earth” (Matt.12:42) to hear the wisdom of Solomon. But by modern standards of travel that really wasn’t that far away. The census of Ceasar Augustus was commanded to go out to all the world (Luke 2:1). I don’t think the writer meant the Chinese were taxed by Ceasar or the American Indians on the North and South American contenient. So the language of the Bible is sometimes imprecise according to modern standards of science or geography.
One thing does seem pretty clear. The account of a large flood wiping out human populations seems to have surfaced in cultures in many places. I think as the survivors multiplied and spread through the earth, some collective memory carried along embelishments of one kind or another of a great flood story.
jaywill:
For instance many of the miracles mentioned in the Bible come in pairs. There are two instances of the same type of miracle or something very similar. It is as if the writer is saying “That’s right. That is what I said.”
Rrhain:
No. It's as if the two people were cribbing the same story. When two of your students turn in the exact same paper down to the spelling mistakes, we don't claim that a miracle occurred. We claim that they were cheating.
I think this explanation is a conspiracy theory. I am not talking of miracles mentioned in the same story. I am talking about pairs of miracles where each instance appears in a different history.
For example: The parting of the Red Sea in Exodus paired with the parting of the Jordon River in Joshua. It is as if God is saying “That’s right. You heard what I said. The waters I parted to make a path through the middle.”
Or consider the miraclous feeding of the Israelites in the wildreness with manna in Exodus with the miraculous feeding of Elijah the prophet in Second Kings, as of God is saying “That’s right. You heard me. There was no food and I miraculously provided some.”
Or consider the translation of Enoch in Genesis with the rapture of Elijah in Second Kings. Or the intepretation of dream by Joseph in Genesis with the interpretation of dreams by Daniel in his book. Or there is the filling of the transitory tabernacle with the glory of God in Exodus with the filling of the temple of God with God’s glory in First Kings. Or pairing the darkening of the kingdom of Pharoah in Exodus with the darkening of Antichrist’s kingdom in Revelation.
These uncanny pairing seems a deliberate attempt to make sure that we really did get it as to what God was able to do. Conspiracy theories stretched over 1,600 years don’t make plausible explanations of this design to me.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Calm yourself Rrhain. I lose interest in conversing with people who go from showing off their mastery of logical fallacies to ridiculing laughter.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 09:19 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 09:20 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 09:22 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 09:29 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 09:30 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 09:31 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 09:34 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 09:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Rrhain, posted 02-12-2006 7:10 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Coragyps, posted 02-12-2006 9:52 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 137 by ramoss, posted 02-12-2006 10:04 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 138 by ReverendDG, posted 02-12-2006 10:33 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 139 by Rrhain, posted 02-13-2006 12:01 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024