Jump to content

Recommended Posts

K.. can't take the abuse of history anymore...

 

"I don't know if I understand what you mean concerning if the numbers were real, the Romans would not have stood a chance in occupying Israel."

 

What?  but but but... the Romans DID occupy Israel, Palestine (where Israel is today - though originally palestine/judea was much larger - 2/3rds having been annexed by the Babylonians and never reclaimed  ie: the lost tribes) has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including the Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Palestine/Judea/etc... was a territory held by almost every civilization around them at one time or another.

 

^^^ Grade 9 history...

 

There was no Exodus... there is NO evidence for it.. none, nada, zip. Queen Hatshepsut didn't ride her chariot through the Red Sea (you'd think that would make some news at the time, wouldn't you? - She was controversial enough (and far too smart to chase a rabble of slaves across the Egyptian desert) - Hatshepsut had one daughter named Neferure and she only married once to Thutmose II. - her brother) Thutmose III was Pharoah after her death (Thutmose II son). Interestingly 'mose' means either 'child' or 'son of'.. so Thutmoses means 'Son of Thoth' The word 'Moses' would mean just child or 'son of ______'.. it is not a proper name.. IF Hatshepsut had adopted Moses his name would have been Either Hatshepmoses (unlikely), or Thutmoses III (maybe IV) after her brother/husband. (or MAYBE Senunmut II  hahaha.. sorry a little Historian humor there) Egyptian inheritance was compicated and only a first wife or major wife could have royal offspring.. the BLOODLINE was all important because the Egyptians believed their Pharoahs were decended from the gods and had divine blood. This explains why they married their siblings. Most siblings were half-siblings though as Pharoah usually had more than one royal wife - though only one queen.

 

There is no evidence of famine or disaster during her rule. Her other name was Maatkare.. Ma'at mean truth/holiness/beauty, Ka is sort of 'soul' or essence - their eternal self, and Re is one of the words to express aspects of Horus, or the sun/gold/infinity.. so you could say it translates as "The divine/beautiful lady with the infinite glory/divinity of Horus (sun)" (set herself up as a Goddess - common in Pharoahs)  Hatshepsut means "Foremost of the noble ladies". (effectively - Queen)

 

"Hatshepsut, also known as Maatkare, was an 18th Dynasty pharaoh of Ancient Egypt. She ruled longer than any other woman we know of who was an indigenous Egyptian.

 

Hatshepsut died at about age 50, according to a stela at Armant. That date has been resolved to January 16, 1458 BCE by some."

 

"A mummy in 2007 was identified as the mummy of Hatshepsut. Assuming that identification is correct, we know more about likely causes of her death. The mummy shows signs of arthritis, many dental cavities and root inflammation and pockets, diabetes, and metastized bone cancer (the original site cannot be identified; it may have been in soft tissue like the lungs or breast). She was also obese. Some other signs show the likelihood of a skin disease. It is likely that the cancer killed her, though an abscessed tooth is another theory."

 

source:  http://womenshistory.about.com/od/hatshepsut/

 

Was the Exodus Real?

Although there can be a chronology within the framework of a fictional story or myth, dating the events is generally impossible. To have an historical date, normally, an event must be real; therefore the question must be asked as to whether or not the Exodus actually happened. Some believe the Exodus never took place because there is no physical or literary proof beyond the Bible. Others say all the proof that is needed is in the Bible. While there will always be skeptics, most assume there was some basis in historical/archaeological fact.

 

The main problem with dating the Exodus is that archaeological evidence and Biblical references do not line up.

16th, 15th Century Dating Problems

16th and 15th century dates

  • make the period of the Judges too long (300-400 years long),
  • involve extensive interaction with kingdoms which only came into existence later, and
  • make no mention of the heavy local influence the Egyptians had in the area of Syria and Palestine.

16th, 15th Century Support

However, some Biblical evidence supports the 15th century date, and the expulsion of the Hyksos favors the earlier date. The expulsion of the Hyksos evidence is important because it is the only historically recorded collective exodus from Egypt of people from Asia until the first millennium B.C.

Advantages of the 13th Century Date

The 13th century date solves the problems of the earlier ones (the period of the Judges would not be too long, there is archaeological evidence of the kingdoms the Hebrews had extensive contact with, and the Egyptians were no longer a major force in the area) and is the date accepted by more archaeologists and historians than the others. With the 13th century dating of the Exodus, settlement of Canaan by the Israelites occurs in the 12th century B.C. (this is doubtful as the correlation of Canaanite and Hebrew religion ties them together in origin from way back)

Source: 

 

"The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[14] and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.[5] Nevertheless, the discussion of the historical reality of the exodus has a long history, and continues to attract attention.

 

- No evidence has been found that indicates Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe or that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds.[20] Some scholars have rationalised these numbers into smaller figures, for example reading the Hebrew as "600 families" rather than 600,000 men, but all such solutions raise more problems than they solve.[21] The view of mainstream modern biblical scholarship is that the improbability of the Exodus story originates because it was written not as history, but to demonstrate God's purpose and deeds with his Chosen People, Israel.[3] Thus it seems probable that the 603,550 people delivered from Egypt (according to Numbers 1:46) is not simply a number, but a gematria (a code in which numbers represent letters or words) for bnei yisra'el kol rosh, "the children of Israel, every individual;"[22] while the number 600,000 symbolises the total destruction of the generation of Israel which left Egypt, none of whom lived to see the Promised Land.[23]

 

Archaeology [edit]

A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[4] A number of theories have been put forward to account for the origins of the Israelites, and despite differing details they agree on Israel's Canaanite origins.[24] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite, and almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[25] There is archeological evidence of the Caananite Hyksos people moving into and out of northern Egypt, though the relation of their dates to the biblical account is debated by scholars."

 

source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

 

 

Serpents: Let's get this straight..k?  (excerpts only - the entire article is fascinating)

 

Fertility and rebirth

Historically, serpents and snakes represent fertility or a creative life force. As snakes shed their skin through sloughing, they are symbols of rebirth, transformation, immortality, and healing.[6]The ouroboros is a symbol of eternity and continual renewal of life.

In the Abrahamic religions, the serpent represents sexual desire.[7] According to the Rabbinical tradition, in the Garden of Eden, the serpent represents sexual passion.[8] In Hinduism, Kundalini is a coiled serpent, the residual power of pure desire.[9]

Guardianship

 

Serpents are represented as potent guardians of temples and other sacred spaces. This connection may be grounded in the observation that when threatened, some snakes (such as rattlesnakes or cobras) frequently hold and defend their ground, first resorting to threatening display and then fighting, rather than retreat. Thus, they are natural guardians of treasures or sacred sites which cannot easily be moved out of harm's way.

 

At Angkor in Cambodia, numerous stone sculptures present hooded multi-headed nāgas as guardians of temples or other premises. A favorite motif of Angkorean sculptors from approximately the 12th century CE onward was that of the Buddha, sitting in the position of meditation, his weight supported by the coils of a multi-headed naga that also uses its flared hood to shield him from above. This motif recalls the story of the Buddha and the serpent king Mucalinda: as the Buddha sat beneath a tree engrossed in meditation, Mucalinda came up from the roots of the tree to shield the Buddha from a tempest that was just beginning to arise.

 

The Gadsden flag of the American Revolution depicts a rattlesnake coiled up and poised to strike. Below the image of the snake is the legend, "Don't tread on me." The snake symbolized the dangerousness of colonists willing to fight for their rights and homeland. The motif is repeated in the First Navy Jack of the US Navy.

Poison and medicine

Serpents are connected with poison and medicine. The snake's venom is associated with the chemicals of plants and fungi[10][11][12] that have the power to either heal, poison or provide expanded consciousness (and even the elixir of life and immortality) through divine intoxication. Because of its herbal knowledge and entheogenic association the snake was often considered one of the wisest animals, being (close to the) divine. Its divine aspect combined with its habitat in the earth between the roots of plants made it an animal with chthonic properties connected to the afterlife and immortality. Asclepius, the God of medicine and healing, carried a staff with one serpent wrapped around it, which has become the symbol of modern medicine.

 

Cosmic serpents

The serpent, when forming a ring with its tail in its mouth, is a clear and widespread symbol of the "All-in-All", the totality of existence, infinity and the cyclic nature of the cosmos. The most well known version of this is the Aegypto-Greek Ourobouros. It is believed to have been inspired by the Milky Way, as some ancient texts refer to a serpent of light residing in the heavens. The Ancient Egyptians associated it with Wadjet, one of their oldest deities as well as another aspect, Hathor. In Norse mythology the World Serpent (or Midgard serpent) known as Jörmungandr encircled the world in the ocean's abyss biting its own tail.

 

The oldest known representation of two snakes entwined around a rod is that of the Sumerian fertility god Ningizzida. (and the creatrix of the human race) Ningizzida was sometimes depicted as a serpent with a human head, eventually becoming a god of healing and magic. It is the companion of Dumuzi (Tammuz) with whom it stood at the gate of heaven. In the Louvre, there is a famous green steatite vase carved for King Gudea of Lagash (dated variously 22002025 BCE) with an inscription dedicated to Ningizzida. Ningizzida was the ancestor of Gilgamesh, who according to the epic dived to the bottom of the waters to retrieve the plant of life. But while he rested from his labor, a serpent came and ate the plant. The snake became immortal, and Gilgamesh was destined to die.

 

Snake cults were well established in Canaanite religion in the Bronze Age, for archaeologists have uncovered serpent cult objects in Bronze Age strata at several pre-Israelite cities in Canaan: two at Megiddo,[21] one at Gezer,[22] one in the sanctum sanctorum of the Area H temple at Hazor,[23] and two at Shechem.[24]

In the surrounding region, serpent cult objects figured in other cultures. A late Bronze Age Hittite shrine in northern Syria contained a bronze statue of a god holding a serpent in one hand and a staff in the other.[25] In 6th-century Babylon, a pair of bronze serpents flanked each of the four doorways of the temple of Esagila.[26] At the Babylonian New Year's festival, the priest was to commission from a woodworker, a metalworker and a goldsmith two images one of which "shall hold in its left hand a snake of cedar, raising its right [hand] to the god Nabu".[27] At the tell of Tepe Gawra, at least seventeen Early Bronze Age Assyrian bronze serpents were recovered.[28]

 

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_%28symbolism%29

 

Once you STUDY actual history and world mythology it all starts to make sense... there's SO much more to these myths. To take them literally is, frankly, uninformed. (I'm being generous)

 

So.. Theology is not my area of expertise.. many here have much more knowledge of that area.. but history (especially) and mythology are mine, and it really bugs me when people try to use history and archaeology to support things when they don't even have their history right. You want to have faith in an old collection of texts? Go for it.. but if you try to assert that history (ie: facts - in physical reality) backs up your book of myths and bad political propaganda I will slap you down every time. It does not.. and until history and archaeology finds more evidence that's the way it is.

 

 

When I first saw this post, again I was responding to others.  I didn't read the whole post, in fact the areas I read was near the bottom, talking on how different cultures of the world viewed snakes.  That part I didn't feel like bore great significance for what I was trying to get across, so I decided to let this post go and hoped I answered some of your questions in my other responses.  Again, when it comes to the actual facts of science and history, I feel like this is a different topic and I explained I'm looking into these things for myself.

 

 

In response to the Roman's comment, I was asking what signficance Roman occupation had on the numbers of the Israelites mentioned in the Exodus?  Most of the Israelites that left Eygpt didn't enter into the promise land.  I don't see what these numbers have to do with the Roman conquest.

 

 

In response concerning Hatshepsut, I don't view her as the pharaoh of the Exodus, but possibly Moses' adoptive mother.  One, it lines up for when Moses would have been alive. (Once you figure up the dates)  Two, yes his name is very unique.  You have a line of pharaohs during this time period, who's names are Thutmoses.  Hatshepsut has no son of her own, which if she did, she probably would have named him Thutmoses.  Yet if she adopted a son, she wouldn't name him Thutmoses for the reasons you stated concerning the royal family being of divine origin. (Thutmoses meaning something like "son of Thoth")   So she could have just named him Moses (son), which also have a couple of different meanings.

 

 

 

As for there being no evidence for the Exodus, I believe throughout the history of searching these areas, archeaologists were mostly looking in the wrong place.  The historical view of where Mt. Sinai was, they have it on the Sinai Peninsula.  If that is where most of the history of the search for evidence regarding the Exodus, then they have been looking in the wrong place.  Much more recently, the right path as described in the Bible, places Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia being where the Israelites spent 40 years wandering in the desert.  So it's in that area where I'll like to look.

 

 

For the part I looked at when I first saw this post, I don't find any great bearing of how serpents are viewed among the many cultures of the world with the serpent in Genesis.  The serpent in Genesis definitely wasn't viewed as a sex symbol, but as a deceiver from a mythological view.  Rabbinic tradition is not as old as some say it is, because it's clear the serpent is to be viewed in a negative light.  Yet all in all, the people didn't just see Genesis as a symbolic story.  1 Chronicles pretty much presents the history of the Israelites.  This history includes Adam on down to Abraham.  So on that alone, we can't say the ancient people purely saw Genesis as a symbolic story. (Because that would make the symbols of the serpent you gave more credence to how the ancients looked at Genesis)

 

 

So that's about it in my response.  I'm sorry I didn't respond directly to it before.  When it comes to the historical facts of it all, again I'm still looking into it.  I'm not presenting things as facts.  There's really two different discussions going on here, and I feel we ultimately want to discuss the facts of it all.  I've told everyone, and I'll keep saying it, I'm still looking over these things concerning the history and science.  I'm not preaching to anyone concerning these things.  Yet as for what Genesis is saying and implying, let's discuss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you think about it, even if I were reading things into the Bible, the questions everyone here ask also read things into the Bible.  Like the analogy that what God did to Adam and Eve, was like a parent having a gun in the reach of children.  How do you come to that conclusion without reading things into the text?  However, I argue from the text, and I've said before Genesis requires you infer things about the story, but to do so from the text and from general knowledge.  The truth is, we don't have a sense of time, when all of these events happened.  Yet would it make sense for God to create man, Adam to name all the animals, Eve to come about (while Adam is sleeping), and the snake to deceive Eve all in the same hour?  It's not likely.  Days or months could have went by before the serpent tempted Eve.  No, it doesn't say months went by, it also doesn't say all of the events happened within 20 minutes.  So we can reason what most likely took place.  The real first sense of time we get is how old Adam was when Seth was born.  So all the events that happened before then, happened within that 130 year period.

