Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Importance of Original Sin
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 211 of 1198 (637823)
10-18-2011 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by jaywill
10-18-2011 6:57 AM


Re: Right Relationship
The A&E story is not really about relationships, IMO. It isn't uncommon for ancient stories to portray the subject of the story speaking with their respective gods.
These are stories told in a way that they are easy to remember. That Adam & Eve talked with God isn't the point of the story.
God is presented as the God of Abraham in the old and new testaments. IMO, the writers understood the creation stories for what they were, stories.
Judaism began with Abraham, not Adam. That's why I feel the creation stories would not adversely impact Judaism or the msgs presented by Jesus and Paul if the stories were not in the Bible or deemed fiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by jaywill, posted 10-18-2011 6:57 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by jaywill, posted 10-19-2011 11:04 AM purpledawn has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 212 of 1198 (638031)
10-19-2011 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by purpledawn
10-18-2011 8:36 AM


Re: Right Relationship
The A&E story is not really about relationships, IMO.
But the story of God speaking with Abraham is about relationships ?
What is the difference ?
It isn't uncommon for ancient stories to portray the subject of the story speaking with their respective gods.
You said the OT and NT is about the God of Abraham. Well, the OT says that God appeared to Abraham and they spoke to one another. There was a relationship or else how could you consider God the God of Abraham ?
If God spoke to Abraham and that was about a relationship between Abraham and the God of Abraham was is not God speaking with Adam about Adam and the God of Adam ?
Why in Abraham's case you see a relationship but in Adam's case the story is not about relationship ?
These are stories told in a way that they are easy to remember. That Adam & Eve talked with God isn't the point of the story.
Are you saying the only important point is how easy is it to remember the story ?
Why are not the accounts of God interacting with Abraham also not with point of relationship, but only ease of memorization ?
God is presented as the God of Abraham in the old and new testaments. IMO, the writers understood the creation stories for what they were, stories.
You do not think that Paul, the author of about 13 of the 27 New Testament books, did not consider the account of God's involvement with Adam as history ?
(How many books Paul authored is not my main point. But whether Romans and the Corinthians letters consider the Adam and Eve story as history or not)
Judaism began with Abraham, not Adam.
The book of Job is in the Hebrew canon.
Nothing of the Abrahamic covenant is in the book of Job.
How then do you see this oldest of OT books in the Hebrew canon of Judaism ?
The priest of Midian, Jethro, in Exodus was not Jew.
Where does he stand since he apparently knew of God ?
Balaam was a Gentile prophet of God.
Where does he stand in relation to Judiasm ?
Psalm 100 says that all the ends of the earth consist of the sheep of His pature. This seems to mean that all the nations constitute God's people in some sense - the sheep of His pasture.
Ie "Make a joyful noise to Jehovah, all the earth. Serve Jehovah with rejoicing; Come before His presence with singing.
Know that it is Jehovah who is God; It is He who has made us and not we ourselves.
We are His people and the sheep of His pasture." (Psalm 100:1-3)
Wouldn't that agree with God being a God of created mankind in general ? It is God who has made us all in "all the earth". All created men and women of the nations are "the sheep of His pasture" .
Doesn't this establish God in the OT as everyone's God ?
What about this utterance of God in Isaiah ?
"Turn to Me and be saved, All the ends of the earth, For I am God and there is no one else.
I have sworn by Myself; A word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness And will not return,
That every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall swear.
It shall be said of Me, Only in Jehovah is there righteousness and strength." (Isaiah 45:22-24a)
Isn't this a call of God in the OT to all the world to look to Him for salvation ? Isn't this a declaration that all peoples universally are subject to His salvation and authority ?
The covenant God makes with all man and living animals after the flood of Noah, isn't that before the calling out of Abraham and the "called race" ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2011 8:36 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by purpledawn, posted 10-19-2011 1:32 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-19-2011 3:43 PM jaywill has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 213 of 1198 (638063)
10-19-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by jaywill
10-19-2011 11:04 AM


Re: Right Relationship
This is a debate, not twenty questions. My position is that the Jewish religion is not dependent on the creation stories or the concept of original sin. The Jewish religion started with Abraham.
