EvC Forum: The First Questions In The Bible

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

...

Author

Topic: The First Questions In The Bible

Bailey

Member (Idle past 4392 days)

Posts: 574

From: Earth

Joined: 08-24-2003

Bailey Posts Only

Message 121 of 161 (418716)
08-29-2007 11:25 PM

Reply to: Message 119 by Rrhain
08-29-2007 5:08 AM

Re: Destiny

Bailey writes:

The tree of Life is regarded as the tree of Wisdom

Rrhain writes:

No, it isn't. The Tree of Knowledge is the the Tree of Wisdom. That's why it's called the Tree of "Knowledge." The root word is "da'ath," meaning "knowledge," "perception," "skill," "discernment," "understanding," "wisdom."

DOA. No it isn’t, no it isn’t. The Lexus is called the Honda. That's why it's called the Lexus. What kind of sense does that make. At least I had some biblical support.
Here we go . The words are not synonymous within the text of scripture. The Tree of the Knowledge is the Tree of Knowledge. And while "da’ath" can mean wisdom, it must be phrased in a specific way in order to do so. "Knowledge of good and evil" is not the correct phrasing and thus, it cannot mean "wisdom of good and evil."

Let me try this:
“”The man” had the knowledge of the words good and evil, but he did not have the wisdom to distinguish the two.“ Can you perceive the difference?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it is unfortunate you do not distinguish knowledge from wisdom. Perhaps this is why a Savior is needed. Although the words are the same in Hebrew there is obviously a difference or the translations could be exchanged within a text without molesting the text itself, whether in Scripture or casual conversation. I’ve provided some definition in hopes you can better capture the essence of the two. If it doesn’t help, perhaps you can hunt down some “magic fruit” and see if that works.

Knowledge writes:

(") ; ; ; - the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association - not a magical fruit.
Knowledge is what is known. Like the related concepts truth and belief, there is no single definition of knowledge on which scholars agree, but rather numerous theories and continued debate about the nature of knowledge.
Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association, and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose

Wisdom writes:

(") ; ‘; ; ‘; ‘ - ability to discern inner qualities and relationships . insight. Wisdom is the ability, developed through experience, insight and reflection, to discern truth and exercise good judgment. Wisdom is sometimes conceptualized as an especially well developed form of common sense. Most psychologists regard wisdom as distinct from the cognitive abilities measured by standardized intelligence tests. Wisdom is often considered to be a trait that can be developed by experience, but not taught. When applied to practical matters, the term wisdom is synonymous with prudence. Some see wisdom as a quality that even a child, otherwise immature, may possess independent of experience or complete knowledge.

Wisdom and knowledge are about the same as lemons and oranges . similar, but not identical. You’ll get it someday, I have faith in you.

Your quote from Proverbs isn't referencing Genesis.

DOA. Your correct . the quote from Proverbs is referencing the title of a tree . the Tree of Life . which can also be located in Genesis and Revelation. For some odd reason, which I don’t have the wisdom or knowledge of, the Tree of Life is never simulated to, nor made reference towards, the term knowledge in any of its eleven mentions from Genesis, Proverbs, or Revelation. I wonder if it’s because knowledge and wisdom are two different things?

Bailey writes:

As long as they didn”t turn into jealous, murderous, adulterous first, they were free to eat from this tree all along

Rrhain writes:

That's not what the Bible says:

Genesis 2:17 writes:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Rrhain writes:

I fail to see how "thou shalt not eat of it" is interpreted to mean, "go ahead and eat of it."

DOA.
That would be because the Tree of Life was being discussed within the context of the quote . ”As long as they didn”t ( eat from the Tree of the Knowledge and ) turn into jealous, murderous, adulterous first, they were free to eat from this tree (the Tree of Life)all along.”

By the way..."adulterous"? They were the only two people in existence. Who on earth, literally, is there to commit adultery with?

DOA. Adulterous . lustful, jealous. You make it sound has if the lovebirds were the only ones with restricted access to the Tree of Life. Let’s suppose the Tree of Life was not restricted . any number of people, including Cain’s wife (who only could have been his mother as you’ve kindly pointed out) could have ate from the Tree of Life and made a debauchery of the world for eternity . if precautions towards that end weren’t implemented. My apologies, I didn’t mean actual sexual adultery. But now that you mention it .