 

 

 

 

The loaded gun analogy takes the text at face value - by not reading extra things in there that are not mentioned.  If we decide to add personality to God or intent and so on that is adding what isn't there.

 

 

 

 

I disagree.  The loaded gun in the presence of children is different from this situation here.  If it really took things at face value, then the children in that analogy would have exceptional knowledge about things in general.  (Remember, Adam was able to give all the animals names, and we can assume he remembered their names.  Adam was able to work and tend for a whole garden, which isn't the kind of garden we are associated with.)  Also a face value reading would imply the children were capable of following the command not to touch the gun.  That they know full well touching this gun would only bring a negative consequence.  Yet if we are talking about your average, curious kid without much knowledge, then it's not a good analogy.

 

Most feel like they have a good grasp on what the text says, but most people read over key bits within the text.  The common assumption is that Adam and Eve didn't have any knowledge at all.  Anyone who believes that, missed what the text is saying.

 

 

 

 

 

One thing about this is why would this be an older version of Genesis? 

 

Because it was written by a man who was taken away in the Exile of Babylon and Genesis was written after the Israelites returned from Babylon.

 

 

 

Genesis is a collection of sources that are older than the Babylonian exile.  Geneis, and the whole Torah (first five books) was composed later from these older sources.  Have you heard of the Documentary Hypothesis?

 

 

 

 

Of course this particular passage is dealing with prophecy and figurative stuff.  We know the King of Tyrus wasn't a cherub, nor did he walk in the Garden of Eden.  So it's a figurative passage on this king, who is probably being influenced by the one who the passage is literally about.

 

That is just it.  He did walk in the actual Garden of Eden.  It was his garden.  It was his job to take care of it.  He was Adam.  And if cherubs are not human then they do not exist.

 

 

 

The passage was meant to be for an actual king of Tyrus at the time.  That's why the passage is figurative, because this king certainly wasn't around when the Garden of Eden was around.  The Bible gives a description of what a cherub looks like I believe.  It's certainly not human.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So I was re-reading the story of adam and eve for some artistic inspiration. I was reminded of an epiphany that I had completely forgotten about.   When adam and eve were created that had no knowled

Heavenese, I'll admit I haven't read all of your responses in this thread. To be honest I have a hard time reading long posts by believers. Just skimming through your posts I can see that you are tryi

Biblegod isn't 100% good all the time. He even says this. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."  Is 45:7   Thus doeth the Lord of th

 

There's a lot to take in about this subject.  Yet if anyone asks me concerning what God intended for man, I always point back at life in the Garden.  All this stuff concerning suffering, death, and so on happened after Adam's choice brought death into the world.  This is the theology of scripture as that goes.  So we suffer and die because of Adam's choice, but being unique copies of Adam and Eve means we also have choices as well.  Who said we have to succumb to the circumstances we are born into.  We can see it naturally that even if our parents haven't been so great, we can still come out better than okay.  No one will be judged for Adam's choice in the long run, just while we're here, we are subjected to the current circumstances.  God's done something about it, theoretically/theologically.  Just like a child who was born in a terrible neighborhood, and someone (perhaps a teacher) provided for him/her to get an education and they go on to make something of themselves, God gave us His power to change our circumstances.

 

Alright then, what was intended for man was to "To everything exactly as I tell you or else... Well, as the saying goes 'Shit happens'. It has not happened yet, but it will if you aren't good little sheep from Day One." As long as they behaved like good sheep and did everything exactly as they were told, well then a nice life in little old Eden is what they got to look forward to. It sounds nice, but that is irrelevant when it comes to discussing what happened when Adam and Eve disobeyed their god. 

 

Your analogy to a teacher helping children that are born in terrible neighborhoods is flawed, at least from my perspective. A more accurate analogy would be this: "A child's parents made the dictator of the country unhappy. Usually he's a nice guy as long as he's happy, but when he's not, he's absolutely terrible. This child was forced to be born in a deep, muddy hole, with no way of escaping. Then, soon, this child and his siblings have got to engage in incest as they grow older in order to populate the muddy hole.

 

"Some time down the road, the dictator comes and looks down into the hole and he has a rope in one hand and a knife in the other. He stabs himself in the leg seven times, then says, 'I will throw this rope down to you, but first, you must agree to be my slave for the rest of your life, as a repayment for my sacrifice of my own blood that I shed for you. If you agree to this, you will be allowed to climb back out of the hole where I shoved your parents before they gave birth to you. If at any time once you are up here, you decide to stop being my slave, you will go back into the hole. The choice is yours.'

 

"So he throws the rope and about six or seven of the half-starved people in the hole grab the rope and climb up and leave the hole, after agreeing to do as asked. The few that remain are left there and told that in a while, they will get another chance to take the rope, but for the moment, he decides to take the rope and leave. This dictator goes back many times and a couple more leave the hole, but eventually, he grows tired of giving chances, so he pours kerosene on whoever is left in the hole and throws a lit torch down there, instantly sending them aflame."

 

 

 

 

As far as it goes about being a slave to God, its how you look at it in all honesty.  Just for the sake of the argument here, let's agree for the moment that God is perfect.  That He does good 100% of the time and so on.  Now He creates someone, and tells them to abide by His rules.  We agree God does good 100% of the time, so His rules for good 100% of time.  If that is the case, we are ultimately slaves to good, which wouldn't be a bad thing would it?  Besides, in the beginning, there was only one command.  It wasn't like God threw out a whole slew of commands.  He only gave one, and that was simply not to eat of one tree.  You can say God is a dictator, but if we are looking at the beginning and what God intended, God only gave one measely command.  That doesn't sound like a dictator there.  Besides that command, God gave them absolute freedom.

 

 

Again concerning your analogy and Adam's children suffering because of his choice, there's another saying that goes "It is what it is".  The suffering is again in the genetics.  You (or someone else) said God didn't tell Adam and Eve their children would suffer if they disobeyed, and so God wasn't totally truthful concerning what would happen if they disobeyed.  Firstly, I suppose I could say it wouldn't have mattered anyway.  God told them they would die, but that didn't stop them from eating the fruit did it, for argument's sake?  Their choice to trust another voice over God's is ultimately what brought in death.  Death ultimately meaning being seperate from God because death didn't come from God.  God created life, so if life loses the God created function, that's death.  The suffering is what it is, but we ultimately have a choice just like Adam and Eve.  Theologically speaking, our suffering from Adam's choice can end by our own choice to trust God again.  I wouldn't equate that with your analogy, because we aren't really in a hole here.  We experience both God's goodness and suffering in this world.  It's an easy choice to make, and it's not one out of fear, but out of honesty of wanting to be right.  Do you desire every good thing?  Every good thing is with God.  This is the theology of it all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So God definitely had mercy on Adam and Eve, and He's given us mercy as a result.  As for proving it true, that's a different topic. 

 

Ah, sure, so he had mercy on them, but he didn't show a whole lot on everyone else by forcing them to suffer for their actions did he?

 

 

 

Again theologically speaking, we don't have to suffer anymore for Adam's actions.  And God didn't force suffering on anyone, it's just how the system worked there.  Adam passed on his genes to his children, which are now mortal.  Yet let me paint a picture for you.  Let's compare Adam's life and it's consequences on his children, to rich and poor parents.  If two parents are rich, the children that come from them will be born into wealth.  If two parents are poor, the children that come from them will be born into poverty.  So to be fair, let's take all the children in the world, whether their parents are rich or poor, and let them come up on the their own merit.  Would that be a moral thing to do?  What's the likelihood that these children left to themselves, will come up on their own?  Chances are, everyone of them will die. 

 

From the rich parents perspective, you are taking away their children from the comforts of wealth, and ensuring their death.  This would be like if Adam and Eve never disobeyed God and remained perfect, yet took their children away and having the impossible task of working their way up to perfection from imperfection. 

 

From the poor parents perspective, even though their children are born into poverty, their parents still provide something for them, and they still have opportunity to make something of themselves.  Yet taking the children away to fend for themselves, that opportunity is absolutely lost.  So we inherited Adam's poverty, but we have opportunity to regain what was lost.  So in both points, no one is earning anything on their own, but using what was given to them.  This is the system that was set up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say you want to discuss but I doubt that you think about what we say. You think you know the truth and try to defend your views rather then to look at things from a different perspective . You are not reading the bible as you would read any other text, for example the koran.because you are emotionally attached. I dont say you have give up your faith, but you should start reading the bible unbiased and without the teachings and explanations in your head. I would recommend you the youtube-videos from evid3nc3.

 

 

I'm definitely attached to the Bible.  However, concerning other books and religions, I've said other beliefs carried some truth with them.  Yet I do listen to what everyone is saying.  I also want to show everyone that Genesis is saying more than what you think.  You say I have a bias, that may be true.  However, most people who read Genesis also have a bias as well.  So much so, they don't consider every detail of what is said in the account.  Let me ask a couple of yes or no questions to everyone here....

 

1.  Was Adam afraid of God because he ate from the tree God told him not to eat from?

 

2.  Was Adam and Eve created to live forever?

 

3.  Did Adam and Eve have knowledge before they disobeyed God?

 

4.  Was Seth Adam's third child?

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your answers were yes, no, no, and yes, then I encourage everyone to again read Genesis with that same unbiased mind that I'm told to read with.  I can definitely show the opposite in those answers from the text itself.  So I hear what everyone is saying, but I want to make sure if everyone fully hear what I'm getting across.

 

 

 

 

Of course God never left Adam and his children.  The only reason Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden, was to make sure they didn't eat from the Tree of Life.  The whole earth was God's.  So they were still in His presence.  Now Cain was kicked out of the presence of the Lord for his crime, yet God was still merciful to him anyway.

Why is there a tree anyway? Does god have to eat it, to stay immortal? The whole story doesn't fit to the christian believe system, because it is probably stolen from other cultures.(see the posts from others, i have no knowledge about that ^^) The christian god is suppose to be all-power full, at least that is what i have been taught in church. So dont you think that he doesnt need such a tree, could have hidden it somewhere else or at least put it somewhere else after adam and eve ate from it? He cant be unable to change is own creation, because he did change the snakes body.

So the reason for kicking them out is not to prevent them from eating the tree of life, it is part of the punishment, a part they god didn't tell them about.

 

 

Well, the reason we are given is because of the tree of life.  The tree originally was there for man.  In fact, both of the trees were there having to deal with man. (God didn't need them Himself)  Just the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a way for man to exercise his choice to be with God or do his own thing. (I say this because of the theme concerning loving God and keeping His commandments)  I don't think there was anything special about the Garden of Eden.  Once death entered the world, the Garden itself might have also changed.  However these specific trees were special, and I suppose the tree of life didn't lose it's quality.  So it's the only named reason why God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden.  If they did eat of the tree of life after God told Adam he would return to dust, they wouldn't have returned to dust.  So He kicked them out.

 

 

 

 

So God definitely had mercy on Adam and Eve, and He's given us mercy as a result.

Those mercy-arguements make me angry. I used to think the same way, but I really cant relate to it anymore.

. Like I said mercy and justice are not compatible. Behaving merciful to a certain person, a certain time or under a certain circumstance is not just.

 Nobody is forcing god to make those rules, stick to them or the punishment. You make it sound like he saved us from the terrible world, but it is his creation. Maybe most of the pain and suffering is caused by humans,but they are too his creation. He created something with faults and punishes them for it. that is neither just nor merciful.  What about natural catastrophes and diseases? Why did god create them? Are those also part of the punishment for adam.If so, god did not warn adam and eve about that.

 

 

If death included all that, then that's what it is.  If we were immortal, even if God created natural disasters, even if the world itself blew up, we wouldn't blink about those things once.  Those things wouldn't effect us at all.  That's what immortality is all about.  There is no suffering in it.  Yet if you are mortal, you can suffer in any numerous of ways.  God did say they would die, and it seems all of this was involved in death.  Of course there's the argument that God said they would die that day, as in falling down dead.  Yet that might not be the case.  I've pointed out a couple of things there, from the language to the death of that first animal (setting up the sacrificial system).  Also some argued how could Adam and Eve know what death was if nothing died before hand?  So death could imply more than just falling down dead, and Adam and Eve would have understood it from another perspective.

 

 

As you know, God would have been both just and merciful by judging our crimes, and making us His sons and daughters.  All of it through the sacrificial system.  I disagree He created with faults, but with free will and we still have it.  If we truly have a choice, if someone for instance decided to dive in a pool without learning how to swim, should we blame anyone else if he/she drowns other than that person?  So it's this same way with Adam and Eve.  No one's to blame other than themeselves.  Everything can be true that is said about God, He could be the most powerful being there is, yet if He gave us free will, the choice is genuinely ours alone.  I think that makes general sense does it not?

 

 

 

 

So I think I'm at the point in my responses where I probably touched up on most things mentioned in the posts I haven't responded to yet.  So I'll shortly respond to the things I haven't touched up on yet.

 

 

@ JamesG

 

 

In response to your statement about not being able to view distant starlight at some point, I was talking on any creature within their respective galaxy who's doing science in that day. (Not us)  Even though the galaxies would be spread apart, there will still be stars within those galaxies, with enough heat to support whatever life have evolved for those conditions in that day.  Yet even if there is no life in that day factually, for argument's sake if there were, they wouldn't say the universe is billions of years old.  This is the limitations of science, in that it is heavily based on our observations.  I think something key is missing right now, that if it we could observe it, would change how we think about our origins.  This is my line of thought for now.