Judaism began with Abraham, who had felt uneasy about all the pagan gods and who decided to leave home and follow the call of one true god.
quote:
You do not think that Paul, the author of about 13 of the 27 New Testament books, did not consider the account of God's involvement with Adam as history ?
(How many books Paul authored is not my main point. But whether Romans and the Corinthians letters consider the Adam and Eve story as history or not)
No I don't feel Paul considered the A&E story to be history. As I said, the Jewish religion began with Abraham.
quote:
Isn't this a call of God in the OT to all the world to look to Him for salvation ? Isn't this a declaration that all peoples universally are subject to His salvation and authority ?
The Bible stories are local, not planetary. Not The Planet
I don't see that this line of questioning has anything to do with the importance of the original sin doctrine to Judaism or Christianity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by jaywill, posted 10-19-2011 11:04 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by jaywill, posted 10-21-2011 2:06 PM purpledawn has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 1198 (638083)
10-19-2011 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by jaywill
10-19-2011 11:04 AM


Re: Right Relationship
You said the OT and NT is about the God of Abraham. Well, the OT says that God appeared to Abraham and they spoke to one another. There was a relationship or else how could you consider God the God of Abraham ?
If God spoke to Abraham and that was about a relationship between Abraham and the God of Abraham was is not God speaking with Adam about Adam and the God of Adam ?
Why in Abraham's case you see a relationship but in Adam's case the story is not about relationship ?
Because the story of Abraham is presumed to be historical while that Adam and Eve myth is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by jaywill, posted 10-19-2011 11:04 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by IamJoseph, posted 10-20-2011 9:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 215 of 1198 (638152)
10-20-2011 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by New Cat's Eye
10-19-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Right Relationship
quote:
Because the story of Abraham is presumed to be historical while that Adam and Eve myth is not.
How can it be myth when the story is not set on earth? The text says the garden of eden was in a realm not of earth, and Adam was hurled down to earth as a form of punishment. This makes it open to a metaphor or some other rendering. The script is highly complicated and seems to incline in wierd directions - it cannot be read in clear terms this event occured on earth; the portion is very different from the clear and explicit descriptions which are posited as historical or relating to earth.
Born of sin is a later Christian take on the Hebrew bible. It has some problems. Firstly, it contradicts the Hebrew laws said to be given directly, in 'open' revelation, to millions of people, with the injunction NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS [the text!]. The contradiction especially applies to, 'ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER'. The NT has got around this by saying the Hebrew laws are fullfilled and no longer applicable. This is very problematic; it is accepted by 2B Christians - but they have never observed or followed those laws, and would be easily inclined to accept such a premise. Not so if a Muslim tells Christians the NT laws are now obsolete.
$64 Q: If a Christian imagines himself as a stiff necked Jew who has followed Hebrew laws for 2000 years, even facing existential wars for it - would he accept the NT premise? He did not even after 400 years when Islam emerged.
The other issue is, if we are born in sin, then we are innocent of all charges. Its like saying one cannot run because he is born without limbs, and thus guilty. This makes the Hebrew version far more considerate and just, as opposed the hoisting of baggage we were never responsible for.
IMHO, there is nothing more pure [sinless] than a new born child or offspring in the universe. It also begs the question, then why is there evil? This may be unrelated; it can be factored in as testings; we see positive and negative everyplace we look in the universe. The scenario predates and is independent of life. Bad things do happen to good people; it may not relate to pre-life.
Lastly, the NT version is open to great corruption and blackmail: its difficult to reject salvation and risk eternal hell?. The NT posits its proof as inapplicable and as an affront to question. Its very problematic.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-19-2011 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2011 10:08 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 1198 (638157)
10-20-2011 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by IamJoseph
10-20-2011 9:39 AM


Re: Right Relationship
How can it be myth when the story is not set on earth?
Being not set on Earth would make it more of a myth
But that doesn't matter, because it was obviously set on Earth. There wasn't anything growing on the earth yet partly because there was nobody to till the gound, and then god made Adam from the ground, itself. (Gen 2:5-7).