Wouldn’t Cain , in this regard, be committing adultery with his own mother, with blatant disregard towards his father, Adam. Even if Cain had Adam’s blessing would you suppose Immanuel’s words in Matthew 5:28 NIV were to no end when He declared, “ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”, or in Matthew 5:32 NIV where He states, “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”. Maybe you don’t believe in Immanuel. Maybe you disagree with the definition of adultery or fornication. If you apply your definition stretching technique like you do with knowledge and wisdom, you may be able to consider Cain’s jealous fit of rage an adulterous act of murder.

Bailey writes:

Even if they had the ability to distinguish between relative good and bad, which is supported no where in Judaic Scripture

Rrhain writes:

Nice try, but that's my argument: Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree. Therefore, it is impossible to declare their eating from the tree to be a "sin."

DOA. Ignorance is no excuse. It is impossible for the lovebirds to consider it a sin, but with God all things are possible. Elohim would still consider it a sin, whether Adam and Eve knew of Him or not (I do not know where you stand on this), because He has the knowledge of good and evil, as you say, from the beginning. If Elohim had the Knowledge, He could perceive there sin. Unless you do not agree doing the opposite of what God says is a “sin”.

Consider, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, it still makes noise. If an immigrant enters the USA and commits a murder, ignorant of the law, he will still be held accountable. Unless he has a good attorney. Apparently Adam didn’t.

Sin requires knowledge of good and evil which Adam and Eve didn't have since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

DOA. Man’s identification with sin may be relative to his knowledge. God, though merciful, may still hold you accountable in order to teach you as any good father would. Elohim has, does, and will always maintain wisdom.

They were sinning up a storm long before the serpent entered the picture and yet, nobody bats an eye. Why? Because they were innocent (not stupid) and thus, their actions could not be considered "sin."

DOA. Baseless comment. Where’s your evidence in regard to this supposed “sin storm” before the talking snake run in.

So what's so special about this act that innocence isn't good enough?

DOA. If you contend the lovebirds knew God from the beginning, as you’ve implied, it’s a simple differentiation between being nave and blatant disregard.

Bailey writes:

are you sure Elohim wasn't concerned with them possessing immortality without the desire and ability to make the right choice accordingly based on benevolence as opposed to malevolence?

Rrhain writes:

Huh? They just managed to get that ability, having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.

DOA. Consistently Rrhain...as in every time they are faced with a decision. Stay with me bro. I can’t figure out if you read into crap that way subconsciously, or if your doing it on purpose you ol” sonoma gun..

You’re not asserting your magic fruit gave them the desire and ability and desire to make the right choice accordingly based on benevolence as opposed to malevolence consistently are you?

I hope not. If the lovebirds possessed that quality on a consistent basis it certainly wasn’t inherent in their son Cain.

I can only hope this is a point of agreement between us.
Do you disagree the ability to know good from evil says nothing about what course of action a person will take?

So why does god panic over them eating from the Tree of Life?

DOA. The ability to know good from evil says nothing about what course of action a person will take
Should God have allowed Cain to eat from the Tree of Life, thus becoming a jealous murderer possessing immortality?

If your interpretation is true, nothing in the story makes sense.

Classic DOA tactic. If the interpretation I asserted that you completely molested is true, nothing in the story makes sense. If the interpretation I actually asserted is true God prevented all sorts of people through out history, including you and me, from potentially being assassinated by Cain, the King of Tyre, Legion, and the likes who all possessed the “the knowledge of good and evil” and slayed anyone they saw fit.

Do you honestly believe their mentality coupled with immortality would have been a great service to mankind?

Why would god tell them not to do something he wants them to do?

DOA. I have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about any longer.

When they do it, why would he punish them rather than allowing them to take the next step he wants them to take?

DOA. You’re making little sense. From the GOE text it seems God was preventing the potential existence of immortal people with the inherent ability to commit murder and the likes. Plain and simple.

Bailey writes:

You are making a huge assumption something was differentiated between good and evil after the fruit of knowledge incident

Rrhain writes:

As well I should since the text directly says so:

Genesis 3 writes:

6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7: And the eyes of them both were opened

Rrhain writes:

So since the text directly says that something was differentiated, why should we interpret that to mean something other than just that?

