Let There Be Man

still, not exactly. he talks to himself in singular in the subject and verb part of the sentance. but in the object part of the sentance, it's plural. it might be related to parts of speech -- but i'd have to see if it appears anywhere else in the bible, and if god refers back to himself in a similar way anywhere else. for the first part, the answer is "i don't think so." but i'd have to check the second, and that's rather tricky to search for. no, not exactly. because most of the time it's ONE god speaking, and they're only concerned about that one god. very rare are there even opportunities for vague polytheism. i'm not saying that outright polytheism was ever included in the text. i don't suspect it was. but we do know that at some point, someone did make a few choice edits to remove things that had a little too much polytheistic flavor for him.

---

In my Bible it says 'at the end of the garden he placed the Cherubim, AND the flaming sword which turns every way' but does not say the cherubim is in any way holding the sword. I can check out some other translations to see if;the cherubim guards the tree with a sword, or
the cherubim guards the tree with (along with) a sword.Sorry, looks like jar already got to it ___Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I'm interested. Can you tell me a little more about this, Larni?

Where does it say that, if you don't mind? Well, that's a start. Let's just assume these things ever existed. We can suggest that unicorns would be very closely related to horses. Dragons would likely hold a relation to some type of dinosaur. And, aliens would be ah...er...umm...people.Now, hold your unicorns. I'm not saying there is anything scientific about it, necessarily. I'm simply using as much imagination as those who read the bible would have to use. I just think it would be intriguing to hypothetically determine where they might fall along the "evolutionary" chronology.Now, four-headed creatures is a little tough to fathom. But hey, if some god says they exist, then who am I to argue?By the way, you forgot chupacabras, bigfeet, lake monsters, and...I think that's it.

i saw this before, but forgot to answer it. don't trust art. art has many traditions regarding religous depictions that simply fail to make sense, or bear no relation to the text. they are more a reflection of the dogma and bias of the time and the artist than what is actually going on in the text. compare, for instance, leonardo's "last supper" to what even a reasonable person today know about the event. leonardo has leavened bread at the table, at passover! he has them sitting up at an actual table, and all facing the same direction. he has them in classical roman garb. and leonardo was known for his attention to detail. he had to repaint "the madonna of the rocks" because the church did not like that he made the infant john the baptist larger than christ. nevermind that he was older, christ had to be bigger because he was more important.(the singular angel in art seems to be arch-angel michael, and not a cherub at all.) there is nothing in the text to imply that the cherubim are holding the sword. "kerub" and "chereb" (sword) are ranked equally in the sentance. god places the kerubim (plural) and the chereb (singular). to expand on what jar said:

quote:

---

Again it really depends on the translation. For example, the KJV actually makes the sword a separate, animate object. It separates the sword with a comma from the Cherubim so that it looks as though the flaming sword is some additional barrier.

---

this sense is also in the hebrew.

quote:

---

—’- -‘, — ‘

​

v'y'sheken m'qeden l'gan-eden et-ha-kerubim, v'et lahat ha-chereb ha-mithafekit

​

and-placed from-east to-garden-eden (d.o.)-the-kerubs, and-(d.o.) fire the-sword the-rotating.

​

and he placed in the east of the garden of eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword that turned every way

---

both the cherubs and the sword get their own direct-object marker, which serves to give them a sense of separation in the text. had the authors wanted to put them together, they might have written:

quote:

---

-‘ — ‘

​

...et-ha-kerubim im lahat ha-chereb ha-mithafekit

​

...the cherubim with the flaming sword that turned every way...

---

but as it stands, the hebrew indicates that they are both separate (specific) direct objects that god places at the east of eden.

---

edit: i forgot to mention, btw, what exactly a cherub is. if you're going use an argument from traditional art, perhaps we should look at a very traditional concept of a cherub, and one a lot more closely related to the set of beliefs, and consistent with the social context of the region.this is a cherub:

strictly speaking, they don't have any hands with which to hold a sword.Edited by arachnophilia, : added picture, edit.

---

From message 1: and Well, limbosis, I gave you an unobtrusive opportunity to modify the topic title. You have declined that opportunity.I think this is a very good themed topic, with a very bad topic title tagged onto it. I also still think that title needs to be changed. I'm also one of the members in these parts whose name starts with "Admin".Topic closed, pending suggestion of a better title from the topic originator. Take said to the "Thread Reopen Requests" topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---

I used a variation of a title suggested by Archer Opterix.Any replies to this message should go to the "General discussion..." topic, link below.AdminnemoosseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Updated link in signature.

---

And only a little willie.

This sounds like a carry-over from the Gory Details of 'Miracles' thread.But, it's funny as hell.

Gotta keep the humour level up, Limbo.

Arachnophilia! I am fascinated by your input. Of course, I am trusting every word you say. That's because you seem to know what the hell you are talking about, and because you don't appear to have reason to slight your god. I may get back to you on one of your assumptions, but you need to know that your background on this matter is well appreciated. I don't care if you ARE like 24 years old.Now, before I continue, let me remark that it appears as though censorship is alive and well in Creationville, on behalf of moderation. Leave it to the powers-that-be to ensure that deception maintains a stronghold. Nevertheless, I enjoy the company of gifted strangers, regardless of which side of the deception they may fall. I can also say that the height of human intelligence could not be better represented than it is by the members of this particular forum, as misguided and audacious as some of them may be. Sequestered, misinformed, disinformed, parlayed, misappropriated, misprinted...I'm using as many keywords as I can think of...Having said that, let me just add that the new title of this thread could not be more goofy...goofier...goofiest...beyond goofy...goofy to the point of discomfort...goofy in its purest form...goofy as the sky is blue...goofy, Goofy, GOOFY!!! I'd like to thank the Academy of Goofiness for the new title of this thread. And, I don't know why, but I think jar had something to do with this, also.Now, judging by the picture of the Cherub you provided, I have to say that I'm almost positive that I don't know anyone who even resembles that photo.And, since it could also be easily argued that the would-be personal saviour, jesus coward christ, was an afterthought at best...so much so that it took a whole new testament to write him in...the idea of a trinity from page one can be discarded.Consider as well, that because the notion of a "Regal WE" sounds just plain gay (thanks anyway, jar-jar), we are left with my original question:Who is this US that the "lord god lord" refers to, on the first page of the "holy" bible?My hunch is also that it must be some governing body, or council. This, in turn, leads us to believe we should all toss the bible (I mean recycle), because there's no reasonable way to rectify the discrepancies.What say you?

How we got from the OP's question on the plurality of gods to the size of a cherub's willie would take a more detailed exegesis than I am willing to perform. But since the discussion has been so broadened already, I would like to ask, If god really preferred that A & E not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, why did he put the damn (and damning) tree in the garden of eden in the first place? I mean, he (or they) created the whole earth and supposedly know about all the continents and Islands and stuff, so why not put the tree out of sight, like in New Jersey, the Garden State? And don't give me any crap about 'he (or they) wanted to test A & E'. That is so totally unbiblical that you might as well throw out the whole book. If it were a test, the bible would say so, as it does in Job, and the serpent would only be doing god's bidding in tempting Eve and would have earned an employee of the month award, not condemnation.

Why do folk always open the door for the axe murderer or take showers when the slasher is around.It was a plot device.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So, it was scripted beforehand and A & E were merely actors upon the stage (devoid of free will)? But in all these storys, doesn't the mean ogre usually get his comeupance in the end?

Jesus was created at this point my friend.John 1:1-5 explicits states that Jesus(referred to here as the Word) was with God from creation.