The text says the garden of eden was in a realm not of earth, and Adam was hurled down to earth as a form of punishment.
Chapters and verses please. I've never seen that in the text.
This makes it open to a metaphor or some other rendering.
Which doesn't make it any less mythical.
The script is highly complicated
I don't think so... It seems like a straight-forward campfire tale to me.
it cannot be read in clear terms this event occured on earth; the portion is very different from the clear and explicit descriptions which are posited as historical or relating to earth.
You're going to have to provide me with chapters and verses in order for me to be able to discuss this with you.
Born of sin is a later Christian take on the Hebrew bible. It has some problems.
Yup, I agree.
Original Sin is a marketing tool. Its used to convince you that you really need what they are selling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by IamJoseph, posted 10-20-2011 9:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 10-20-2011 11:02 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 217 of 1198 (638166)
10-20-2011 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by New Cat's Eye
10-20-2011 10:08 AM


Re: Right Relationship
quote:
The text says the garden of eden was in a realm not of earth, and Adam was hurled down to earth as a form of punishment.
Chapters and verses please. I've never seen that in the text.
quote:
Being not set on Earth would make it more of a myth
A metaphor is never a myth. It can represent itself as a mirror reflection of a syndrome which overides the reality. Here, the reality can be myth but the message of the syndrome is real.
quote:
3/22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.' 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life. {S}
Cherubim are spiritual beings - angels, not of earth or phsycality. Being sent from Eden to till the land = sent to earth. The tree of life - no such tree here. And who does 'us' refer to - when no other humans existed? It does not seem straight forward to me or resembling any historical writings. It is not myth because of what seems an intentionally complicated passage which is open to numerous other readings and its contradictions of other items. The talking snake, as well as the indcation the snake once had legs and was upright [then punished to crawl] appear complicated and thus not mythical. It is thus also of a realm where there was no labor pains for women at one time; men never had to toil from their brows and no death occured. These may just be the most heady writings of all; its dark and wonderous.
Another multi-directional verse is: 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM".
I read the 'THEM' refering to the first male and female human, and that they were a dual-gendered entity which was split later on. Some may read it as applying to humans in general. The latter seems wrong because no other humans existed when Adam emerged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2011 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2011 11:26 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 1198 (638174)
10-20-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by IamJoseph
10-20-2011 11:02 AM


Re: Right Relationship
A metaphor is never a myth.
Magneto flying on a metal plate is him taking a magic carpet ride.
That is a metaphor and a myth.
It can represent itself as a mirror reflection of a syndrome which overides the reality. Here, the reality can be myth but the message of the syndrome is real.
If the story didn't actually happen, but is representing something else that did, then it is a myth.
Cherubim are spiritual beings - angels, not of earth or phsycality.
So, they were placed on earth by god. When the angel Gabriel visited Mary, did that necessitate that they weren't on Earth either?
Being sent from Eden to till the land = sent to earth.
I don't see why that has to be. If Eden was on earth then they would just be going to a different part of earth.
The tree of life - no such tree here.
Well, that's because its a myth.
And who does 'us' refer to
It could just be god refering to himself in first-person plural for no particular reason, some kind of cliche, or it could be referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (but that's a stretch).
It does not seem straight forward to me or resembling any historical writings.
Right, it resembles a myth.
It is not myth because of what seems an intentionally complicated passage which is open to numerous other readings and its contradictions of other items.
No, that makes it more of a myth. Its clearly not describing something that actually happened as written, ergo myth.
Another multi-directional verse is: 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM".
I read the 'THEM' refering to the first male and female human, and that they were a dual-gendered entity which was split later on. Some may read it as applying to humans in general. The latter seems wrong because no other humans existed when Adam emerged.
No, they're just two seperate stories that contradict each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 10-20-2011 11:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by IamJoseph, posted 10-20-2011 8:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 220 by IamJoseph, posted 10-20-2011 9:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 219 of 1198 (638241)
10-20-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by New Cat's Eye
10-20-2011 11:26 AM


Re: Right Relationship
quote:
Magneto flying on a metal plate is him taking a magic carpet ride.