DOA. Potentially because the definition of the word knowledge itself

You seem to constantly confuse the first time Adam and Eve possessed self-awareness .

Genesis writes:

2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Genesis writes:

3:6 . she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked;

. with the non supported assertion that nudity awareness somehow grants them the ability to differentiate the benevolent from the malevolent ideas they may now become aware of.
Self-awareness gives way to the ability to acquire different types of knowledge.

Knowledge is defined as the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association. To suppose your magical fruit somehow instantly bestowed differentiation between two relative ideologies explicitly contradicts the definition of the word, not to mention Scripture.

Let’s try this .
Suppose your naked for a minute. If you want you can get naked to help walk yourself through this analogy.
The notion that the text refers to self awareness is bolstered by the fact that when your unaware of yourself (ex. sleeping, unconscious, one with God etc.) you do not realize you are naked. When you are aware of yourself (ex. Awake, conscious, one with yourself, etc.) you do realize you are naked.

They were naked and didn’t notice (were not ashamed) indicates no self-awareness.

Genesis writes:

2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame

They were naked and did notice (they were ashamed) indicates self-awareness.

Genesis writes:

3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked;

Stop eating the dogma flavored Gerber you’ve been spoon fed for so long and simply read the text with an unmolested view. Why, besides fundamental programming, should these two verses indicate anything more than self-awareness. You can put your clothes back on.

Remember, god backs up the assertion:

Genesis 3:22 writes:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

DOA. Again with an unsubstantiated inferences.
God is backing up four assertions with the verse you provided:
1) God knows good and evil - whether He can differentiate them is not mentioned.
2) The man knows good and evil - whether He can differentiate them is not mentioned.
3) God lives forever
4) The man should not live forever

Let me try this .
Even if God had the potential, but not the ability, to differentiate good and evil, but “the man” had both the potential and the ability, God could be referred to as “more manlike”, in the sense that God has the potential to differentiate as well as “the man” has the potential also. The two would still be similar.

Differentiation is another Rrhain and Co. production. Let me give you another analogy to substantiate “the man” could not tell what was good from what was evil, but rather that he simply was promoted with the capability to potentially separate them into their own categories at some point.
“The man” was “promoted” to “become as one of us” because he earned a “self-awareness allowing the capacity for potential knowledge“ badge . by consuming “magic fruit” .

Bailey writes:

There is a huge difference between having knowledge of things and being able to differentiate things.

Rrhain writes:

Precisely. That's my point: Adam and Eve were told, "Don't touch!" but they didn't understand what that meant. In order to do that, you need to have knowledge of good and evil and Adam and Eve don't have that since they haven't eaten from the tree yet.

Just for giggles, let’s try this .

Let’s say you pick apples for a living.
Now, suppose you never had citrus fruits.
If I gave you a bowl of lemons and oranges and said, “Here’s a bowl of lemons and oranges.” .
do you have the knowledge to state what’s in the bowl?
do you have the knowledge to differentiate them.?

Next I give you a bowl of apples, oranges, and lemons and ask, “ What types of fruit are in this bowl?” ( . remember . you’re an certified apple picker)
Do you have the knowledge to tell me what types of fruit are in the bowl?
Do you have the knowledge to differentiate what types of fruit are in the bowl?

Finally, you possess the mixed bowl of apples, oranges, and lemons.
In addition I give you three empty bowls.
Each bowl has a sticker. One says apples . One says oranges . One says lemons.
If I ask you to put the different fruits each in their own bowl, all matched with their appropriate sticker .
do you have the knowledge to differentiate the fruits and place them each in their appropriate bowl?

Do you get the separate elements of knowledge and differentiation?
Do you comprehend how you can know of two things . yet not be able to differentiate them?

Rrhain writes:

In fact, the very first thing they do indicates that they knew good from bad.

Bailey writes:

Empty speculation.

Rrhain writes:

(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Have you not read Genesis 3:7? There's a reason I'm not quoting that particular verse specifically, but it directly contradicts you.