 

 

 

@ mcw

 

 

As far as being redeemed, they had to have children because of what God told the serpent.  God said the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head, thus redeeming the woman, and ultimately redeeming the whole situation.  The fall of man began when Eve was decieved.  So Eve is waiting for this seed, as we can see when Seth was born.  So that is the basis for them needing children after the fall.  For redeemption sake.  If Adam and Eve died without children, they wouldn't have been redeemed from their crime.  The other things you mentioned has no bearing with this.  If God made another race of men, Adam and Eve still would have been corrupt.  God loved Adam and Eve, so He wanted to restore them.  This is how it was done.  Jesus turned out to be the seed to ultimately redeem man.  For one, He was pure.  Cain shedding Abel's blood wouldn't do, because Abel was corrupt himself.  So that is the set up there.

 

 

God didn't explain everything concerning this system to Adam and Eve, but He showed them enough about it.  He killed an animal to clothe them, even though they were already clothed with fig leaves.  So this instance has credibility to be the first sacrifice.  Some say the writers of Genesis included things into the story that were anarchronistic. (Such as Abraham having camels)  If the fig leaves didn't do for Adam and Eve, why not have God make some linen, or have Adam making some kind of cloth?  So these animals skins were significant, and later we see that was probably the set up for the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.

 

 

 

To the other responses regarding Cain and Abel:

 

 

For both Cain and Abel to bring God a sacrifice, they had to know what was accepted.  It had nothing to do with what jobs they were given.  If I'm taught to do something, I going to do it how I was taught.  Yet despite all that, God talked with Cain concerning this thing.  God didn't threaten him with anything or nothing, just told him that if he does well, he would be accepted.  Right there, that basically says there was nothing special about Abel, and there was no favortism.  Notice how none of you mention this part, about how God came and talked with Cain, encouraged him even.  I doubt if God had favortism, He would have cared less about Cain's feelings.  That's about it there.  Ralet I'm sure you might know the Christian answer as to why the Ten Commandments were given.

 

 

@ Fernweh

 

 

I hear what you're saying.  And again the history and science aspect of these things, I'm still looking at myself.  Not unreasonably so.  Even if I'm completely wrong concerning these things, I feel like I will stumble across a big discovery from how I'm approaching science.  We'll see here.  As for the theology of it all, I think my case is strong here.  Look at those four questions I asked and tell me your answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There's a lot to take in about this subject.  Yet if anyone asks me concerning what God intended for man, I always point back at life in the Garden.  All this stuff concerning suffering, death, and so on happened after Adam's choice brought death into the world.  This is the theology of scripture as that goes.  So we suffer and die because of Adam's choice, but being unique copies of Adam and Eve means we also have choices as well.  Who said we have to succumb to the circumstances we are born into.  We can see it naturally that even if our parents haven't been so great, we can still come out better than okay.  No one will be judged for Adam's choice in the long run, just while we're here, we are subjected to the current circumstances.  God's done something about it, theoretically/theologically.  Just like a child who was born in a terrible neighborhood, and someone (perhaps a teacher) provided for him/her to get an education and they go on to make something of themselves, God gave us His power to change our circumstances.

 

Alright then, what was intended for man was to "To everything exactly as I tell you or else... Well, as the saying goes 'Shit happens'. It has not happened yet, but it will if you aren't good little sheep from Day One." As long as they behaved like good sheep and did everything exactly as they were told, well then a nice life in little old Eden is what they got to look forward to. It sounds nice, but that is irrelevant when it comes to discussing what happened when Adam and Eve disobeyed their god. 

 

Your analogy to a teacher helping children that are born in terrible neighborhoods is flawed, at least from my perspective. A more accurate analogy would be this: "A child's parents made the dictator of the country unhappy. Usually he's a nice guy as long as he's happy, but when he's not, he's absolutely terrible. This child was forced to be born in a deep, muddy hole, with no way of escaping. Then, soon, this child and his siblings have got to engage in incest as they grow older in order to populate the muddy hole.

 

"Some time down the road, the dictator comes and looks down into the hole and he has a rope in one hand and a knife in the other. He stabs himself in the leg seven times, then says, 'I will throw this rope down to you, but first, you must agree to be my slave for the rest of your life, as a repayment for my sacrifice of my own blood that I shed for you. If you agree to this, you will be allowed to climb back out of the hole where I shoved your parents before they gave birth to you. If at any time once you are up here, you decide to stop being my slave, you will go back into the hole. The choice is yours.'

 

"So he throws the rope and about six or seven of the half-starved people in the hole grab the rope and climb up and leave the hole, after agreeing to do as asked. The few that remain are left there and told that in a while, they will get another chance to take the rope, but for the moment, he decides to take the rope and leave. This dictator goes back many times and a couple more leave the hole, but eventually, he grows tired of giving chances, so he pours kerosene on whoever is left in the hole and throws a lit torch down there, instantly sending them aflame."

 

 

 

 

As far as it goes about being a slave to God, its how you look at it in all honesty.  Just for the sake of the argument here, let's agree for the moment that God is perfect.  That He does good 100% of the time and so on.  Now He creates someone, and tells them to abide by His rules.  We agree God does good 100% of the time, so His rules for good 100% of time.  If that is the case, we are ultimately slaves to good, which wouldn't be a bad thing would it?  Besides, in the beginning, there was only one command.  It wasn't like God threw out a whole slew of commands.  He only gave one, and that was simply not to eat of one tree.  You can say God is a dictator, but if we are looking at the beginning and what God intended, God only gave one measely command.  That doesn't sound like a dictator there.  Besides that command, God gave them absolute freedom.

 

 

Again concerning your analogy and Adam's children suffering because of his choice, there's another saying that goes "It is what it is".  The suffering is again in the genetics.  You (or someone else) said God didn't tell Adam and Eve their children would suffer if they disobeyed, and so God wasn't totally truthful concerning what would happen if they disobeyed.  Firstly, I suppose I could say it wouldn't have mattered anyway.  God told them they would die, but that didn't stop them from eating the fruit did it, for argument's sake?  Their choice to trust another voice over God's is ultimately what brought in death.  Death ultimately meaning being seperate from God because death didn't come from God.  God created life, so if life loses the God created function, that's death.  The suffering is what it is, but we ultimately have a choice just like Adam and Eve.  Theologically speaking, our suffering from Adam's choice can end by our own choice to trust God again.  I wouldn't equate that with your analogy, because we aren't really in a hole here.  We experience both God's goodness and suffering in this world.  It's an easy choice to make, and it's not one out of fear, but out of honesty of wanting to be right.  Do you desire every good thing?  Every good thing is with God.  This is the theology of it all.

 

 

But I can't just assume that the god of the Bible is 100% good and that all of his rules are for good 100% of the time or that he does good 100% of the time. If what the Bible says is correct, then he only does good 10% of the time. He acts like a complete sadist 50% of the time and then the rest of the 40% he acts like a narcissist. If what you say is true, he started out good and was good, but then when Adam and Eve did the one thing he told them not to, suddenly he stops being good and forces everyone to suffer because of Adam and Eve. It doesn't matter if it's part of genetics. A just god would have corrected the bad genetics or whatever it is that causes all of life to suffer because of Adam and Eve and ONLY punish them, no one else. It's like the moment Adam and Eve disobeyed, he suddenly became a sadist and a narcissist. Did bad genetics pass on to God too?

 

Also, your claim that by trusting your god we can suddenly be free from suffering is nonsense. There are lots of people alive right now who are faithful to this god of yours and they are suffering from disease or are being executed and tortured by nut jobs who hate them. In the Bible, he sits back and watches as Satan tears Job to pieces like a pit bull tearing into a child. He does nothing and the worst part is, he gave Satan permission to do it. Job asks for a reason why and God just says, "I'm more powerful than you and created everything, so there! I don't got to explain anything to you little man!"

 

I trusted your god and I know of lots of people here on ex-C who trusted your god. What happened? They never became free from suffering. I know of people, myself included, whose lives were made worse by Christianity. People who have struggled with OCD have had this condition become much worse because of Christianity. I've got psychological problems of my own, not sure what they are yet, but trusting your god never did a thing to help. It just made my problems worse.

 

I desire things that are actually good. I don't desire belief in or worship of a god that does not do a thing to correct this suffering that everyone experiences because of Adam and Eve for thousands of years before he could send Jesus to Earth to die, only for it to fail and end up sending billions to Hell. I do not desire belief in or to worship a god that clearly states women are inferior to men because of their gender, a god that kills children and infants for the actions of adults they lived with in the Bible, and a god that clearly tortured faithful humans just to prove to someone else other than himself that they would remain faithful, without even bothering to explain anything.

 

I ask this again. If your god started out good and only had good plans, did the actions of Adam and Eve turn him into a dick? Was he suddenly infected with severe narcissistic disorder and did he suddenly become prone to sadism?

 

 

 

So God definitely had mercy on Adam and Eve, and He's given us mercy as a result.  As for proving it true, that's a different topic. 

 

Ah, sure, so he had mercy on them, but he didn't show a whole lot on everyone else by forcing them to suffer for their actions did he?

 

 

 

Again theologically speaking, we don't have to suffer anymore for Adam's actions.  And God didn't force suffering on anyone, it's just how the system worked there.  Adam passed on his genes to his children, which are now mortal.  Yet let me paint a picture for you.  Let's compare Adam's life and it's consequences on his children, to rich and poor parents.  If two parents are rich, the children that come from them will be born into wealth.  If two parents are poor, the children that come from them will be born into poverty.  So to be fair, let's take all the children in the world, whether their parents are rich or poor, and let them come up on the their own merit.  Would that be a moral thing to do?  What's the likelihood that these children left to themselves, will come up on their own?  Chances are, everyone of them will die. 

 

From the rich parents perspective, you are taking away their children from the comforts of wealth, and ensuring their death.  This would be like if Adam and Eve never disobeyed God and remained perfect, yet took their children away and having the impossible task of working their way up to perfection from imperfection. 

 

From the poor parents perspective, even though their children are born into poverty, their parents still provide something for them, and they still have opportunity to make something of themselves.  Yet taking the children away to fend for themselves, that opportunity is absolutely lost.  So we inherited Adam's poverty, but we have opportunity to regain what was lost.  So in both points, no one is earning anything on their own, but using what was given to them.  This is the system that was set up.

 

 

It doesn't matter if it's because of genes. If the Bible is all true, then your god purposefully set up a system in which ALL humans would suffer because of Adam and Eve's disobedience.

 

Basically, what happens is, Adam and Eve disobeyed, so their dad kicks them out of the mansion and they've got to live in the street and reproduce in some old, run-down building covered with graffiti. Their dad comes along later on and tells the grandkids that in order for him to help them get a good education and help them to receive training so they could get a job, they've got to grovel in front of him and beg him to forgive them for every single mistake they ever made in their life and repent. Next, they have got to agree to love him more than anyone else and be his slaves for the rest of their lives. If they don't agree to it, he walks away and leaves them to die in their gang-ridden neighborhood.

 

It's pretty plain and simple. You can tell yourself whatever you want to make it appear as though your god bares no responsibility, but that won't change anything. True or not, in the Bible, your god creates a system in which all living things will suffer and die because of Adam and Eve's disobedience, due to genetics, supposedly (though I fail to understand how suffering and death spreads to the animals if they were never reproduced by Adam and Eve. I suppose their genetics must have been switched to crappy, just because), meaning he is still responsible for the suffering of everyone. He doesn't correct anything, he waits thousands of years before sacrificing himself in order to redeem humans. Why would he wait? Why would he allow all life to suffer because of Adam and Eve's disobedience? If your god is real, he is corrupt and sadistic. You may not want to see it that way, but that is just how it is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So God definitely had mercy on Adam and Eve, and He's given us mercy as a result.  As for proving it true, that's a different topic. 

 

Ah, sure, so he had mercy on them, but he didn't show a whole lot on everyone else by forcing them to suffer for their actions did he?

 

 

 

Again theologically speaking, we don't have to suffer anymore for Adam's actions.  And God didn't force suffering on anyone, it's just how the system worked there.  Adam passed on his genes to his children, which are now mortal.  Yet let me paint a picture for you.  Let's compare Adam's life and it's consequences on his children, to rich and poor parents.  If two parents are rich, the children that come from them will be born into wealth.  If two parents are poor, the children that come from them will be born into poverty.  So to be fair, let's take all the children in the world, whether their parents are rich or poor, and let them come up on the their own merit.  Would that be a moral thing to do?  What's the likelihood that these children left to themselves, will come up on their own?  Chances are, everyone of them will die. 

 

From the rich parents perspective, you are taking away their children from the comforts of wealth, and ensuring their death.  This would be like if Adam and Eve never disobeyed God and remained perfect, yet took their children away and having the impossible task of working their way up to perfection from imperfection. 

 

From the poor parents perspective, even though their children are born into poverty, their parents still provide something for them, and they still have opportunity to make something of themselves.  Yet taking the children away to fend for themselves, that opportunity is absolutely lost.  So we inherited Adam's poverty, but we have opportunity to regain what was lost.  So in both points, no one is earning anything on their own, but using what was given to them.  This is the system that was set up.

 

"it's just how the system worked there." - no. god makes the rules, god made the system and it is his decision to stick to his plan or not. if he sticks to it you call it "justice" (but it is just justice in his self-created morality) and if he makes exceptions it is called "mercy". But the underlying problem is that he made the damn system. he created hell and punishment and we should thank him if he spares us from that.

 

 

 

 

Of course God never left Adam and his children.  The only reason Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden, was to make sure they didn't eat from the Tree of Life.  The whole earth was God's.  So they were still in His presence.  Now Cain was kicked out of the presence of the Lord for his crime, yet God was still merciful to him anyway.

Why is there a tree anyway? Does god have to eat it, to stay immortal? The whole story doesn't fit to the christian believe system, because it is probably stolen from other cultures.(see the posts from others, i have no knowledge about that ^^) The christian god is suppose to be all-power full, at least that is what i have been taught in church. So dont you think that he doesnt need such a tree, could have hidden it somewhere else or at least put it somewhere else after adam and eve ate from it? He cant be unable to change is own creation, because he did change the snakes body.