That is a metaphor and a myth.
Your behavior is akin to Magneto flying on a metal plate is him taking a magic carpet ride.
A metaphor is now not a myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2011 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 220 of 1198 (638244)
10-20-2011 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by New Cat's Eye
10-20-2011 11:26 AM


Re: Right Relationship
quote:
If Eden was on earth
Its surreal; not explicit as the rest of the text. Eden becomes a place other than earth here, with no identifiable geographical location [e.g. the Tigris river; mount Ararat; etc]. Where then is Eden - is it a paradisical reference? Is it where one finds "the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?
It says that the man was removed from a place where there is no death, which means not here on earth or this universe:
quote:
"lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.' 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. "
One cannot dismiss as myth before examiing the textual specifications.
quote:
No, they're just two seperate stories that contradict each other.
That is a inferior view of what is the most superior writings humanity possesses. There are no two seperate contradicting stores: the first one describes an abstract creational description of the specie, where adam is not a pronoun but a human; the second is when the human specie reference becomes a person [not just a human], with a 'name' - the word 'name' is now used for the first time, this occuring when a name is required as distinguising between humans, but not before ['And the man called his wife's name Eve']. This makes it a precise continuation of both chapters. Of note how ch.2 begins:
"1 And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made"
Aligns exactly and only with the last verse of the preceding ch.1. [creation described therein was completed]
"4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. "
Describes ch. 1. , which is about the creation of the universe, including this planet, which now becomes the focus. No other reading is possible; it cannot be said any other way. Of note not a single new entity is included because nothing else was yet described.
The text is deceptively simple, and in fact very pristine and exacting as in a technical mathemtcal mode. Note that it says the life forms were completed but were yet not alive. When carefully considered, this is the only way is can happen. Its like a car: it is completed yet it does not drive: why? Because it needs an external trigger from an ignition key and a car driver! So the completed life forms were yet not animated - they needed a triger ignition key. So too, pineapples were completed yet they did not re-produce other pineapples till this happened:
5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground"
The above refers to the life cycle and the sustainence factors to keep it continuing. Note, a shrub is an outgrowth which pops up when reproduction occurs. Reproduction requires trigger factors, and examples are given of a life cycle: the rains and the tiller.
Its a folly, if not sheer ignorence, to deem the text less than pristine and technical to the greater measure. Consider the term 'create' - what actually does this mean? Why does it appear only in the first creation chpter, then becomes 'formed' for the rest of the entire five books? Its not a typo. Create = something from nothing; formed = something from something else. There is nothing mythical about it.
Consider the mathemtical precision embedded in the text. what does 'REMEMBER TO OBSERVE "THIS" DAY AS THE SABBATH' mean? The 'THIS DAY' says that statement was made on a Sabbath; if one calculates all the millions of numbers, dates and genealogies in the 3000 year span of the history of the Hebrew bible, they will find that indeed that day was a Sabbath. Can a super PC perform such a feat? But can ancient peoples? No.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2011 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-21-2011 1:16 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 10-21-2011 1:50 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 1198 (638254)
10-21-2011 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by IamJoseph
10-20-2011 9:04 PM


Re: Right Relationship
IamJoseph writes:
A metaphor is never a myth.
Magneto flying on a metal plate is him taking a magic carpet ride.
That is a metaphor and a myth.
Your behavior is akin to Magneto flying on a metal plate is him taking a magic carpet ride.
A metaphor is now not a myth.
The question is not whether a metaphor can be not-a-myth, but whether if it always is. You changing my metaphor into non-myth does not mean that it cannot be one.
Its surreal; not explicit as the rest of the text.
Surrealism implies mythology.
Eden becomes a place other than earth here, with no identifiable geographical location [e.g. the Tigris river; mount Ararat; etc]. Where then is Eden - is it a paradisical reference? Is it where one finds "the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?
It says that the man was removed from a place where there is no death, which means not here on earth or this universe:
If it’s not here on Earth, and we're talkin' 'bout man, then its mythological. Where else can we find man? Just in some "what ifs"? That's myth!
