|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible has no contradictions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Brian,
Actually, there are other possibilities: 1: Adam had another wife in this line that is not mentioned, one reason Cain and Abel are not mentioned in it. 2: Perhaps Cain and Abel were not of Adam's line per verse 4:1-2. 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. Per BLB/strong's concordance: the word "knew" was translated from the hebrew word "yada' " a prim root meaning "to know" where as the word "from" was translated from the hebrew word " 'eth" meaning "with, near or together". So possibly, in this verse "I have aquired a man from the LORD" ment just that, the LORD and Eve had Cain together. This idea applies to Abel too per verse 4:2. Edited by The Saint, : Spelling error/Correection. Edited by The Saint, : Spelling error
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
ME2,
Actually Genesis 4:14-15 imply there are others. "Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." "But the LORD said to him, "Not so [fn] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him." As far as markings go, it's not like Cain traveled from Pakistan to California. He traveled by foot, within the same culture/mixed cultures. Most likely people could identify the markings and had similar understandings of markings. Edited by The Saint, : Topic
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
ME2,
Actually there is nothing in the Bible that specifies other people didn't exist. The story just focuses on the two refered to commonly as Adam and Eve(the first man and woman). Adam was translated from the hebrew word "'adam" which is defined as "man" or "mankind". It's a species reference such as homo sapien. Per genesis 1:27-28, man was to multiply. The creation story in Genesis 2 was probably written as a way to deliver the story of the fall/sin. Explaining it from the vantage point that what God had created was good but then due to Satan man sinned. It's not a complicated story. I think it's hillarious when people analyze it. I also think it's a common issue to think that the scriptures in the Bible are chronologically organized. They're likely not actually in order. Perhaps it is more logically understood if you read ch 5 before 4 for example. Honestly, the Bible was not a book originally, it was developed into a book by " 'adam". The sciptures in the Bible were originally controlled by the power hungry Catholic church. Lol. Edited by III, : Word Err
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Coragyps,
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Catholic Scientist, thanks for the welcome! I have a long history of this debate.
![]() So, I conclude that they had sex based on the entirety of the verse context "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived" not based upon the fact that it read "Cain knew his wife". Example, "Cain knew his wife, and she died". Did she die naturally or did Cain kill her? There is enough room for skepticism so I don't conclude either.
He can take a leave of "absence" and then return. They didn't have cell phones..... Men were providers in historic society, they took leave often.
Both Actually. If he is not aware of her anymore naturally they don't have sex. Another point, usage of words is not always the same, historically and currently.
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..... That's one interpretation. I simply conclude what it reads "he knew his wife" or "he knew his wife no more" and conclude other points with that, if he didn't know his wife probably they are not having sex(I suppose you don't have to KNOW someone to have sex with them).
Yes I've heard this claim but this is just simply "according to some"..... Ideas change over time as to what something means... You should realize that simply due to writing style or perhaps the fact that it seems as if it was a copy from another document, does not MEAN that it is.... "Nothing is higher than a bit of skepticism"... I've provided that skepticism... Also it does not make the Bible any less authoritative simply because these documents are contradictory. Edited by III, : Added 2nd response(missed it by accident). Edited by III, : Added responses(Missed a couple of points)...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Brian,
You forgot to add "possibly". These stories are POSSIBLY from different traditions. Perhaps the two traditions came from the scripture in the Bible. The Bible does read to the affect that it is coming from the creator.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Catholic Scientist,
You may want to re post. I added some responses to my post. Edited by III, : Added message. Edited by III, : Added message
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
ringo,
If it was that specific, there would be very little need for doubt hence the skepticism. This is just right. I am not ignoring context, you're, read below... Skepticism: skep·ti·cism —Synonyms —Antonyms Yes you took this debate to this level. Now we're talking about definitions. I question the thought that when the Bible words "xxx knew his wife" that it means xxx had sex with his wife. This is skepticism. I don't care what is commonly accepted, this changes with time. REF: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skepticism Edited by III, : Reference
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
You have not shown that though. You have provided evidence that can be interpreted several different ways. 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. The real Gen 4:1 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)".
Take a leave of absence. a·ware —Synonyms See conscious. —Antonyms When you are away from somebody you're not aware of them. 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.
1: They may not have used it in that context then. This is skepticism.
Flawed logic. It's not how language works. Language is different for everybody just like how psychology is different for everybody. FYI: We know there is 10 commandments because we can count them. 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. Edited by III, : Err in OP Edited by III, : Added meaning. Edited by III, : Err Edited by III, : Err
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
ringo,
Reason or no reason, I question it. Mere questioning is skepticism. Doubt is skepticism. Testing is skepticism. It is all Skepticism. In your mind there is no REASON. That is called faith and hence is not being skeptical. You're not being skeptical. "He knew his wife and she conceived, This is the full context though and is much different than "He knew his wife". Edited by III, : Added message.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
ringo,
No, that is what I am telling you people. LOL. You all need to read the context... And if you have to, refer BACK to the Hebrew words for that context... FYI: You could just simply refer back to MY post. Edited by III, : Added message. Edited by III, : Added message. Edited by III, : Added message. Edited by III, : err Edited by III, : err
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
arachnophilia,
You can pretend to think you know something all you want but what you know is mere faith. You have faith in your last post to be true. This is faith not skepticism... My point, when dealing with history or reality we all build what we think around what we want to think. If you're a naturalist you want to be, if you're a christian you want to be. If you want to believe this, you will. Skepticism has its intended use and I am using it perfectly. There MAYBE a contradiction in gen 4-5. Gravity may not exist. We learn as we go. Humanity is primitive.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
arachnophilia,
This is a decent argument. This is pretty much a wasted post so I will respond to post 189. "Exactly". Edited by III, : err Edited by III, : No reason given. Edited by III, : err Edited by III, : Corrections!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Catholic Scientist,
Apparently your not learning.
Exactly but only because you have "she conceived" at the end. however, if you add the very end of 4:1 to the context it slightly changes the meaning to a possibility that in MAYBE Cain and Abel were descendants of LORD God. Which would make sense as to why they are not listed in Gen 5.
You take my argument out of context.
Your right. My bad. I don't know if it's a exact copy of the autograph.
Your claim, not mine.
Maybe you don't know her at all. Yes, you're right, you do loose your awareness of her when she leaves and it translates into what you think you know about her. The image you paint of her, or rather the one she paints for you.
It seemed that you didn't know the definition to the meaning of the word because your argument was ridiculous.
I am. See, I am Christian but it's a faith choice and I accept that. I accept that the things I believe are built around faith and not complete awareness. Naturalist's have a hard time with this idea. They assume uniformity of place/time and Natural causality.
You may have never knew them.....
Actually people can but there is always a communication barrier. Yes I am skeptical of this, it is however what I believe.
I don't claim that my interpretation is the real one. I claim that possibly the commonly accepted idea or other interpretations are possible. "Skepticism". Interpretations are different for everybody. We know what we think we know, end of story. Edited by III, : Correction Edited by III, : Another....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III Junior Member (Idle past 3451 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
So.... I get what you "beleive".
![]() Edited by III, : err
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021