So the reason for kicking them out is not to prevent them from eating the tree of life, it is part of the punishment, a part they god didn't tell them about.

 

 

Well, the reason we are given is because of the tree of life.  The tree originally was there for man.  In fact, both of the trees were there having to deal with man. (God didn't need them Himself)  Just the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a way for man to exercise his choice to be with God or do his own thing. (I say this because of the theme concerning loving God and keeping His commandments)  I don't think there was anything special about the Garden of Eden.  Once death entered the world, the Garden itself might have also changed.  However these specific trees were special, and I suppose the tree of life didn't lose it's quality.  So it's the only named reason why God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden.  If they did eat of the tree of life after God told Adam he would return to dust, they wouldn't have returned to dust.  So He kicked them out.

 

if the tree was for men, i could have burned  it down.god doesn't need it anymore. Poor cherubims had to stand there and protect the stupid tree and god even created a flaming sword. a lot of work instead of just making the tree disappear....

 

 

 

 

So God definitely had mercy on Adam and Eve, and He's given us mercy as a result.

Those mercy-arguements make me angry. I used to think the same way, but I really cant relate to it anymore.

. Like I said mercy and justice are not compatible. Behaving merciful to a certain person, a certain time or under a certain circumstance is not just.

 Nobody is forcing god to make those rules, stick to them or the punishment. You make it sound like he saved us from the terrible world, but it is his creation. Maybe most of the pain and suffering is caused by humans,but they are too his creation. He created something with faults and punishes them for it. that is neither just nor merciful.  What about natural catastrophes and diseases? Why did god create them? Are those also part of the punishment for adam.If so, god did not warn adam and eve about that.

 

 

If death included all that, then that's what it is.  If we were immortal, even if God created natural disasters, even if the world itself blew up, we wouldn't blink about those things once.  Those things wouldn't effect us at all.  That's what immortality is all about.  There is no suffering in it.  Yet if you are mortal, you can suffer in any numerous of ways.  God did say they would die, and it seems all of this was involved in death.  Of course there's the argument that God said they would die that day, as in falling down dead.  Yet that might not be the case.  I've pointed out a couple of things there, from the language to the death of that first animal (setting up the sacrificial system).  Also some argued how could Adam and Eve know what death was if nothing died before hand?  So death could imply more than just falling down dead, and Adam and Eve would have understood it from another perspective.

 

 

As you know, God would have been both just and merciful by judging our crimes, and making us His sons and daughters.  All of it through the sacrificial system.  I disagree He created with faults, but with free will and we still have it.  If we truly have a choice, if someone for instance decided to dive in a pool without learning how to swim, should we blame anyone else if he/she drowns other than that person?  So it's this same way with Adam and Eve.  No one's to blame other than themeselves.  Everything can be true that is said about God, He could be the most powerful being there is, yet if He gave us free will, the choice is genuinely ours alone.  I think that makes general sense does it not?

 

 

Well, being immortal and have a terrible,painful disease would suck. 

 

"he created with faults but with free will"- that is the problem. he created us with faults, expects us to be perfect and punishes us for the faults he gave us. he gave us freewill, but we should follow his rules. if he wants us to be perfect and obedient, why didnt he create us that way? if he wants us to be free, why is he punishing us for our free decisions?

have a look at the "freewill"-topic http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/57289-freewill/#entry871793

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Common guys, the underlying story here is that gawd likes BBQs, Barbies for Aussies and Braais for SAs He obviously hates vegans so there...

 

Salads are always the side order to a good Barbie. Why do you all have to make it sooo complicated?

You know this reminds me of some old Campbell lectures on decoding the Genesis myth. I would have to look into the proper citations but off the top of my head I remember how he broke it down. 

 

The motif of the Goddess who favored an agriculturalist over a herder wanderer was apparently something that these herder wander's were exposed to when they ran sacked the agricultural societies of the near east. What they've done in Genesis is hijacked the local creation myths changing things around here and there in order to favor a Patriarchal view where the God favors the herder wanderer over the agriculturalist, hence putting down the agricultural societies of Canaan and elevating the dessert nomad types coming in from the surrounding desserts. 

 

And this isn't to say that the conquest of Joshua was historical, no, there's a pile of evidence against that as most of us already know. But according to modern archaeology there does seem to have been a gathering in the hill country following the final collapse of the Egyptian run Canaanite city-state system where the serfs and lower class slaves were free to move about. I tend to think that this is where the wanderer motif comes in. As these people eventually clashed with agriculturists in much later periods, there you have it.

 

Because the evidence seems plainly clear in Genesis that the people responsible for the Bible as we know and understand it did favor a herder wander perspective addressed to Patriarchal rule and flipped the agricultural Goddess mythology around 180 degrees the opposite direction.

 

And of course it took them some time to weed out the Matriarchal element and this little bit in Genesis about Cain and Abel is one great big smoking gun calling attention to the effort of putting down the agriculturalist. Notice how the soil tilling people (Adam and Eve) came first and then the herder wanderer arose out of them and became favored by the God(s). Now how closely does that parallel the evidence of lower class Canaanite serfs and slaves leaving the cities after the final collapse of the city-state system and taking up a nomadic life? 

 

Perhaps Heavenese may want to do some catch up and view the videos below to try and better see where many ex-Christians here are coming from:

 

 

 

There's a much broader perspective to be understood here. Genesis 1 and 2 have to be put into historical and archaeological perspective to come at this thing from a correct scientific analysis angle. All of the evidence must be weighed. And the more realistic historical picture begins to emerge...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Biblegod isn't 100% good all the time. He even says this. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."  Is 45:7

 

Thus doeth the Lord of the bible.

 

Please check one below:

 

[ ] You took that out of context.

[ ] You do not have ears to hear... though you asked, though you seeked, though you knocked...the door did not open. So you cannot understand the bible.

[ ] It doesn't really mean that....let me explain how it means something different than what the words actually say.

[ ] It is not to be taken literally or at face value.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I disagree.  The loaded gun in the presence of children is different from this situation here.  If it really took things at face value, then the children in that analogy would have exceptional knowledge about things in general.  (Remember, Adam was able to give all the animals names, and we can assume he remembered their names.  Adam was able to work and tend for a whole garden, which isn't the kind of garden we are associated with.)  Also a face value reading would imply the children were capable of following the command not to touch the gun.  That they know full well touching this gun would only bring a negative consequence.  Yet if we are talking about your average, curious kid without much knowledge, then it's not a good analogy.

 

Most feel like they have a good grasp on what the text says, but most people read over key bits within the text.  The common assumption is that Adam and Eve didn't have any knowledge at all.  Anyone who believes that, missed what the text is saying.

 

 

You can be very analytical about the parts that don't make the Bible look silly.  But unfortunately the rest remains.

 

Gen 2:17

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: . . ."

 

Gen 3:5

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

 

Read it and weep.  The thing is called "tree of knowledge of good and evil".  This is a fable that was invented to explain how humans are smarter than animals.  This was a question that interested Bronze Age people and the religious men of the time had to come up with an answer that would satisfy that Bronze Age society.  If falls apart under examination from logic.

 

 

 

 

Genesis is a collection of sources that are older than the Babylonian exile.  Geneis, and the whole Torah (first five books) was composed later from these older sources.

 

Genesis and the Torah were written after the return from Babylon.  It's a fable designed to give Ezra's society a legacy.  Of course the things mentioned in the Torah are pure fiction except for location names. 

 

 

Have you heard of the Documentary Hypothesis?

 

Yes.  You don't get to keep the age of the source material if that material was edited.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course this particular passage is dealing with prophecy and figurative stuff.  We know the King of Tyrus wasn't a cherub, nor did he walk in the Garden of Eden.  So it's a figurative passage on this king, who is probably being influenced by the one who the passage is literally about.

 

That is just it.  He did walk in the actual Garden of Eden.  It was his garden.  It was his job to take care of it.  He was Adam.  And if cherubs are not human then they do not exist.

 

 

 

The passage was meant to be for an actual king of Tyrus at the time.  That's why the passage is figurative, because this king certainly wasn't around when the Garden of Eden was around.  The Bible gives a description of what a cherub looks like I believe.  It's certainly not human.

 

 

And the time was before Genesis was written.  The king of Tyrus was walking literally in the Garden of Eden.  He owned it.  It wasn't figurative.  It was a real garden that belonged to the real king of Tyrus.  The Genesis account of the Garden of Eden is figurative.  The fact that cherub are not real is kind of irrelevant seeing how the Bible is full of imaginary beings and creatures.  That is the whole point.  The whole thing is myth.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, being immortal and have a terrible,painful disease would suck. 

 

"he created with faults but with free will"- that is the problem. he created us with faults, expects us to be perfect and punishes us for the faults he gave us. he gave us freewill, but we should follow his rules. if he wants us to be perfect and obedient, why didnt he create us that way? if he wants us to be free, why is he punishing us for our free decisions?

have a look at the "freewill"-topic http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/57289-freewill/#entry871793

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ex·tor·tion  

/ikˈstôrSHən/

 

Noun

 

The practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through force or threats.

 

 

 

 

Synonyms

 

blackmail - exaction

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ mcw

 

 

As far as being redeemed, they had to have children because of what God told the serpent.  God said the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head, thus redeeming the woman, and ultimately redeeming the whole situation.  The fall of man began when Eve was decieved.  So Eve is waiting for this seed, as we can see when Seth was born.  So that is the basis for them needing children after the fall.  For redeemption sake.  If Adam and Eve died without children, they wouldn't have been redeemed from their crime.  The other things you mentioned has no bearing with this.  If God made another race of men, Adam and Eve still would have been corrupt.  God loved Adam and Eve, so He wanted to restore them.  This is how it was done.  Jesus turned out to be the seed to ultimately redeem man.  For one, He was pure.  Cain shedding Abel's blood wouldn't do, because Abel was corrupt himself.  So that is the set up there.

     I can definitely see that there is a problem stemming from how you and I perceive how things work, or rather, *can* work.  Let me give an example:

 

     First, the text as you know it (Genesis 3):

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

 

     And now a bit of a rewrite:

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "You are forgiven."

15 ...

16 To the woman he said, "You are also forgiven."

17 To Adam he said, "You are forgiven as well."

...

7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

 

 

     The idea seems to be that at this point in the story (or at *any* point) "god" was stuck.  He was in a position where he simply "had to" *anything*.  That there was an imperative for an action to happen so that another action could happen either immediately after *or* could happen tens or hundreds to thousands of years later.  I am to believe that *THE* God was so bound-up in some, let's say "plan," by this point in time that he *had to* go with curses and sacrifices and eternal punishments instead of simply forgiving?  *The* God that could speak a universe and its contents into being couldn't *speak* forgiveness when it was necessary?  But had to go with some convoluted secret plan involving death and destruction?  That's insane.  Forgiveness and actual instruction on how to act correctly would appear to be a better path. 

 

God didn't explain everything concerning this system to Adam and Eve, but He showed them enough about it.  He killed an animal to clothe them, even though they were already clothed with fig leaves.  So this instance has credibility to be the first sacrifice.  Some say the writers of Genesis included things into the story that were anarchronistic. (Such as Abraham having camels)  If the fig leaves didn't do for Adam and Eve, why not have God make some linen, or have Adam making some kind of cloth?  So these animals skins were significant, and later we see that was probably the set up for the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.

     All the texts I have checked say that "god" *made* them garments (read: long garments like tunics) out of skins.  None of them mention any sacrifices.  None of them mention any killing at all.  You're reading that into the text since you're thinking that animals would have to die for just the skins to appear.  How did "god" sew the skins together?  Did he sit around sewing in his sitting room after he fashioned a needle and thread out of other bits?  Or was that all magic?  Or did Adam and Eve just slap a bloody goat skin over their shoulders and call it a day?  It doesn't match the description but it matches your imagination.  A sacrifice happened then some skin garments magically appeared with all the middle work just sort of happening.  But magic can't be the actual full answer because that would be stupid.  Certainly people do it but these are the first people.  It's not like they know how to do it.  And I can't imagine "god" has any experience with it either.  Knowing everything just *can't* include how to dress a goat, sacrifice it, tan it then fashion it into human clothes.  How the hell did he pick up that set of skills when none of those things existed until just recently?  Is that what he was thinking of doing for all eternity all alone?  Creating these things to hack them to bits, burn them and have his other creations wear them?  Gross.  Just gross.

 

          mwc

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just re-read the creation story in my bible and it had a comment about the "tree of knowledge of good and evil": it doesnt mean the ability to distinguish good and evil but it is just a term for the knowledge of everything (what might have a good or evil influence on a human life).

 

Wikipedia says something similar:

The phrase in Hebrew: טוֹב וָרָע / tov V'ra, translatable as good and evil, may be an example of the type of figure of speech known as merism.This literary device pairs opposite terms together, in order to create a general meaning; so that the phrase "good and evil" would simply imply "everything".

 

 

So Adam and Eve might have had a sense for morality before they ate from the tree. Still makes the story not better. :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But I can't just assume that the god of the Bible is 100% good and that all of his rules are for good 100% of the time or that he does good 100% of the time. If what the Bible says is correct, then he only does good 10% of the time. He acts like a complete sadist 50% of the time and then the rest of the 40% he acts like a narcissist. If what you say is true, he started out good and was good, but then when Adam and Eve did the one thing he told them not to, suddenly he stops being good and forces everyone to suffer because of Adam and Eve. It doesn't matter if it's part of genetics. A just god would have corrected the bad genetics or whatever it is that causes all of life to suffer because of Adam and Eve and ONLY punish them, no one else. It's like the moment Adam and Eve disobeyed, he suddenly became a sadist and a narcissist. Did bad genetics pass on to God too?

 

Also, your claim that by trusting your god we can suddenly be free from suffering is nonsense. There are lots of people alive right now who are faithful to this god of yours and they are suffering from disease or are being executed and tortured by nut jobs who hate them. In the Bible, he sits back and watches as Satan tears Job to pieces like a pit bull tearing into a child. He does nothing and the worst part is, he gave Satan permission to do it. Job asks for a reason why and God just says, "I'm more powerful than you and created everything, so there! I don't got to explain anything to you little man!"