One cannot dismiss as myth before examiing the textual specifications.
And upon examination, the textual specifications are determined to be mythical.
That is a inferior view of what is the most superior writings humanity possesses.
They're not the most superior; there's much better writings. They contain both inaccuracies and downright falsehoods.
There are no two seperate contradicting stores:
That's ridiculous. They were written at different times by different authors, as indicated by the texts themselves.
the first one describes an abstract creational description of the specie, where adam is not a pronoun but a human; the second is when the human specie reference becomes a person [not just a human], with a 'name' - the word 'name' is now used for the first time, this occuring when a name is required as distinguising between humans, but not before ['And the man called his wife's name Eve']. This makes it a precise continuation of both chapters. Of note how ch.2
That's quite the spin... You hafta assume the premise to come to that conclusion.
This makes it a precise continuation of both chapters. Of note how ch.2 begins:
"1 And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made"
Aligns exactly and only with the last verse of the preceding ch.1. [creation described therein was completed]
"4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. "
Describes Ch. 1. , which is about the creation of the universe, including this planet, which now becomes the focus. No other reading is possible; it cannot be said any other way. Of note not a single new entity is included because nothing else was yet described.
The "chapters" were a later invention... The texts aren't like you describe them. You're employing a post-hoc rationalization here.
The above refers to the life cycle and the sustainence factors to keep it continuing. Note, a shrub is an outgrowth which pops up when reproduction occurs. Reproduction requires trigger factors, and examples are given of a life cycle: the rains and the tiller.
This here is apologetics. You're playing the game of "let see if I can twist the text into something scientifically meaningful". You'll always be able to do that, with enough twisting, but that doesn't mean that that is what the text is saying. There's still the possibility that its just wrong. If you're just assuming its right in the first place, than you can make whatever up to make it fit. That is no indication of what the text is actually saying.
The above refers to the life cycle and the sustenance factors to keep it continuing. Note, a shrub is an outgrowth which pops up when reproduction occurs. Reproduction requires trigger factors, and examples are given of a life cycle: the rains and the tiller.
But you're just looking for consistencies in your own particular fairy tale. That you can develop them, with your own particular spins on the text, does not imply any sense of veracity.
Its a folly, if not sheer ignorance, to deem the text less than pristine and technical to the greater measure
No, it’s called "honesty". There's nothing neither magical nor pristine, about the text in Genesis. It contains the error and imprecision that we'd expect from writers from that time.
Consider the term 'create' - what actually does this mean? Why does it appear only in the first creation chpter, then becomes 'formed' for the rest of the entire five books? Its not a typo.
Different authors, eh?
Consider the mathemtical precision embedded in the text. what does 'REMEMBER TO OBSERVE "THIS" DAY AS THE SABBATH' mean? The 'THIS DAY' says that statement was made on a Sabbath; if one calculates all the millions of numbers, dates and genealogies in the 3000 year span of the history of the Hebrew bible, they will find that indeed that day was a Sabbath. Can a super PC perform such a feat? But can ancient peoples? No.
Look: the topic is "The Importance of Original Sin"
What is the importance of Original Sin to you and your particular brand of faith? I suppose that the accuracies of these particular books of the Bible are important to the discussion, but we should be getting somewhere...
Do you think the events in Genesis actually happened?
Do you think they’re important to Judaism? To Christianity? How an why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by IamJoseph, posted 10-20-2011 9:04 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by IamJoseph, posted 10-21-2011 3:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 222 of 1198 (638256)
10-21-2011 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by IamJoseph
10-20-2011 9:04 PM


Re: Right Relationship
Hi Joseph,
IamJoseph writes:
"4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. "
Describes ch. 1. , which is about the creation of the universe, including this planet, which now becomes the focus. No other reading is possible; it cannot be said any other way. Of note not a single new entity is included because nothing else was yet described.
The phrase "These are the generations" appear 10 times in the book of Genesis. 2:4, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25 19, 36:1, 36:9, 37:2, and one time in Ruth 4:18.
None of them have the generations listed before the statement, "These are the generations".
