Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
82 online now:
PaulK, Pollux, Tangle (3 members, 79 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Post Volume: Total: 887,675 Year: 5,321/14,102 Month: 242/677 Week: 47/54 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible has no contradictions
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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


Hello Roman Numeral Three,

Welcome to EvC.

In Message 167, you wrote:

Gen 4:1

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

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

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



Added by edit:

I took the liberty of looking some up for you:

quote:
Genesis 4:17 (King James Version)

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


quote:
Genesis 4:25 (King James Version)

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


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

quote:
Genesis 38:26 (King James Version)

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


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


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

From Message 170:

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

What makes you sure?

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

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spelling


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

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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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


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

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

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

Huh?

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

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

Catholic Scientist writes:

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic Scientist writes:

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

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

Huh?

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

Really!?

To know someone meant to have sex with them.

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

I've provided that skepticism...

I'm not seeing it.

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

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


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

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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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


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

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

Please and thank you.


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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 221 (604458)
02-12-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by III
02-11-2011 5:53 PM


Re: Other thoughts
You have not shown that though.

Sure I have. Anyone but the strictest pedant can see it.

You have provided evidence that can be interpreted several different ways.

Not really... "he knew her and she conceived" can only mean that he had sex with her.

And it doesn't even really matter what the word is: "he smurfed her and she conceived" means the same thing.

We have a clear difference of opinion with respect to the evidence provided. This is skepticism. I will even acknowledge, I could be wrong. Again, this is true skepticism.

No, that is solipsism <-- clicky.

Are you familiar with solipsism and how totally ghey it is?

Do you think that we can know anything?

The real Gen 4:1

Wait, how can you claim its the real one if you're so "skeptical"!?

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

That's a stinking pile of bullshit. You're just trying to interpret away a perceived error. Its not honest.

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

Take a leave of absence.

What? Everytime I leave for work in the morning, I loose my awareness for my girlfriend!? That's just silly.

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

—Synonyms
1. mindful.

See conscious.

—Antonyms
1. oblivious.

How old are you? (I'll be 30 this year.)

You're comming off as immature because you're arguing for solipsism and have to bust out the dictionary to make semantic arguments. Quit wasting my time.

When you are away from somebody you're not aware of them.

False. And shouldn't you be "skeptical" of that?

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

That's got to be one of the stupidest interpretation I have ever read.

Everytime someone walks out of the room, I no longer know them

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

If that were true then nobody could communicate.

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

How about this: Fuck skepticism! Who says I have to be skeptical? Why would you want to be so skeptical to the point where you can't know anything? And then contradict yourself and claim that your interpretation is the real one

Its blatantly obvious that the Bible uses the idiom "to know" to trefer to sex and that its done it in the passage you're trying to chop up and twist to fit your needs.

And what you're refering to is solipsism. Do you think we can know anything at all?

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spelling

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by III, posted 02-11-2011 5:53 PM III has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by III, posted 02-12-2011 6:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021