 

I trusted your god and I know of lots of people here on ex-C who trusted your god. What happened? They never became free from suffering. I know of people, myself included, whose lives were made worse by Christianity. People who have struggled with OCD have had this condition become much worse because of Christianity. I've got psychological problems of my own, not sure what they are yet, but trusting your god never did a thing to help. It just made my problems worse.

 

I desire things that are actually good. I don't desire belief in or worship of a god that does not do a thing to correct this suffering that everyone experiences because of Adam and Eve for thousands of years before he could send Jesus to Earth to die, only for it to fail and end up sending billions to Hell. I do not desire belief in or to worship a god that clearly states women are inferior to men because of their gender, a god that kills children and infants for the actions of adults they lived with in the Bible, and a god that clearly tortured faithful humans just to prove to someone else other than himself that they would remain faithful, without even bothering to explain anything.

 

I ask this again. If your god started out good and only had good plans, did the actions of Adam and Eve turn him into a dick? Was he suddenly infected with severe narcissistic disorder and did he suddenly become prone to sadism?

 

 

There was definitely a change in how God interacted with man after Adam's disobedience.  A severe change coming around the time of the flood, and then you had the biggest change when the commandments came.  It's true the theology says that Adam's disobedience brought in death, but the amount of suffering increased on the heels of man's progressive choices away from God.  Adam's sin brought in death, but compared to how the world is now, Adam's world would have been like heaven to us.  So Adam began the decline, but man's choices after that increased that decline rapidly.  Again look at Cain and Abel for instance.  In spite of the fall, God still spoke with them and probably had a good level of conversation.  Even when God rejected Cain's offering, God went right to him to lift his spirit.  Yet for Cain, once he killed his brother, and then lied about it, all of a sudden there was a change. (I keep thinking the punishment that God gave Adam/Eve/Cain was compounded by their efforts to blame others and in Cain's case, try to cover up the crime)  So when it comes to the amount of suffering, Adam started it off but we all had our involvement in increasing it.

 

 

I don't want to sound like I'm not hearing you, I don't want to disuade discussion.  I'm enjoying it.  I'll definitely continue to look at your points and everyone's points as I continue my studies.  Yet I want to make sure you see my points as well.  My points come from extensive thought from the text, and I'm not making it up as I go along to defend God's actions.  Notice how God laments creating man in Genesis chapter 6.  He doesn't regret making Adam after he disobeyed, so why now?  You could write it off as ultimately having to do with men making a mythical story and so forth (even taking elements from other creation stories).  That's certainly one explanation.  However another explanation is the choices that man made, continuing from the overall story.  Here around chapter 6, man were making the ultimate choice of forsaking God's ways, and going their own way.  At least Cain felt some kind of remorse once God gave him his punishment, yet the world here in Genesis 6 couldn't care less.  Noah was literally the last one who still desired the way of God.  So God's attitude changed concerning man in that day, and He flooded the earth.  The suffering increased on the heels of man's progressive choices.

 

 

With all that said, concerning Christians still suffering from things like diseases.  This is something I discussed with LivingLife a while back that I was looking into.  Through my studies, I found there is no question the teachings of Christ have been muddled throughout the many centuries.  In fact I've mentioned here concerning how we see OT laws in the wrong light. (Which is why Jesus came and taught the Law correctly)  Christianity became about loving God with all your heart, but that's not the point at all.  That was the command of the Law.  Christianity is about God loving us with all His heart, and us spreading that love to others.  It's about God empowering us to live right, not us by our own efforts living right.  Over the many years, Christianity became about earning the things we have already been freely given.  I can tell this by the things that have been said here. (Some of you made references about loving God.  And Christians make big statements on their love for God.  Half of us barely love our own family membersGONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif  ) 

 

 

The fruits of Christianity, the discontinuance of Adam's suffering, is based on the receiving of Christ's finished work.  If we still feel like there is something for us to earn, then we are not going to have that yet because we've yet to earn it.  If we feel like we earn those things by trying to love God, we will not receive what Jesus has given us.  The Gospels talk about God going everywhere with the disciples, confirming their word.  If we aren't speaking correctly on what Jesus has given, God is not going to confirm that.  We know for sure Christ's teachings have been muddled for close to 2,000 years.  So along with the history and the science, this is something else I'm looking into.  The only suffering a Christian does endure, is the suffering for the sake of others.  If the miracles are true and the new life free from the fall brought on by Adam is true, then dying at the hands of nutjobs for the sake of others getting a hold of this message is worth the cost.

 

 

I disagree that God's message to Job was that He doesn't have to answer to Job for anything that happens.  For one, Job already expressed this to his friends, that God could do whatever he wanted.  However, at the end of God's confrotation, Job repented from his position for some reason.  Some have said that Job was right concerning God could do whatever He wanted, citing God telling this to Job's friends.  Again however, that wouldn't make sense.  If Job was right, why did God confront Job at all?  Why would Job repent if he was right?  No, I believe what God was confronting Job about, is asking him if he could do a better job at being God than Him. (As evidence from God's questions about Job knowing the measurements and foundations of the earth, and the day to day operations)  When God confronted Job's friends, His statement about Job being right, I believe is referring to Job's answer to Him.  As to why God let Satan cause Job to suffer, I could give you the Christian answer here, perhaps one you haven't heard before.  The Book of Job is very legalistic in nature.  Job wanting to take God to trial and so forth.  Satan of course meaning "the accuser", came before God like a proscecutor.  Legally, God was in a way obligated to let those things happen, and the reason why is in my Christian answer.  (Of course the Christian part could just be my interpretation.)

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if it's because of genes. If the Bible is all true, then your god purposefully set up a system in which ALL humans would suffer because of Adam and Eve's disobedience.

 

Basically, what happens is, Adam and Eve disobeyed, so their dad kicks them out of the mansion and they've got to live in the street and reproduce in some old, run-down building covered with graffiti. Their dad comes along later on and tells the grandkids that in order for him to help them get a good education and help them to receive training so they could get a job, they've got to grovel in front of him and beg him to forgive them for every single mistake they ever made in their life and repent. Next, they have got to agree to love him more than anyone else and be his slaves for the rest of their lives. If they don't agree to it, he walks away and leaves them to die in their gang-ridden neighborhood.

 

It's pretty plain and simple. You can tell yourself whatever you want to make it appear as though your god bares no responsibility, but that won't change anything. True or not, in the Bible, your god creates a system in which all living things will suffer and die because of Adam and Eve's disobedience, due to genetics, supposedly (though I fail to understand how suffering and death spreads to the animals if they were never reproduced by Adam and Eve. I suppose their genetics must have been switched to crappy, just because), meaning he is still responsible for the suffering of everyone. He doesn't correct anything, he waits thousands of years before sacrificing himself in order to redeem humans. Why would he wait? Why would he allow all life to suffer because of Adam and Eve's disobedience? If your god is real, he is corrupt and sadistic. You may not want to see it that way, but that is just how it is.

 

 

 

It could have gone the other way.  Adam and Eve could have obeyed, and the system would be set up in that the children would experience their blessings.  In fact, that's exactly what we experience in Jesus, because of His obedience.  So if it was the other way, would we have a problem with God's system then?  Of course we are just speaking about the theology of it all, I'm still looking on the facts of it all.  The truth is, I haven't been indoctrinated as much as people would say that I am.  I've been pretty much self taught from a natural perspective.  Yeah, I grew up around church, but I grew up in freedom from indoctrination, which is the best way I could describe it.  So I thought about these things in a different light, and was free to study on my own.  I've come to find out that the Bible is different from the average view of it, as far as what it says.  I'm not the only one who grew up like this, but I imagine very few have.  Some of you state you've heard the things and believed the things I currently believe.  I gotta say I wish I met many of you before you became ex-Christians, not saying anything about everyone's decision to become ex-Christian.  Yet for the sake of discussion.  Most Christians I know don't want to research like I want to, and view the Scriptures because of that research as I do.  That's why LivingLife invited me here, so I could have discussion.

 

 

Why did the fall affect animals?  The Christian answer is that man had dominion over the whole earth.  So, we were put in charge over the earth.  Just like when a CEO of a company makes bad decisions and they lose that company, everyone in it is affected.  So God gave dominion over the earth and all the animals to Adam and Eve.  When they fell, everything fell with them.  Also, an animal played it's part in the fall as well. 

 

 

Why does God wait thousands of years before sending Jesus?  The first thing is throughout that time, God was still with man and caring for him.  This goes back to the progressive change of God's character towards man.  Adam started off the suffering, but it was still heaven compared to now.  Man's choices increased the suffering on the earth, but God still provided for the people.  In this life, we experience both God's goodness and suffering.  The second thing is God waited for the people's sake.  Yes, we suffer here, but this life isn't a long one.  Eternity is much longer.  If Jesus showed up a hundred years or so after the fall, many probably wouldn't accept anything He had to say because they wouldn't consider themselves as needing Him.  The affects of the fall were small back then, and they still didn't fully grasp the concept of life without God.  They also didn't fully understand the concept of God's justice, and being judged for tresspasses.  That was the reason for the Ten Commandments, so that sin would become exceedingly obvious.  So now with all the history we have, all the suffering we've seen, once we see Jesus, the choice is easy to make, and many will make it.  The only thing is proving if it's true.

 

 

 

 

"it's just how the system worked there." - no. god makes the rules, god made the system and it is his decision to stick to his plan or not. if he sticks to it you call it "justice" (but it is just justice in his self-created morality) and if he makes exceptions it is called "mercy". But the underlying problem is that he made the damn system. he created hell and punishment and we should thank him if he spares us from that.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see a problem with having a created system.  The thing about it is God can't change the system now that it's in play.  To change it now, would make God evil.  God is the most powerful, and the only thing that God set above His own power, is His word.  So His word is His bond, and His word is exalted above His abilities.  The risk here, and yes God took a risk here, is giving His creation free will.  Giving His creation the choice of abiding by His rules under His roof, or leaving the house and doing our own thing.  The thing about God's roof is it's not just a house, but it's the entirety of the universe.  Where can you go outside of His creation?  That's why Hell was created.  It's the only place having nothing to do with God.

 

 

 

if the tree was for men, i could have burned  it down.god doesn't need it anymore. Poor cherubims had to stand there and protect the stupid tree and god even created a flaming sword. a lot of work instead of just making the tree disappear....

 

 

 

The tree did disappear eventually I supposebiggrin.png , with the flood.  Maybe God left it there as a picture for Adam and their children, a reminder of what was lost. 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, being immortal and have a terrible,painful disease would suck. 

 

"he created with faults but with free will"- that is the problem. he created us with faults, expects us to be perfect and punishes us for the faults he gave us. he gave us freewill, but we should follow his rules. if he wants us to be perfect and obedient, why didnt he create us that way? if he wants us to be free, why is he punishing us for our free decisions?

have a look at the "freewill"-topic http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/57289-freewill/#entry871793

 

 

 

I'll definitely take a look at that topic in a bit.

 

Concerning immortality, you wouldn't have a disease or suffer.  Those two things don't go together.  Of course this might be more of a matter of opinion.  Yet I'd say there's a difference between eternal life, and eternal existence.  Being in pain and being around forever is what I call eternal existence.  You're around, but you're not really alive.

 

I believe God created us perfect and without fault, but He gave us free will.  It's not so much that God punishes us for our choice to go astray, but that suffering exists outside of God.  God told Adam the day he ate from the tree, he would surely die.  Did text say God would execute Adam?  That would be a punishment for breaking God's command.  No, it simply states death is the result of eating from that tree.  So that's what free will is about.  We are free to chose, but there's consequences to choices.  The punishments come in when we tresspass against God.  Kind of like that saying your freedom ends where mine begins.  The Ten Commandments shows us some of the ways we tresspass against God, though it should be noted the commandments were given to Israel.

 

All in all, all of us would be considered God's creation.  We are free to go our own way, but if we do someone wrong, we are tresspassing against God.  That's why murderers will be judged by God for instance.

 

 

 

@ Joshpantera

 

 

Very interesting videos there.  The second video talked on a couple of things about the Deuteronomy source that I wasn't aware of.  I'll have to look into that a bit.  One question I have about these stories being made up over the many years, is why are the people presented in such bad light at times?  If I was going to make up a story about my origins and my people, I would be hype my people up a bit wouldn't you think?  Yet if you look at the Israelites around Moses, they were constantly complaining and so forth, even before the giving of the commandments.  Moses was even put in bad light a couple of times.  That's showing a lot of faults of your people, from a made up story.  Of course that is one question I have.  The others are a little more in depth concerning the history.

 

I do see where the arguments against the Bible come from concerning archaeology, but I do believe all the areas concerning what's written in the Exodus have been researched.  I believe there's a big area that is yet to be researched.  That's in Saudi Arabia.  There's also the mention of the Habiru, all circumstantial stuff for me.  I hear what the videos are saying, but I find there's still much left on the table to review.  How I see the OT, is Moses and the things of the Exodus being the historical foundation.  The Torah as we have it, being written sources from that event.  So if any evidence turned up that validated that event, that would be my starting point in how to view Scripture afterwards. (Whether to see it as another myth, or as accounts about the actual historical figures)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Biblegod isn't 100% good all the time. He even says this. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."  Is 45:7

 

Thus doeth the Lord of the bible.

 

Please check one below:

 

[ ] You took that out of context.

[ ] You do not have ears to hear... though you asked, though you seeked, though you knocked...the door did not open. So you cannot understand the bible.

[ ] It doesn't really mean that....let me explain how it means something different than what the words actually say.

[ ] It is not to be taken literally or at face value.