Not even 2:4 as you assert. The generations or history of the heaven and the Earth follow the statement, "These are the generations".
But then maybe you have an explanation why in the one instance in Genesis 2:4 the order would be reversed.
God Bless,
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by IamJoseph, posted 10-20-2011 9:04 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by IamJoseph, posted 10-21-2011 2:06 AM ICANT has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 223 of 1198 (638257)
10-21-2011 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
10-21-2011 1:50 AM


Re: Right Relationship
quote:
The phrase "These are the generations" appear 10 times in the book of Genesis. 2:4, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25 19, 36:1, 36:9, 37:2, and one time in Ruth 4:18.
None of them have the generations listed before the statement, "These are the generations".
Not even 2:4 as you assert. The generations or history of the heaven and the Earth follow the statement, "These are the generations".
But then maybe you have an explanation why in the one instance in Genesis 2:4 the order would be reversed.
God Bless,
In 2:4 there were no generations prior to it; unlike the rest which are historical follow-up summaries. That is how accurate and technical this text is - one has to keep up with it!
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 10-21-2011 1:50 AM ICANT has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 224 of 1198 (638260)
10-21-2011 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by New Cat's Eye
10-21-2011 1:16 AM


Re: Right Relationship
quote:
The question is not whether a metaphor can be not-a-myth, but whether if it always is. You changing my metaphor into non-myth does not mean that it cannot be one.
I exposed your contradiction; now you defend from it.
quote:
Its surreal; not explicit as the rest of the text.
Surrealism implies mythology.
'implies' implies it need not imply as mythology.
quote:
If it’s not here on Earth, and we're talkin' 'bout man, then its mythological. Where else can we find man? Just in some "what ifs"? That's myth!
The verse may not be talking about man on earth, as I've been proposing from the texts when read carefully; also the reason this cannot be simply 'myth' - it differs in kind from head bashing deitings battling for supremecy: at all times a universe maker is the constant throughout the text. Only the completed construct became man. While I have no idea what the 'where else' relates to, or why the term 'Let US [Plural] make man in OUR image' - and the term 'Created man' is again in the singular, this in no way can be conclusively decided as in this realm; such a conclusion does not adhere to the text. It is a profound issue, making where we go after death [if anywhere], as less vital to know than where we come from. We know that the first human could not have come from the seed of two host parents, rendering it different from all other humans as its source point. The text is not simple or myth, though it may be too complex for our current generation's knowledge quocient.
quote:
And upon examination, the textual specifications are determined to be mythical.
Including the aerial vew descriptions of four historical rivers in their correct locations stated for the first time?
quote:
That is a inferior view of what is the most superior writings humanity possesses.
They're not the most superior; there's much better writings. They contain both inaccuracies and downright falsehoods.
I have not found any superior elsewhere, even allowing for later writings like Isaiah and Shakespear. The grammar here is epitomized, the shortest distance between two words appear, the most accurate adjectives are applied. Any alteration renders it less grammatically perfect.
quote:
There are no two seperate contradicting stores:
That's ridiculous. They were written at different times by different authors, as indicated by the texts themselves.
the first one describes an abstract creational description of the specie, where adam is not a pronoun but a human; the second is when the human specie reference becomes a person [not just a human], with a 'name' - the word 'name' is now used for the first time, this occuring when a name is required as distinguising between humans, but not before ['And the man called his wife's name Eve']. This makes it a precise continuation of both chapters. Of note how ch.2
That's quite the spin... You hafta assume the premise to come to that conclusion.
A spin infers there are other readings possible. Name one?
quote:
This makes it a precise continuation of both chapters. Of note how ch.2 begins:
"1 And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made"
Aligns exactly and only with the last verse of the preceding ch.1. [creation described therein was completed]
"4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. "
Describes Ch. 1. , which is about the creation of the universe, including this planet, which now becomes the focus. No other reading is possible; it cannot be said any other way. Of note not a single new entity is included because nothing else was yet described.
The "chapters" were a later invention... The texts aren't like you describe them. You're employing a post-hoc rationalization here.