Let’s take a look again . without allegorizing

Genesis 3:7 writes:

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Nope . no contradiction there. Are you sure you’re thinking of the right verse. With a literal interpretation the verse you’ve indicated, Genesis 3:7, implies nothing in terms of the relativity of good and evil, much less the ability to differentiate between them.

Genesis 3:7 does literally indicate Adam and Eve became self-aware of themselves for the first time when kept in the context of Genesis 2:25.

This self-awareness they received for the first time could potentially, and most likely did, lead to the ability to differentiate the knowledge of something good from the knowledge of something evil eventually. Adam, Eve, their son Cain and everybody else that ever existed, besides Immanuel, struggled with their knowledge of the relativity of good and their knowledge of the relativity of evil.

I heard it’s gonna remain that way ”til Immanuel comes back.

Bailey writes:

What does Adam and Eve being ashamed of their private bits, making aprons to protect their bits from shrubbery, and wanting privacy because they're naked have to do with the ability to know good from evil?

Rrhain writes:

Because it is wrong to be naked.

I suppose some people will agree with you that that God created us wrong . that is, naked. I will not however agree with the silly notion that it’s wrong to be naked or the notion that we were created wrong as you”ve implied with no basis. I will agree that God simply created us naked. Do you ask for forgiveness when you take a shower or do you shower with your apron on?

After all, a previous verse points out that they should have been ashamed but were not.

I’m assuming your reference is Genesis 2:25. Let’s take a look what comes immediately before, and directly after that verse to see if your baseless comment has any prudence .

Genesis 2:24 writes:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Genesis 2:25 writes:

The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Genesis 3:1 writes:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

Nope . nothing about nakedness being wrong. I hope you haven’t been showering with an apron on your whole life. Did your parents too?

I wonder if the lovebirds felt no shame because they had no conscience. Perhaps when their “eyes were opened” and they became aware of themselves for the first time they felt awkward because they had different kinds of bits. Adam was like, “Why do you have a hilly chest and I have a chest like a flat plain? Why do you have an inny and I have an outtie . that’s not cool. Let’s make some fig aprons ’til we figure this out.”. Did this awkward feeling lead them to create make shift fig aprons? Without allegorizing, that’s speculation within the parameters of the text. Seems being naked is not good or bad, just a little embarrassing sometimes.

Did anybody ever walk in on you when you had just gotten out of the shower. Did you jump back and hide behind the shower curtain? That’s what the lovebirds did when they heard Elohim as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day. That’s almost identical to the text of Genesis .

Genesis 3 writes:

7 . and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

Matches up just about perfectly. Hiding because your naked is not any indication of good or bad, it’s just polite . courteous you could say. It may be bad if somebody walks in on you when you just get out of the shower and you stand there like a pervert.

God was even nice enough to make them some more durable gear while they were roughin’ it .

Genesis 3 writes:

The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

Do you consider this some type of confirmation of being naked being bad. What’s bad is getting your unit snagged on a thistle or thorn bush while your pickin’ vegetables for dinner . .

Genesis 3 17-19 excerpted writes:

Cursed is the ground because of you . It will produce thorns and thistles for you . By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food .

Seems like the best thing you could have in a field with you picking vegetables would be a nice pair of leather pants . besides a small camper filled with migrant workers.
Makin’ them some leathers is about the nicest thing God did after your talking snake coerced them into eating the magical fruit of self awareness.

Bailey writes:

Who cares what the tree’s named anyway.

Rrhain writes:

Because it is what helps us distinguish it from other trees. If you're going to let it be an Anything Tree, its functions and powers being whatever you want it to be at the time, neither more nor less, then there's no point in continuing.

Interesting . if I call my Lexus a Dodge it will no longer perform like a Lexus. The name doesn’t cause the Lexus to ride smoothly; the engineering behind it does. How would calling an apple tree an Anything Tree somehow cause it to stop producing apples? This is rhetorical. Please spare me any more babble and I will offer you the same courtesy.

Bailey writes:

Study, study, study and kindly stick to what the Good Book says.

Rrhain writes:

Indeed. Why is it that when discussing what the text of Genesis 3 says, I've been the only one quoting it?

Hopefully I’ve lightened your load.
You make me glad to be alive.