 

 

I'll check the one saying it doesn't mean what you think it means.  The evil that God creates, is basically the suffering that comes about through His judgments.  Think the flood, the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.  In Exoudus, God repented of the evil He planned on doing to the people for their disobedience.  He changed His mind about the harm He was going to do to them.  So the evil in that Isaiah reference isn't evil in the sense we see it.  Some translations have it as God creates calamity. (Yet then again, it is seen by many that God's judgments are evil.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree.  The loaded gun in the presence of children is different from this situation here.  If it really took things at face value, then the children in that analogy would have exceptional knowledge about things in general.  (Remember, Adam was able to give all the animals names, and we can assume he remembered their names.  Adam was able to work and tend for a whole garden, which isn't the kind of garden we are associated with.)  Also a face value reading would imply the children were capable of following the command not to touch the gun.  That they know full well touching this gun would only bring a negative consequence.  Yet if we are talking about your average, curious kid without much knowledge, then it's not a good analogy.

 

Most feel like they have a good grasp on what the text says, but most people read over key bits within the text.  The common assumption is that Adam and Eve didn't have any knowledge at all.  Anyone who believes that, missed what the text is saying.

 

 

You can be very analytical about the parts that don't make the Bible look silly.  But unfortunately the rest remains.

 

Gen 2:17

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: . . ."

 

Gen 3:5

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

 

Read it and weep.  The thing is called "tree of knowledge of good and evil".  This is a fable that was invented to explain how humans are smarter than animals.  This was a question that interested Bronze Age people and the religious men of the time had to come up with an answer that would satisfy that Bronze Age society.  If falls apart under examination from logic.

 

 

 

 

Genesis is a collection of sources that are older than the Babylonian exile.  Geneis, and the whole Torah (first five books) was composed later from these older sources.

 

Genesis and the Torah were written after the return from Babylon.  It's a fable designed to give Ezra's society a legacy.  Of course the things mentioned in the Torah are pure fiction except for location names. 

 

 

Have you heard of the Documentary Hypothesis?

 

Yes.  You don't get to keep the age of the source material if that material was edited.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course this particular passage is dealing with prophecy and figurative stuff.  We know the King of Tyrus wasn't a cherub, nor did he walk in the Garden of Eden.  So it's a figurative passage on this king, who is probably being influenced by the one who the passage is literally about.

 

That is just it.  He did walk in the actual Garden of Eden.  It was his garden.  It was his job to take care of it.  He was Adam.  And if cherubs are not human then they do not exist.

 

 

 

The passage was meant to be for an actual king of Tyrus at the time.  That's why the passage is figurative, because this king certainly wasn't around when the Garden of Eden was around.  The Bible gives a description of what a cherub looks like I believe.  It's certainly not human.

 

 

And the time was before Genesis was written.  The king of Tyrus was walking literally in the Garden of Eden.  He owned it.  It wasn't figurative.  It was a real garden that belonged to the real king of Tyrus.  The Genesis account of the Garden of Eden is figurative.  The fact that cherub are not real is kind of irrelevant seeing how the Bible is full of imaginary beings and creatures.  That is the whole point.  The whole thing is myth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the text it's clear Adam had general knowledge before he ate of that tree. (Again he named all the animals and worked the Garden of Eden)  Plus God gave him a command, and in order to follow commands, you need to understand them.  Even if all of this is made up, it might explain where we got our sense of morality from, but not general knowledge.  Again with Tyrus, all of it was figurative stuff.  You originally said it alluded to a creation account older than the one we have in Genesis.  I don't know about that.

 

 

 

 

     I can definitely see that there is a problem stemming from how you and I perceive how things work, or rather, *can* work.  Let me give an example:

 

     First, the text as you know it (Genesis 3):

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

 

     And now a bit of a rewrite:

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "You are forgiven."

15 ...

16 To the woman he said, "You are also forgiven."

17 To Adam he said, "You are forgiven as well."

...

7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

 

 

     The idea seems to be that at this point in the story (or at *any* point) "god" was stuck.  He was in a position where he simply "had to" *anything*.  That there was an imperative for an action to happen so that another action could happen either immediately after *or* could happen tens or hundreds to thousands of years later.  I am to believe that *THE* God was so bound-up in some, let's say "plan," by this point in time that he *had to* go with curses and sacrifices and eternal punishments instead of simply forgiving?  *The* God that could speak a universe and its contents into being couldn't *speak* forgiveness when it was necessary?  But had to go with some convoluted secret plan involving death and destruction?  That's insane.  Forgiveness and actual instruction on how to act correctly would appear to be a better path. 

 

 

As I stated to another response, God is bound by His word.  He couldn't simply wave His hand by saying "You're forgiven".  That wouldn't work in a court room.  Even though God has all the power to do what He wants, He has placed His word above that power.  So He subjected Himself to it.  For God to not fulfill that word, it would make Him evil.  I've thought about what would happen if God broke His word.  Would He become corrupt like Adam did?

 

 

 

God didn't explain everything concerning this system to Adam and Eve, but He showed them enough about it.  He killed an animal to clothe them, even though they were already clothed with fig leaves.  So this instance has credibility to be the first sacrifice.  Some say the writers of Genesis included things into the story that were anarchronistic. (Such as Abraham having camels)  If the fig leaves didn't do for Adam and Eve, why not have God make some linen, or have Adam making some kind of cloth?  So these animals skins were significant, and later we see that was probably the set up for the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.

     All the texts I have checked say that "god" *made* them garments (read: long garments like tunics) out of skins.  None of them mention any sacrifices.  None of them mention any killing at all.  You're reading that into the text since you're thinking that animals would have to die for just the skins to appear.  How did "god" sew the skins together?  Did he sit around sewing in his sitting room after he fashioned a needle and thread out of other bits?  Or was that all magic?  Or did Adam and Eve just slap a bloody goat skin over their shoulders and call it a day?  It doesn't match the description but it matches your imagination.  A sacrifice happened then some skin garments magically appeared with all the middle work just sort of happening.  But magic can't be the actual full answer because that would be stupid.  Certainly people do it but these are the first people.  It's not like they know how to do it.  And I can't imagine "god" has any experience with it either.  Knowing everything just *can't* include how to dress a goat, sacrifice it, tan it then fashion it into human clothes.  How the hell did he pick up that set of skills when none of those things existed until just recently?  Is that what he was thinking of doing for all eternity all alone?  Creating these things to hack them to bits, burn them and have his other creations wear them?  Gross.  Just gross.

          mwc

 

 

 

Not that I believe God set up an alter and all that stuff, but the symbology of it all.  If He made the clothes out of skin, logically an animal would have died in order to make the clothes.  It couldn't have been made out of human skin, Adam and Eve were the only ones around.  The only other option is animal skin.  It also wouldn't make sense for the skin of the animal to be removed, and the animal itself still be alive. (Of course it could be this skin was shedded skin.) 

 

Overall the picture of an animal dying, in order to cover up Adam and Eve, reminds us of the sacrificial system.  The blood of animals covered the sins of the people.  Adam and Eve were covered up, and an animal died for that.  It could just be opinion, but I believe the picture is clear even from the mythical standpoint, perhaps even more so from the mythical standpoint.

 

 

 

 

I just re-read the creation story in my bible and it had a comment about the "tree of knowledge of good and evil": it doesnt mean the ability to distinguish good and evil but it is just a term for the knowledge of everything (what might have a good or evil influence on a human life).

 

Wikipedia says something similar:

The phrase in Hebrew: טוֹב וָרָע / tov V'ra, translatable as good and evil, may be an example of the type of figure of speech known as merism.This literary device pairs opposite terms together, in order to create a general meaning; so that the phrase "good and evil" would simply imply "everything".

 

 

So Adam and Eve might have had a sense for morality before they ate from the tree. Still makes the story not better. biggrin.png

 

 

Of course I don't know a lot of hebrew myself, so I'm not going to say I've done great research from that standpoint.biggrin.png   Yet from the text I think we can conclude Adam and Eve had general knowledge, and enough reason to follow God.

 

 

Everyone, thanks for reading my long posts.  I'll try to get back here before the day is out, to reply faster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't want to sound like I'm not hearing you, I don't want to disuade discussion.  I'm enjoying it.  I'll definitely continue to look at your points and everyone's points as I continue my studies.  Yet I want to make sure you see my points as well.  My points come from extensive thought from the text, and I'm not making it up as I go along to defend God's actions.

 

I think most of us actually agreed with your points at one time. We were Christians. We aren't anymore. :-)

 

Do you personally agree with everything God does in the bible? Or do you ever say, "You know God, your action or behavior in that instance was just wrong" ?

Can you criticize God? I think one characteristic of unbiased thought and honesty to ones self is to acknowledge that while you may greatly agree with someone or a point of view that it is natural that you may not fully agree and actually disagree with some of a person's/point of view's ideas. 

 

For instance I classify myself as a liberal in politics, though I don't agree with all liberal viewpoints on every issue.

I voted for Obama, but I don't believe he is (or any president can be) the political messiah. I don't agree with everything he says and does. (Like the NSA thing, for example)

 

 

I cannot honestly say  that I fully agree nor completely accept all points put forth by any God,  person,  book, or way of thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated to another response, God is bound by His word.  He couldn't simply wave His hand by saying "You're forgiven".  That wouldn't work in a court room.

 

Six months probation issued by a judge pretty much equals "You're forgiven."

A thousand hours of community service equals "Nearly forgiven, with a touch of I'm miffed at you."

"Time served, case dismissed" (you were too cheap or broke and pathetic to bail out of jail so you spent 90 days there) equals "Quit wasting tax dollars! Get outta my courtroom!" :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Heavenese

 

I really don't want to mess with all of the quoting since there would be a lot to quote and edit, I think I'll just respond to the main points of your response.

 

#1. Adam started the fall, but the choices of everyone else after him increased the suffering that exists.

 

My response: But the thing is, once Adam starts the fall, free will no longer exists for everyone that lives after him, assuming Adam and Eve even had that to begin with. Everyone, from the moment Adam starts the fall, is born with a sinful nature that they can't possibly resist. They are born with a programming to do crappy things to each other and to disobey Yahweh. They couldn't avoid sinning and disobeying, causing more suffering as time went on. They were all set up to fail, every single person after the fall begins, and because they failed, just like they inevitably would, Yahweh makes life much worse for every generation as time moves on. Sounds like a crappy situation. That's kind of like programming a bunch of robots to destroy each other and attack their designer, simply because the first robot(s) downloaded the wrong program, which they were told not to download.

 

#2. At the time of the flood, he regrets making humans because they chose not to go his way and that is why he flooded the Earth.

 

My response: Based on my opinions of Yahweh (assuming he was actually the creator of everything), I really do not understand why he would regret making humans or why he would kill them all in a flood if he knew the flood would fail (or maybe he did not know that it would fail?). The fact is, they were all born unable to resist sin and disobedience. If the fall was "in the genes", then Yahweh was at fault for not correcting those bad genes, thus creating a bunch of crappy creations that he knew were crappy from the moment of birth. Perhaps he was embarrassed because he screwed up and couldn't stand to look at the mess that he failed to prevent by not correcting the "bad genes". Maybe he just flooded the Earth because he was upset that the humans he killed were not massaging his massive ego well enough, I don't know, to be honest.

 

#3. The law of the OT and Christianity were meant to be all about us loving Yahweh with our whole heart and him loving us the same way, as well as him empowering us to live right, since we can't do it on our own.

 

My response: If the law of the OT was so important, then why is it that Yahweh commanded the Isrealites to break the rules sometimes? He told them to go about killing children and infants for actions they did not do. He told them to kill everyone they were told to kill and take everything that belonged to those people. If it is against the laws of Yahweh to murder and steal, then why did he tell the Isrealites to murder and steal?

 

What about the stoning of men who sleep together? What reason is there for that being a sin if the action is consensual? Are they extremely evil and depraved, simply because the action of sex between two men does not result in reproduction? I hardly see why that would be considered evil. The laws of the OT are meaningless if some of them make no sense and Yahweh commands the Isrealites to disobey them when he wants them to.

 

#4 (not sure if I understand it 100%, but I'll interpret it the best I can). We haven't earned what we feel like we need to earn and if we feel like we have earned it, then we will not receive what Jesus has given us.

 

My response: I honestly don't know how to respond. The salvation of Jesus sounds like a good deal. Just believe and accept it and you get to have eternal life. It sounds kind of nice. What does not sound nice is that the people who do not believe this gift is even available or decide they don't want it, get something worse than death, which was supposed to be the punishment for sin. Why do you think Yahweh waited until after the birth of Jesus to tell everyone about Hell? I am curious to know. Why would Hell even be justified? I am also curious to know what you believe about Hell specifically, since there are differing views about what Hell actually is among Christians.

 

#5. Christ's teachings have been muddled and if we aren't speaking correctly on what Jesus has given, then Yahweh won't confirm that.

 

My response: If Christ's teachings have been muddled and people are not speaking correctly about the teachings of Jesus and his salvation message, then Yahweh should be coming down out of the sky, every time someone teaches stuff that is not at all an accurate or true message, and tell them, "Stop lying to these people." and out them as a false teacher. However, it seems the teachings in the Bible are all so different and there are some that contradict other teachings just a couple of books or chapters away, so that might explain why it's all been muddled. It was probably muddled from the very beginning.

 

#6. The only suffering a Christian endures is suffering for the sake of others.

 

My response: Try telling this to Christians who suffer from OCD, including those whose OCD symptoms were made worse by Christianity. Tell this to Christians who have suffered and died painfully, while wanting to know why, only to never receive any help or response. I guess in my second example, the answer is too unimportant for Yahweh to give it to them before they die after the long road of suffering.

 

#7. The book of Job was about Yahweh being on trial and him asking Job if he could do a better job of being god. Supposedly Satan was playing the role of Yahweh's accuser.

 

My response: Couldn't Yahweh have found a better way to do this, maybe without mercilessly allowing Satan to destroy Job's life? I would think a more proper trial would be for Satan to prosecute Yahweh based on previous actions he had already taken in the past, to determine which ones were crappy and which ones were not. To be honest, I don't think Job could have done a better job. If he was willing to say, "God can do whatever he wants, it's alright." after all that he went through, then it makes me wonder, was Job insane? Why didn't he get angry? I know I would have if Satan was released upon me like a pit bull, coming to tear me into pieces, while Yahweh sits by a window, watching from his recliner.