Did I miss your proof these were later invented - by whom - what's their names - was this pre or post-Septuagint translation of 300 BCE? If a 3,700 year document [Book of Esther] speaks of such texts and a temple was already standing then destroyed - was it at this time too the text were re-invented? If volumes of books in the psalms mention Moses numerously, and aligns with the entire five books consistantly - did many writers adjust every verse - and yet maintain the exact same poetic sweep? Why don't you try adding to Shakespear and not be detected? That is far easier a task - Shakespear does not contain brim full dates, periods and genealogies which also have to be matching? How easily the populace accepts a heresay statement without a shred of proof - how easily 1000's of evidences are ignored. What you are saying, if the text were not re-invented - you have an enormous problem! How do you explain the eerie alignment we have no 'NAME' older than Adam - we should have billions, no!
quote:
The above refers to the life cycle and the sustainence factors to keep it continuing. Note, a shrub is an outgrowth which pops up when reproduction occurs. Reproduction requires trigger factors, and examples are given of a life cycle: the rains and the tiller.
This here is apologetics. You're playing the game of "let see if I can twist the text into something scientifically meaningful". You'll always be able to do that, with enough twisting, but that doesn't mean that that is what the text is saying. There's still the possibility that its just wrong. If you're just assuming its right in the first place, than you can make whatever up to make it fit. That is no indication of what the text is actually saying.
There is no input from me other than quoting texts carefully, respecting all words in the verses w/o omissions. On the contrary, all new input is from your own statements, denying all, able to prove nothing, just shoting MYTH!
quote:
The above refers to the life cycle and the sustenance factors to keep it continuing. Note, a shrub is an outgrowth which pops up when reproduction occurs. Reproduction requires trigger factors, and examples are given of a life cycle: the rains and the tiller.
But you're just looking for consistencies in your own particular fairy tale. That you can develop them, with your own particular spins on the text, does not imply any sense of veracity.
Can one find 'consistancies' when they are not there? Understand that when you use such a term, it goes against you! I make no spins: remember this is about creationism - and everything in the text is consistant with it - that is not a spin. I am not deflecting from the core substance of the text - you are!
quote:
Its a folly, if not sheer ignorance, to deem the text less than pristine and technical to the greater measure
No, it’s called "honesty". There's nothing neither magical nor pristine, about the text in Genesis. It contains the error and imprecision that we'd expect from writers from that time.
The honesty comes with proof, remember - there is no honesty without consistancy and accuracy of math and history.
quote:
Consider the term 'create' - what actually does this mean? Why does it appear only in the first creation chpter, then becomes 'formed' for the rest of the entire five books? Its not a typo.
Different authors, eh?
No, just the reverse applies. It is absolutely correct that in ch.1 only a technical term like 'create' can apply, while this cannot apply in ch.2. Its called consistancy.
quote:
Look: the topic is "The Importance of Original Sin"
Nicely backed off. You forget the NT is basing its claim of born in sin by connecting this with the Hebrew bible! I say the NT is incorrect here - how else do we explain this, if not from the text in the Hebrew bible?
quote:
What is the importance of Original Sin to you and your particular brand of faith? I suppose that the accuracies of these particular books of the Bible are important to the discussion, but we should be getting somewhere...
There is no such thing; its unGodly from the POV it contradicts the laws of the Hebrew bible. Period. It also contradicts all of reality and how humanity operates. The NT has posed an impossible demand which no christian or any other human can accomodate.
quote:
Do you think the events in Genesis actually happened?
All I can say here is, if it did not happen its antithesis makes less sense. A universe maker for a universe beats jitterbugging quarks banging heads for eons and winning millions of lotteries in one day. Those are correct odds too.
quote:
Do you think they’re important to Judaism? To Christianity? How an why?
All worldly accepted laws come from the Hebrew bible. The universe works on laws. Its important. Christianity's greatest claim to fame is choosing the Hebrew bible and flicking off Zeus. Uts worthy of applauding and must have been very difficult to do - thus we see numerous residual factors from helenism also in the NT baggage.