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Paul the humble... writes:

"I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the "super-apostles," even though I am nothing."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 08-29-2007 5:08 AM		Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain

Member

Posts: 6351

From: San Diego, CA, USA

Joined: 05-03-2003

Rrhain Posts Only

Message 122 of 161 (418751)
08-30-2007 4:09 AM

Reply to: Message 120 by arachnophilia
08-29-2007 4:33 PM

Re: the paradox of genesis

arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:
quote:
And while "yada" can mean sex, it must be phrased in a specific way in order to do so. "Knowledge of good and evil" is not the correct phrasing and thus, it cannot mean "knowledge of sex."

no, "sex" would replace "knowledge." so, "sex for good and bad purposes." clearly, it can be used both ways. "be fruitful and multiply" vs raping outsiders.

But you're doing a simple substitution as if that were ever a valid thing to do. When a word has multiple meanings, context and conventional linguistic constructions will tell you which meaning is meant. You cannot simply substitute one definition for another and expect to have a valid interpretation.

Nothing in the phrasing of Genesis 2:17 indicates that it has anything to do with sex. The specific phrasing, down to the wording, can only mean concepts of knowledge and comprehension.

By your logic, if I were to say, "You're screwed, and I don't mean that in any sexual way," it would be valid to interpret it to mean, "You're going to be sexually assaulted," since "screwed" means "sex" in English. Never mind everything else in the sentence that directly contradicts that interpretation, "screwed" means "sex" and so that's what it means.

quote:
quote:
It is this same error that leads people to think that when the people of Sodom order Lot to bring out the men "so that we may know them," they're talking about having sex.

no, the mistake there is that "men" (in both "men of the city" and "men that cam to you last night") does not actually specify a gender, because in hebrew grammar a group of men and women takes the masculine gender.

Um, it can't be both? Besides, you've just made a non sequitur. We're not talking about the description of the crowd outside the door (which the Bible directly states is the entire town). We're talking about the specific wording that people claim means "so that we may have sex with them."

It doesn't mean that. The wording that is used in that passage is used over a hundred times elsewhere in the Bible and is never interpreted to mean "sex." What's so special about this one?

In order to get "yada" to mean "sex," it has to be phrased in a particular manner. If you look at earlier passages in Genesis such as "Adam knew his wife," you find that they aren't phrased anything like the passage of "so that we may know them." Thus, the idea that "yada" in the particular context of the story of Sodom is a story about sex is simply not justified by the text.

quote:
it's not about homosexuality, it's about inhospitality.

Indeed. For a whole host of reasons. One of which is that neither the word "sex" nor any phrasing that could possibly be rationally interpreted to mean "sex" appears.

quote:
it's really, really odd that you would read "i have two virgin daughters" as an invitation to sex, but not a well known euphemism.

But that's just it: It's not a "well-known euphemism." It doesn't mean that in the slightest. If I say that I want you to meet my parents so you can "know who they are," I don't mean for you to have sex with them, even though "know" means "sex" in English. In order to get it to mean "sex," you have to phrase it in a certain way and that phrase is not it.

The reason why we know that Lot means for the crowd to have sex with his daughters is because he directly says so. Note, he uses "yada" to mean sex and he phrases it specifically to mean sex: "which have not known man."

quote:
quote:
We cannot force a misunderstood English pun onto Hebrew.

on the contrary, the english "pun" comes directly from hebrew, via literal translations, especially the KJV.

But that's not what the Hebrew means. The exact phrasing used in that passage is used elsewhere in the Bible and is never interpreted to mean "sex." What's so special about this time?

quote:
but gen 19 is very much about sex.

Huh? Every single sentence in Gen 19 is about sex?

Genesis 19:1: And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

That sentence is about sex? Lot was going to have sex with the angels? They were going to have sex with him? The angels "came" to Sodom?

So if it is possible that some of the utterances in the chapter aren't about sex, is it not possible that the specific utterance, "so that we may know them," might be one of those that isn't about sex?

quote:
reading every instance of "know" as meanign sex would be wrong, but in some cases it's rather clear cut.

