|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: who cain married | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
well because why would god make the jews separate? they're not special.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I didn't actually say that it is fiction. Rather, I see it as a kind of pre-scientific explanation for why there are multiple languages. I accept your point that the building aspect could be based on actual events. ok, i think we're on the same page then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well because why would god make the jews separate? they're not special. certainly not according to the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
might suspect God to have a sense of humour, inserting these little puzzles to annoy non-believers in the future (or to give believers fantasy-room). i think god does have a sense of humor. (look at the platypus)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Cain, son of the man and woman created in Genesis 2, simply married a daughter of the man and woman who were created in Genesis 1.
What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
stud Inactive Member |
no doubt there were other people besides Adam and eve, the bible stated that he made man and woman, then later it talked about adam, and how God took one of his ribs to make eve
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
no doubt there were other people besides Adam and eve, the bible stated that he made man and woman, then later it talked about adam, and how God took one of his ribs to make eve this is kind of complicated. know what one of the common biblical hebrew words for "man" is? adam. i can't give you a clear formula for when it's rendered as a name, and when it's a noun. but when it says (et-)ha-adam it's usually refering to "the man (in specific)" but not a name. sometimes when it says adam it means "mankind" and sometimes it's rendered as a proper name. it varies from translation to translation. but the word "adam" does appear in genesis 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
I bow to your knowledge, Arach, but do you really think God would inspire a book to be read by Gentiles all over the world, that necessitated having an erudite Hebrew scholar on call for each passage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
do you really think God would inspire a book no
to be read by Gentiles no
all over the world no
that necessitated having an erudite Hebrew scholar on call for each passage? no. i think some hebrew people wrote a bunch of book about their traditions and beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Let me take a crack at these too.
do you really think God would inspire a book I wouldn't believe it if the Bible did not exist.
to be read by Gentiles Yes - by Jews and Gentiles.
all over the world Yes, All over the world.
that necessitated having an erudite Hebrew scholar on call for each passage? It doesn't necessitate an erudite Hebrew scholar on call for each passage. There is a word which transcends the Hebrew and the Greek. It is the word of God. And millions have benefited from the word of God without having an erudite Hebrew scholar on call for each passage. A good translation is adaquate. And such tools as lexicons and dictionaries are available for more in depth study. This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-22-2005 05:58 PM This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-22-2005 06:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
But that is the point, J. Which translation carries the Word?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, let me ask you a few questions?
do you really think God would inspire a book I wouldn't believe it if the Bible did not exist. have you read many other pieces of ancient literature?
to be read by Gentiles Yes - by Jews and Gentiles. i don't find the hebrew portions strongly supportive of christian traditions. i know you can fire back with a bunch of purported christ prophecy: i've seen them all before. most don't add up (we've spent several threads just discussing the context of a few of them). but that's not the point. there's several glaring problems: like the jewish tradition against human sacrifice, and the incompatibility of atonoing for another and levitical law. but this is a whole separate thread. besides:
all over the world Yes, All over the world. do you not find that the old testament, for the most part, is strongly hebrew-centric? that's kind of the position demonstrated by this "who cain married" question. he married someone who lived somewhere else.
It doesn't necessitate an erudite Hebrew scholar on call for each passage. There is a word which transcends the Hebrew and the Greek. It is the word of God. And millions have benefited from the word of God without having an erudite Hebrew scholar on call for each passage. A good translation is adaquate. And such tools as lexicons and dictionaries are available for more in depth study. well, i agree to a point. the bible can have some benefit (and harm, too) from even the simplest reading in just about any translation. "love your neighbor" is "love your neighbor" it just about every version i've seen. that said, i have personally found most translations wanting. not so much because of the translation, but because i do not personally understand hebrew language and idioms. i've found it important enough to go and try to learn at least a little hebrew. i have also found that dictionaries and lexicons can do more harm than good. i demonstrated once the fun "translation" i could do with a dictionaried copy of strong's concordance to someone who was using it inappropriately on this forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Personifying a word into a name is a common story telling and literary practice. In Job the word for adversary (satan) was personified. According to Richard E. Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible?", Genesis 1 is a priestly writing probably written after the fall of the northern kingdom. From what he discovered the priestly writer of Genesis 1 was writing an alternative to the A&E version of creation. So I can understand why the word "adam" was not personified in Genesis 1. The writer wasn't trying to write a tale about good and evil. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
So I can understand why the word "adam" was not personified in Genesis 1. The writer wasn't trying to write a tale about good and evil. he seems to be describing something looser -- there has to be a reason we have BOTH stories. somebody thought it was important to include two versions, and i doubt it was just because they became holy independently. i think the author of genesi 1 is trying to describe a broader creation. gen 2+3 is really just the localized hebrew tradition; where their fathers came from. genesis 1 seems to be using "adam" to mean "mankind" (in my opinion). so i think it's fair to say "someone from the other creation story" since the older one seems unconcerned with the ancestry of anyone besides the hebrews. the problem then is that adam ≠ Adam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I would agree broader in the sense that by the time Genesis 1 was written mankind would have had a broader view of the world and the universe. Not the same as when the folk tales were told. So I agree that the author meant mankind and not an individual. Also it was written after the fall of the northern kingdom and we have northern tales mixing with the southern tales to try and bring the people together (J&E). The J&E writing seem more earth central, whereas P or Genesis 1 is more cosmic. I guess my original point on the word "adam" was that the Story of A&E personified the word used for mankind into a name, hence a story and not factual. In Genesis 1 the author seems to be trying for a more serious universal approach without the talking snakes and such. Not a children's tale. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024