MOSTLY OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Address only topic related comments.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-21-2011 1:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-22-2011 12:48 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 225 of 1198 (638324)
10-21-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by purpledawn
10-19-2011 1:32 PM


Re: Right Relationship
This is a debate, not twenty questions. My position is that the Jewish religion is not dependent on the creation stories or the concept of original sin.
If you make twenty points in your debate which prompt an equal number of questions from me, I don't see what is wrong with that.
It was not twenty questions. But they were, I think, questions related to ideas you have expressed or implied.
The Jewish religion started with Abraham.
It may be true that God's covenant with the seed of Abraham starts with Abraham. However, it is arguable that one should insist nothing pre-dating Abraham can be vitally related to Judiams. After all the God in Judaism is the Creator of the world. And some backround is necessary TO Judaism in order to establish that Yahweh is the Creator and the only God.
In other words, the covenanting God of Judaism was not BORN or come into existence just at Abraham's lifetime. So the first five books of Moses, as foundational to Judaism, contain vital backround to this God of the Jews' relation to the rest of humanity and the creation in general. The backround of the Sabbath rest, so vital to Judaism, is solidly rooted in a pre-Abraham time of creation.
Ie. "But the seventh day is a Sabbath to Jehovah your God; you shall not do any work, you nor your son nor your daughter, your male servant nor your female servant, nor your cattle nor the sojouner with you, who is within your gates.
For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it." (Exodus 20:10,11)
A vital part of God's covenant with Abraham involves His bringing a blessing to the nations:
"... And I will bless those who bless you, And he who curses you I will curse; And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." (See Gen. 12:2,3)
There is also a line from God the Creator, His interaction with the pre-Abrahamic nations, to Abraham and the called nation.
I think you must harbor some other reason for wanting to separate the chapters of Genesis prior to God's call of Abraham, so definitely, from Judaism. What does this cleaving away of early Genesis from Judaism do for you ?
Judaism began with Abraham, who had felt uneasy about all the pagan gods and who decided to leave home and follow the call of one true god.
Well, I would say that the God of glory appeared to Abraham and called him out of Chaldea. I would say that any uneasiness Abram felt about the idol worship of Chaldea was due to the impact of him encountering the true God of glory.
Abram did not so willingly follow God. It took many years of God dealing with him and removing this and that reason for procrastination until gradually God secured a man absolute to follow Him anywhere.
He was not unlike a typical man, reluctant and hesitate to follow God's leading in the way of complete trust.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not think that Paul, the author of about 13 of the 27 New Testament books, did not consider the account of God's involvement with Adam as history ?
(How many books Paul authored is not my main point. But whether Romans and the Corinthians letters consider the Adam and Eve story as history or not)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I don't feel Paul considered the A&E story to be history. As I said, the Jewish religion began with Abraham.
It is obvious that Paul considered the story of Adam and Eve to be crucial facts to the history of the world. I would say that Paul considered Adam as historical a figure as he considered Jesus Christ as a historical figure.
So Christ is, in his teaching, the second man. Christ is, in Paul's doctrine, the last Adam.
You must harbor some other reason for wanting to obscure Paul's regarding Adam as the first man through whom sin came into the world - a matter of history.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't this a call of God in the OT to all the world to look to Him for salvation ? Isn't this a declaration that all peoples universally are subject to His salvation and authority ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible stories are local, not planetary. Not The Planet
I don't see that this line of questioning has anything to do with the importance of the original sin doctrine to Judaism or Christianity?
This sounds planatery in scope to me:
For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it." (Exo. 20:11)
This reference to "heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them" conveys the whole world in any modern vanacular understanding.
I might grant that if this revelation came to Moses in visions, so that he was a kind of a seer of the creation, he may have had a local view as only a human being is able. God alone can see the whole universe together.
I would grant that if these revelations were unfolded before the eyes of the seer as visions, they may have appeared as local, ie. with a scope only as wide and far as the human eye can see.
Though the meaning is surely planatery, the way in which it was revealed, if by visions, may have consisted of limitation appropriate for what human beings are able to view and comprehend.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by purpledawn, posted 10-19-2011 1:32 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2011 7:23 AM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024