Indeed. And Gen 19:5 ain't one of 'em.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 120 by arachnophilia, posted 08-29-2007 4:33 PM		arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 123 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2007 1:28 PM	Rrhain has replied
	Message 124 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2007 3:16 PM	Rrhain has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

arachnophilia Posts Only

Message 123 of 161 (419031)
08-31-2007 1:28 PM

Reply to: Message 122 by Rrhain
08-30-2007 4:09 AM

euphemisms

look, you're preaching to the choir. how often do i make that same point here? but this is not some interpretation i've made up, and i don't even particularly agree with it. it does, however, exist.

It doesn't mean that.

what the heck else does it mean? in what way can simply saying "hello" be interpretted as malice or inhospitality?

The wording that is used in that passage is used over a hundred times elsewhere in the Bible and is never interpreted to mean "sex." What's so special about this one?

look, it's the same word that used when "adam knew his wife" and when "cain knew his wife" and when every other person in the torah bumps uglies with someone. is the grammar messing you up?

it's not that this is what it means all the time -- it's that it's a euphemism. and a common one, at that. it's like "slept" in english. it can mean sleeping, or it can mean boffing, and depends on the context and possibly winks and nudges. in english, we say "slept with" and it almost always means doing the horizontal mambo. in hebrew, you say "...yada et-(person)" and it almost always means someone got some play.

the only difference is that it's phrased in a future tense! that's like "i slept with her last night" means we got it on, but "i'm going to sleep with her tonight" just means i plan on taking a nap in her vicinity. that's just ridiculous!

Huh? Every single sentence in Gen 19 is about sex?

Genesis 19:1: And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

That sentence is about sex? Lot was going to have sex with the angels? They were going to have sex with him? The angels "came" to Sodom?

you're really grasping at straws here, rrhain. i'm really disappointed you would even try to distort what i said to mean that. the fact that both stories are about doing the nasty doesn't make every last sentance specifically about the old in-out-in-out.

no other reading adequately expresses something worthy of being considered inhospitable. in fact, an entire town showing up to greet vistors, introduce themselves, and welcome them to town is the very definition of hospitality. it clearly must mean something else.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 122 by Rrhain, posted 08-30-2007 4:09 AM		Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 146 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2007 8:51 PM		arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

arachnophilia Posts Only

Message 124 of 161 (419045)
08-31-2007 3:16 PM

Reply to: Message 122 by Rrhain
08-30-2007 4:09 AM

gen 19

reading every instance of "know" as meanign sex would be wrong, but in some cases it's rather clear cut.

Indeed. And Gen 19:5 ain't one of 'em.

just out of curiousity, can you find me a single source that says the "know" in genesis 19 means anything other sexual intercourse?

i think you'll be able to find a multitude of sources that say it's not about homosexuality, or that it's about inhospitality -- but even those don't deny the inhabitants of sodom mean to rape the visitors.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 122 by Rrhain, posted 08-30-2007 4:09 AM		Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 147 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2007 9:17 PM		arachnophilia has replied

pbee

Member (Idle past 6050 days)

Posts: 339

Joined: 06-20-2007

pbee Posts Only

Message 125 of 161 (419054)
08-31-2007 3:57 PM

Reply to: Message 6 by ICANT
07-13-2007 3:50 PM

quote:
Did God know it was going to happen? YES.

I don't mean to knit pick but if this is true, then God would be a liar(amongst other things).

While I don't doubt God could see the future of mankind or a particular event(timeline) The scriptures support the concept that God designed and placed His human creations with free will. No matter how we contort it, we cannot have it both ways. Either humans had free will or they didn't.

Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 6 by ICANT, posted 07-13-2007 3:50 PM		ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 126 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2007 5:15 PM		pbee has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

arachnophilia Posts Only

Message 126 of 161 (419067)
08-31-2007 5:15 PM

Reply to: Message 125 by pbee
08-31-2007 3:57 PM

free will vs. determinism is an age old debate.

one of the ideas, relating to genesis, is that man actually was not created with free will, or at least not, not meaningful free will, but that it is the tree of knowledge that grants them that.

i'm not sure how much water that holds. but there's also not much to say that the god of the torah even is prescient to begin with. certainly, in genesis 2, god creates by trial and error. would a prescient god do that?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 125 by pbee, posted 08-31-2007 3:57 PM		pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 127 by pbee, posted 08-31-2007 5:47 PM		arachnophilia has replied

pbee

Member (Idle past 6050 days)

Posts: 339

Joined: 06-20-2007

pbee Posts Only

Message 127 of 161 (419081)
08-31-2007 5:47 PM

Reply to: Message 126 by arachnophilia
08-31-2007 5:15 PM

I have never gotten the sense that God created by trial and error, reading those scriptures, though this doesn't mean much when all is said and done. I am interested however, in the reasoning behind such a belief.