 

Honestly, if I were in Job's situation, my thought would be, "You have all the power to do whatever the hell you please, so I can't stop you, therefore you can do whatever you want to me. However, from what I have seen, I don't think I can ever trust you again. I didn't disobey you and you repay me in one of the worst ways imaginable. Are you sadistic? Are you some kind of a monster? You don't have to apologize to me and make amends because I am not powerful enough to make you, but if you want me to trust you ever again, then you better."

 

#8. Adam and Eve could have gone the other way and remained obedient and the system would be set up so that their children would experience their blessings and supposedly that is what Christians experience in Jesus.

 

My response: Yeah, they could have, but the fact is they didn't and because of that, every human after them was set up to fail. If Adam and Eve had started out already knowing the full outcome that would result from their disobedience and understood what suffering was, without eating from some stupid tree, they would not have disobeyed. They would have told the snake to shove its lies where the sun doesn't usually shine and walk away. That is just what I think they would do, assuming they had a conscience.

 

#9. You were not indoctrinated like the majority of Christians and were able to study the scripture on your own and draw your own conclusions.

 

My response: That is good that you were not indoctrinated and were able to study and draw your own conclusions. Well, I was indoctrinated and did not study, intending to draw my own conclusions, because of my fear of a place called Hell. If not for that fear, I would have reached the conclusion that Yahweh of the Bible was basically a powerful Boogeyman, designed to scare children into behaving properly, a long time ago.

 

#10. The fall affected animals because humans were given dominion over the Earth and your analogy is that animals being affected by the fall is like a CEO losing their company for making bad decisions. There is also the bit about an animal taking part in causing the fall as well.

 

My response: That is a flawed analogy. First of all, animals are living beings that can feel emotions, just like we do, and physical pain, just like we do, though they may not be able to think and reason like we can. What a just god would have done is say to Adam and Eve, "Well, guess what, you no longer have dominion over the Earth. Now dogs will be putting you on leashes and telling you to sit." It would not have forced all animals to suffer because of what they did.

 

#11. Jesus needed to return long enough after the fall so that people would understand sin and understand why they need to be redeemed and that the choice of turning to Jesus should be easy to make, considering all of the suffering we have seen.

 

My response: Well, given the position I have when it comes to the points you have made, you are right, it is an easy choice to make. My choice is this (if Christianity is 100% true), "Jesus, I can't trust you or your father, Yahweh. You both have massive egos, you change your moral standards any time it suits you, and I can't even trust you not to torture me as some kind of a test. You can take this 'gift' of yours and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, because I trust you about as much as a salesman selling appliances to people, which contain armed explosives in them, ready to blow up as soon as the appliances are plugged into the outlet."

 

I tried to represent all of these points and interpret them the best I could, so if I made any errors, they are unintentional.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At the time of the flood, he regrets making humans because they chose not to go his way and that is why he flooded the Earth.

 

My response: Based on my opinions of Yahweh (assuming he was actually the creator of everything), I really do not understand why he would regret making humans or why he would kill them all in a flood if he knew the flood would fail (or maybe he did not know that it would fail?). The fact is, they were all born unable to resist sin and disobedience. If the fall was "in the genes", then Yahweh was at fault for not correcting those bad genes, thus creating a bunch of crappy creations that he knew were crappy from the moment of birth. Perhaps he was embarrassed because he screwed up and couldn't stand to look at the mess that he failed to prevent by not correcting the "bad genes". Maybe he just flooded the Earth because he was upset that the humans he killed were not massaging his massive ego well enough, I don't know, to be honest.

I think there is more to the flood story than what we read in the bible and it has something to do with the giants mentioned in the same chapter (gen 6). I read that the book of enoch (noahs greatgrandfather) had some explanations (giants teaching humans how to be super-evil or something) , but i havent had the time to look it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

From the text it's clear Adam had general knowledge before he ate of that tree. (Again he named all the animals and worked the Garden of Eden)  Plus God gave him a command, and in order to follow commands, you need to understand them.  Even if all of this is made up, it might explain where we got our sense of morality from, but not general knowledge.  Again with Tyrus, all of it was figurative stuff.  You originally said it alluded to a creation account older than the one we have in Genesis.  I don't know about that.

 

 

Lots of things about the Adam and Eve story do not make sense.  Incest populated the whole world?  That is crazy.  Adam naming all the animals?  That is crazy!  It's ignorance because the writer had no idea how many animals species exist.  Adam would have to study animals for several lifetimes to name all the animals.  But the Bible writers didn't know that so their fable doesn't address that problem.

 

This doesn't explain where we get our morality from.  For that you should turn to science.  Science might not give a perfect answer but it will give the best answer we can find so far.

 

You choose to dismiss Tyrus but the fact remains that it is older than the Adam and Eve story of Genesis by at least a hundred years.  The Genesis account is made up based on the Ezekiel account.  I didn't say it was a creation story but rather a garden of Eden story.  Before being a place for the first two humans Eden was the garden of the King of Tyrus.  And if you look at the Adam and Eve story it makes sense that there is already people all over the earth.  That way no incest.  That way it makes sense that Cain can go on a journy, find a wife and found a city.  Where would Cain's wife come from if Adam and Eve were the first two humans?  How can you found a city when you and your sister live in the middle of nowhere because your parents were the first two humans?

 

The Adam and Eve story we see today was hijacked from some other story.

 

Edit:

Gen 4:14

"14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me."

 

But "everyone" is Adam, Eve and Cain's younger brothers and sisters.  Cain is the third oldest person in the world . . . right?  Cain is the only person with any experience at slaying anybody . . . right?

 

This does not make sense unless the world is already full of people.

 

 

Gen 5:3-6

 

"3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:"

 

So Seth married his sister the daughter of Adam and Eve.  And Enos married his first cousin, the grand daughter of Adam and Eve.  Then Enos's son marries either a sister, a first cousin or a second cousin (since those now exist) or an aunt who was either the daughter, grand daughter or great grand daughter of Adam and Eve.

 

This does not make sense.  Everybody would have had birth defects.  People would have bleed to death over a skinned knee.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I stated to another response, God is bound by His word.  He couldn't simply wave His hand by saying "You're forgiven".  That wouldn't work in a court room.

 

Six months probation issued by a judge pretty much equals "You're forgiven."

A thousand hours of community service equals "Nearly forgiven, with a touch of I'm miffed at you."

"Time served, case dismissed" (you were too cheap or broke and pathetic to bail out of jail so you spent 90 days there) equals "Quit wasting tax dollars! Get outta my courtroom!" :-)

 

 

 

A human judge can be more flexible than God.  But it turns out that God is not bound by God's word.  God breaks his word all the time.  God lays out clear marriage laws on pain of death.  Who knows how many young people were executed for breaking those laws.  But then suddenly when it's time for Jesus to be born God has to get Joseph's betrothed pregnant.  Why couldn't God have sent the angel to Mary's father when she was born and told him to not betroth her to anybody because her son would be Jesus?  The whole thing is a train wreck.  God definitely breaks God's law and God's word.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As I stated to another response, God is bound by His word.  He couldn't simply wave His hand by saying "You're forgiven".  That wouldn't work in a court room.

 

Six months probation issued by a judge pretty much equals "You're forgiven."

A thousand hours of community service equals "Nearly forgiven, with a touch of I'm miffed at you."

"Time served, case dismissed" (you were too cheap or broke and pathetic to bail out of jail so you spent 90 days there) equals "Quit wasting tax dollars! Get outta my courtroom!" :-)

 

 

 

A human judge can be more flexible than God.  But it turns out that God is not bound by God's word.  God breaks his word all the time.  God lays out clear marriage laws on pain of death.  Who knows how many young people were executed for breaking those laws.  But then suddenly when it's time for Jesus to be born God has to get Joseph's betrothed pregnant.  Why couldn't God have sent the angel to Mary's father when she was born and told him to not betroth her to anybody because her son would be Jesus?  The whole thing is a train wreck.  God definitely breaks God's law and God's word.

 

 

http://cdn.meme.li/instances/300x300/39028321.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As I stated to another response, God is bound by His word.  He couldn't simply wave His hand by saying "You're forgiven".  That wouldn't work in a court room.

 

Six months probation issued by a judge pretty much equals "You're forgiven."

A thousand hours of community service equals "Nearly forgiven, with a touch of I'm miffed at you."

"Time served, case dismissed" (you were too cheap or broke and pathetic to bail out of jail so you spent 90 days there) equals "Quit wasting tax dollars! Get outta my courtroom!" :-)

 

 

 

A human judge can be more flexible than God.  But it turns out that God is not bound by God's word.  God breaks his word all the time.  God lays out clear marriage laws on pain of death.  Who knows how many young people were executed for breaking those laws.  But then suddenly when it's time for Jesus to be born God has to get Joseph's betrothed pregnant.  Why couldn't God have sent the angel to Mary's father when she was born and told him to not betroth her to anybody because her son would be Jesus?  The whole thing is a train wreck.  God definitely breaks God's law and God's word.

 

 

So God teaches people it is ok to break the law!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think most of us actually agreed with your points at one time. We were Christians. We aren't anymore. :-)

 

Do you personally agree with everything God does in the bible? Or do you ever say, "You know God, your action or behavior in that instance was just wrong" ?

Can you criticize God? I think one characteristic of unbiased thought and honesty to ones self is to acknowledge that while you may greatly agree with someone or a point of view that it is natural that you may not fully agree and actually disagree with some of a person's/point of view's ideas. 

 

For instance I classify myself as a liberal in politics, though I don't agree with all liberal viewpoints on every issue.

I voted for Obama, but I don't believe he is (or any president can be) the political messiah. I don't agree with everything he says and does. (Like the NSA thing, for example)

 

 

I cannot honestly say  that I fully agree nor completely accept all points put forth by any God,  person,  book, or way of thinking.

 

 

 

That's a good question.  Do I agree with everything God does in the Bible?  There's definitely things there I find are harsh.  I personally find it a hard thing to kill bugs, so the times in the Bible where Israel was ordered kill everyone in a city is hard to comprehend.  Do I disagree with those things?  Looking at it by itself, I definitely would.  Yet I believe there's more to understand concerning those things.  One understanding here is definitely all of those stories were just made up by man.  That their way of thinking and society reflected upon the Bible.  So all the killing and ruthlessness was simply a reflection on the society the people lived in.  The other understanding is, if God is real and the history is true, those were the judgments of God on the people.  For instance, God brought the people of Israel in the land of Canaan, partly because of the iniquity of the people there.  God was patient with them, but evil increased among them.  We're to understand there was no feelings of repentance among them, and they didn't find God's grace.  So because of the iniquity, specifically their crimes against God (not their corrupt nature passed on by Adam), they were judged accordingly. 

 

 

Most might say even if the proper judgment for committing crimes against God was death, why does God kill the innocent children as well along with their parents?  Again the answer could be, and it is concluded this way for most, these were simply writings of the time the people were living in.  Yet it's to be understood the death of the children was part of the judgment.  That their whole culture be wiped out, and be no more.  Theologically speaking concerning free will, the bit about the children dying here seems contradictory.  Well, I have my thoughts on that, again based on Scripture.

 

 

Back to the question concerning disagreeing with God.  There does seem to be the overwhelming feeling among most Christians not to question God.  There's definitely things in the Bible I find barbaric in nature just by looking at it, but I haven't really thought about disagreeing with God per say.  I'm under the assumption that God knows what He's doing, or else He isn't God.  If I stumble upon things I find harsh, my first thought is seeking to understand why God's actions were necessary.  I'm different than most traditional Christians here, not being satisfied with not questioning God.  I assume God knows what He's doing, and I seek to know why.  So I do expect answers to many things from God.  Which is why I'm researching these things, and looking for evidence.  Interestingly enough however, there are instances in the Bible where men disagree with God's actions, and convinces Him to not carry out His judgment.  Think Abraham pleading for Sodom, and Moses pleading for the people.  They were working God's favor versus His judgment, the favor being the higher of the two.  So the Bible tells us to put God in remembrance of His word. (Of course putting God in remembrance of His word would indicate He forgets it right?  I imagine it doesn't mean that.  Again if I was making stuff up and I was a writer of that verse, why would I want to make God look like He doesn't remember stuff?  Why would I imply a weakness to God?  Even back then, I'm sure a verse like that which may imply God forgets would be seen as a weakness to the people.  So there's reason to say this verse means we should know God and His word for ourselves, going along with the clear teaching throughout Scripture that the people should study the Torah and Tanakh.  Putting God in remembrance of His word might be our way of disagreeing with God's actions)

 

 

 

 

Six months probation issued by a judge pretty much equals "You're forgiven."

A thousand hours of community service equals "Nearly forgiven, with a touch of I'm miffed at you."

"Time served, case dismissed" (you were too cheap or broke and pathetic to bail out of jail so you spent 90 days there) equals "Quit wasting tax dollars! Get outta my courtroom!" :-)

 

 

 

So you might be saying God's punishments on Adam and Eve was overkill.  Well, again I have to say that the suffering is apart of death.  The punishments of pain in childbirth, the ground being cursed, and so on, were something similar to having community service in that sense.  And again we say it's overkill for the children to suffer as well.  My answer is simply that's how the system was set up.  That it's in the genes.  My answer partly comes from what we know in general, that we get our DNA from our parents.  If Adam's body changed, our DNA is a copy of that change.  So that's God's legal system.happy.png  One thing to remember, which is probably easy for someone like me to say, is this life is short.  The age after this one will last forever.  And through Jesus, we can bring Heaven right here on earth.  If we are genuinely seeing miracles and divine health through Jesus' name, I don't think we'll have a problem with God's system.  So this is the main thing.  If we are not seeing miracles, then I agree about everything everyone is saying.

 

 

 

@ crazyguy123

 

 

 

1. Even though we are born with the corrupt nature, God takes that into account.  We still have a free will to choose to be right or to do evil.  It's that will, that want to, that God looks at.  All of the stuff we do because of our nature, God is merciful to.  In fact, that's what the sacrficial system covered up.  Yet if one willingly ignored that (considering if you knew God's ways and so forth) and willingly did evil, that was their choice alone. 

 

It's like for us to say we try to do our best, but nobody's perfect.  Adam's nature takes into account nobody being perfect.  God overlooks that through the sacrificial system.  Yet for those who embrace evil, that's who God's judgment falls on.  As time went on, more people were going that route.  Of course there was more oppurtunity for people to go that route, compared to Adam's immediate children.  That's when around the time of the flood, God regretted creating man because more and more people were going that route.  The suffering was supposed to bring the people back to God, but more were freely choosing to embrace evil.  That's when God said He regretted creating man.

 

 

2.  In what way would you say the flood failed?

 

 

3.  As I stated in another post, the killing of the children was part of the judgment on the whole people, to wipe out their seed from the face of the earth.  The original command to drive out the Canaanites was partly because of their iniquity on the face of the earth.  One possible reason why God ordered for a whole people to be wiped out, is because the people may have killed innocent children themselves.  We are told these nations have done many crimes, and God was patient with them for hundreds of years.  Yet time came where their crimes reached an empass, and God decided to unleash His judgment on them.  And God found Abraham, and promised the land to his descendants.  So the elimination of the entire people in those cities was the overall judgment on those nations.  You might still say that's murder, but it's to be viewed as vengeance.  Even if that's true, it does seem contradictory on another level.  That if we have free will, the children never got to have their choices realized, and were killed because of their parent's choices.  I have a thought about that based on Scripture, and what's going to happen once Jesus returns to the earth.  Ultimately, our free will is about us choosing to be with God, or go our own way.  These children who died, will have that same opportunity.

 

 

What's evil about two men having sex with each other?  If Genesis is true and so forth, it's simply we were not designed for it. (I also assume women laying with each other would be viewed in the same light, even though it's not mentioned in the Bible)  Of course I don't deny people are attracted to the same sex.  It's just apart of our corrupted nature.  Of course I don't want to come across as a bigot and how they think.  There is nothing wrong with homosexuals anymore than there is anything wrong with all of us.  It comes down to whether or not the Bible is true in it's history.  If it's not, then we are all normal.  If it is, we aren't as how God created us originally.

 

 

4.  I wouldn't say the concept of Hell was a totally new concept to the people of Israel.  That is Hell being a place.  They knew it as Sheol, which I think is to be understood as more than just meaning a grave.  Saul sought advice from Samuel's spirit, so the concept of the spirit was known to Israel well before the writings of the NT.  However, more and more things were revealed over time.  One explanation of course can be seen in one of those videos that was posted on page 8 of this thread, that people simply revised the Bible over and over again.  That's plausible, but I still have reason to think otherwise on that.  There's still much to research.  Yet if you ask me about it from what I understand now, God simply revealed things over time.  I mentioned why it was necessary for the Law to come before Jesus, because the Law revealed how sinful we are and why we needed a Savior.  It's a human tendency to earn what you get.  Through the history of the Bible, it shows us grace and favor are superior to earning something, particularly earning something from God.  As every other religion teaches, you do right by your god's sight, you reap the benefits.  So it was better to reveal things over time, to get the maximum response to God's message.

 

 

What do I think about Hell?  It's first and foremost simply a place where God's presence is absolutely removed.  It was created to house those who want nothing to do with God.  I think from the information we're given in Genesis, God created us to live forever.  Even if he didn't create our bodies originally for such, there's a part of us that is eternal. (The part called the breath of life, which I believe is a reference to the spirit)  So Hell was created to house those who left God. 

 

 

5.  If God is going to correct teaching, He's going to do it through another teacher.  His Spirit now resides in the Church as Christians are taught, to work through us.  Perhaps that is why I'm re-researching these things for myself. (Researching the work many others have let go a hundred years ago)  If I'm successful in my research, I would be an example of God using a teacher to correct the teachings.  Yet He did come down and correct teaching once.  When God became Jesus, and taught the people.  Then He sent His disciples out to teach.  Somewhere down the road, the teachings went back to earning things, at least in part.  Yet this thing is an either or, and not a mixed teaching.  So I'll see concerning this.

 

 

6.  Yes, I'm definitely aware of Christians who suffer like this.  Why are they not being healed?  Again I believe it's mostly due to the teachings.  For instance, faith is important in Christianity, but we tend to make it a work or something to be obtained by effort.  It's just a word that simply means trust.  Jesus said faith the size of one of the tiniest seeds in existence was enough to move a literal mountain.  Yet if our view is obtaining more faith, we never really get around to operating in it.  I'm sorry for the little bit of preaching I did there, and I know that may sound like semantics, but it's stuff like that which makes the difference possibly.  If you look at the woman who was healed with the issue of blood, I doubt she was thinking about her faith level.  In fact, all the reports concerning Jesus miracles, I doubt many of them were thinking about if they had enough faith to be healed.  They were only conscious of Jesus' abilities, and God saw that as faith.  Yet Christians have a better point of view than even those who were reportedly healed by Jesus according to the Gospels.  Christians should see themselves as Jesus in a way, because we are in Him.  So if Jesus is healthy, then we are to.  The results of Jesus' blessings will then flow freely and be evident.

 

 

7.  There is another thing concerning Job here that we find out through these trials.  Job was dependent on his own righteousness.  There was a sense coming from Job that he earned what he got from God, concerning the riches and children he had.  That's why he wanted his day in court with God, but expressing God was powerful enough to do what He wanted without explanation.  In the end after God's confrontation, I believe Job pretty much state he wasn't as righteous as he thought he was, by repenting.  I hear what you're saying in your response.  I do have more thought concerning this, something of a Christian answer.

 

 

8.  Again I would disagree humanity was set up to fail.  The sin nature just introduced death into the world, but the ultimate choice of wanting to be right is still ours to make.  Concerning Adam and Eve's choce to eat from that tree, it's not so much their knowledge concerning what death was, but that they believed a lie.  Even if they knew what death and suffering was completely, it wouldn't matter if they believed the lie that death wouldn't occur if they ate from the tree.

 

 

9.  If the Bible is true, it should be that we come to God for truth's sake, not out of fear.  Even if we came to God in fear, eventually you will hate what you fear.  That's why it's taught it's the kindness of God that leads to repentance. (Repentance meaning to change the mind)

 

 

10.  I can't add much to this point. (It would be funny to see a dog walking a man on a leash) :-)  It is noted in Genesis 6 the animals corrupted their way on earth as well as humans, but I would say all creation was affected by Adam's sin.

 

 

11.  If it was 100% true or better yet if evidence came about that point the Bible is true in all it's historical points, would you seek to understand a little more concerning the things that happened?

 

 

 

 

@ mymistake

 

 

It could be nonsense, most say it is.  Yet I have reason to search it out.  The oldest text concerning Genesis is the Adam and Eve story.  Scholars would say it dates around 900 BC/BCE.  You said the version we have today is the edited version, and Ezekiel refers to an older version.  Who's to say Ezekiel wasn't simply adding in new information concerning other things that went on in the Garden revealed by God? (Or basically just made things up)  Yet the Adam and Eve tradition was around before Ezekiel's statements, which are purely figurative.  Again that king of Tyrus in the piece, the one the letter is addressing, was around the day Ezekiel is writing, and the Garden of Eden is long gone. 

 

As to the other things you mentioned, there's more to understand about life back then than we know.  Yet we all have common ancestry, we descend from a family of people.  If I married someone who lived in a far country, I would essentially be marrying a cousin.  Things were simply different back then.  By the way, if you take into account Adam and Eve were able to have children from the moment they were created, and take in how long Adam lived, they could have had a thousand plus children not counting twins/tripletts.  By the time Cain was banished, the world could have easily been populated into the thousands.

 

 

 

What marriage law was broken concerning Mary being pregnant while betrothed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated to another response, God is bound by His word.  He couldn't simply wave His hand by saying "You're forgiven".  That wouldn't work in a court room.  Even though God has all the power to do what He wants, He has placed His word above that power.  So He subjected Himself to it.  For God to not fulfill that word, it would make Him evil.  I've thought about what would happen if God broke His word.  Would He become corrupt like Adam did?

     Courts don't have "Case dismissed" where you're from?  Strange.  Not that anyone is in a court room in this story or court room rules even apply.  You have a situation where people were told they would die on that day and that has been taken to mean not literally die on that day but something else (I'm not going to go over the possibilities).  In contract law that would mean they did not have a meeting of the minds as to the terms and conditions of the contract and it would not hold up.  But it did.  Here.  In this court.  But it's not a court.  So it doesn't matter.

 

     Does "god" play this game anywhere else?  Sure.  Abraham gets this a couple of times.  When he negotiates with "god" for Sodom.  He's going to see if the whole place needs to be destroyed.  But Abraham proposes 50, then 40, etc, on down to 10.  If 10 people are found then it won't be destroyed.  So "god" negotiates?  His "word" was the place needed to be destroyed.  Then his "word" was 50.  Then his "word" kept dropping.  If "god" *knew* his word was really 10 and Abraham stopped at 30 then what?  Abraham determines the limit or "god" goes ahead with the limit of 10 as per his "word?"  Or we just *know* that it was all going to be 10 all along and had to play out like a movie?  Because that's all that's happened here.  "God" had a "plan" that Abraham had to talk him down to 10 instead of "god" just coming clean and saying "Abraham, if I find 10 good people I won't destroy the place."

 

     What else with Abraham.  We all know this.  Xians love this story.  "God" tells Abraham to take Isaac and burn him up really good as a sacrifice.  So what's Abraham to think?  Well, if it were me I would think "I must burn my son up really good."  And when it's all said and done what actually happens?  Apparently the rules change in this court setting.  At the last second Isaac doesn't get burned up really good.  An animal does.  But "god" gave his "word."  That word being Isaac was supposed to die in a fire.  But behind the scenes that "word" meant something else. 

 

     So "god's" might "word" isn't as binding as you want me to believe.  Otherwise, Adam and Eve would have fell down dead that very day, Sodom would not have been negotiable and Isaac would have been a very crispy kid.  None of which occurred even though "word" was given assuring me otherwise.  This is one crappy court.  Apparently, your "god" is corrupt.

 

Not that I believe God set up an alter and all that stuff, but the symbology of it all.  If He made the clothes out of skin, logically an animal would have died in order to make the clothes.  It couldn't have been made out of human skin, Adam and Eve were the only ones around.  The only other option is animal skin.  It also wouldn't make sense for the skin of the animal to be removed, and the animal itself still be alive. (Of course it could be this skin was shedded skin.) 

 

Overall the picture of an animal dying, in order to cover up Adam and Eve, reminds us of the sacrificial system.  The blood of animals covered the sins of the people.  Adam and Eve were covered up, and an animal died for that.  It could just be opinion, but I believe the picture is clear even from the mythical standpoint, perhaps even more so from the mythical standpoint.

     Your "logic" is busted.

 

     Genesis 1

21 And God made great sea-beasts, and every sort of living and moving thing with which the waters were full, and every sort of winged bird: and God saw that it was good.

 

     According to the bible this "god" can, and did, make things just like this verse describes and now you're telling me that it just can't manage it any longer.  The very idea that it suddenly went from the creator "god" of Genesis 1 to the hunter-gatherer you keep foisting on me is ridiculous.  Is your "god" a God or is your "god" a caveman? 

 

     Further, if your "god" cannot simply create skins sans the rest of the animal then deal with the rest of the problem.  How did "god" come by those skills?  Did it simply do it all via magic?  The hunting?  The killing?  The skinning?  The preparing?  The sewing?  All of it.  This would have been the very first time it had encountered any of these things, correct?  It would then have had to make the very first sacrifice knowing that somehow this would effect some sort of magical change upon itself for whatever reasons.  Lots of firsts here.  In the "perfectness" that "god" existed in prior to this it couldn't have known what would, and would not, deal with sin that didn't exist yet so it must have been learning it all right at this moment I guess?  Since sins came from people and all.

 

          mwc

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the question concerning disagreeing with God.  There does seem to be the overwhelming feeling among most Christians not to question God.  There's definitely things in the Bible I find barbaric in nature just by looking at it, but I haven't really thought about disagreeing with God per say.  I'm under the assumption that God knows what He's doing, or else He isn't God.  If I stumble upon things I find harsh, my first thought is seeking to understand why God's actions were necessary.  I'm different than most traditional Christians here, not being satisfied with not questioning God.  I assume God knows what He's doing, and I seek to know why.  So I do expect answers to many things from God.  Which is why I'm researching these things, and looking for evidence.  Interestingly enough however, there are instances in the Bible where men disagree with God's actions, and convinces Him to not carry out His judgment.  Think Abraham pleading for Sodom, and Moses pleading for the people.

 

So the short answer is you never criticize God's actions. You research a way to be able to make his harsh actions seem palatable and justified. It would not reflect well on you to be worshiping a mean God that does mean things like flooding the whole world because he's angry at everyone he created, for example. So God must always be defended because when you defend God you are really defending yourself. :-) That's my take on it, anyway.

 

Why do you assume God knows what he's doing? Why assume there is a God at all? Why is Christianity the one true religion you believe? Why not Islam? Or Scientology? Have you researched these questions as well?

 

As an agnostic I enjoy not having to invent some reason to explain to myself why God didn't answer some prayer or why God allows rotten things to occur or exist or why he did something mean in the bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Six months probation issued by a judge pretty much equals "You're forgiven."

A thousand hours of community service equals "Nearly forgiven, with a touch of I'm miffed at you."

"Time served, case dismissed" (you were too cheap or broke and pathetic to bail out of jail so you spent 90 days there) equals "Quit wasting tax dollars! Get outta my courtroom!" :-)

 

 

 

So you might be saying God's punishments on Adam and Eve was overkill.

 

 

Actually I was just illustrating that judges often do simply wave their hand and say, "You're forgiven." because giving someone six months probation is not really a punishment. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.