As for prescience, from my own research it would seem as though God demonstrated a power of insight beyond human comprehension rather than crystal ball capacity. Although, both cases may very well produce similar results in the end. However, this attribute alone stands flimsy against the notion of God's will, which is all that is needed to cause things to happen.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 126 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2007 5:15 PM		arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2007 6:20 PM		pbee has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

arachnophilia Posts Only

Message 128 of 161 (419085)
08-31-2007 6:20 PM

Reply to: Message 127 by pbee
08-31-2007 5:47 PM

god creates man. man needs a place to live, so god makes a garden.

man is alone. "not good" says god, so god makes him some animals. "still not good enough" says god, so god makes woman.

that's trial and error.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 127 by pbee, posted 08-31-2007 5:47 PM		pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 129 by pbee, posted 08-31-2007 7:21 PM		arachnophilia has replied

pbee

Member (Idle past 6050 days)

Posts: 339

Joined: 06-20-2007

pbee Posts Only

Message 129 of 161 (419087)
08-31-2007 7:21 PM

Reply to: Message 128 by arachnophilia
08-31-2007 6:20 PM

You are correct, in all fairness, such a presentation of the creation account does seem to indicate a trial and error process. However, in a case such as this, it would seem as though we are looking a contextual misinterpretation rather than a shift in accountability.

Thought the concept of a duality in the creation accounts is not new, I have always found it ironic that people would choose to believe in a doctrine that falls in direct contradiction to a larger portion of the scriptures. In as case such as this one, negating the claims on God's infinite power and wisdom. This characteristic alone should be enough to draw attention to the discrepancy.

In the case of the two Creation accounts of Genesis, a closer look will help put things into perspective and demonstrate that the scriptures are not in contradiction after all.

If we look at Genesis 1, we can clearly see where the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2, it seems as though man was created before the animals. The reason for this is that the two chapters are presented as different viewpoints. The first describing the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them whereas the second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.

We can conclude this by taking note of the first account which is presented chronologically(six consecutive days or periods). The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. God then instructs Adam to name commence in the naming of the animals. Now, then, is the time to mention that God was forming from the ground all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.

So you see, contrary to what some would believe, God was not working by trial and error(as it would seem). But within the proper context God falls right in line with the remaining scriptures, stating that he is infinite in power and wisdom.

Taking it a step further, we could even conclude today that it would be childish for any being with the capacity to create something as complex as the universe, to stumble upon details as obvious as Adam lacking a female companion. This is purely the result of humans trying to reason like God.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2007 6:20 PM		arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 130 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2007 11:54 PM		pbee has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

arachnophilia Posts Only

Message 130 of 161 (419109)
08-31-2007 11:54 PM

Reply to: Message 129 by pbee
08-31-2007 7:21 PM

"seems?" nay, it is. i know not "seems."

i don't see how it's a contextual misrepresentation, taken in the context of genesis 2, or genesis 2-4, or the J document, or even the torah really. there are varying ideas of god -- this is only one of them. the god of the genesis 1 is prescient, and thus does everything in reverse order ahead of when it's needed.

i don't mean to sound crass here, but the idea of "contradicting a larger portion of the scriptures" is simply a myth. the bible is library of texts, many of which were written specifically to find fault with other texts already in the library. there are many different ideas of god and judaism contained between its two covers. and anyone who pretends that there is one consistent ideology either hasn't read the text critically enough, or is trying to decieve. or both. on a strictly logical level, the reason we have so much redundancy (2 creation acounts, 2 sets of 10 commandments, 4 gospels, kings AND chronicles, etc) is because of the differences between the texts. if they simply said the same thing, there'd only be one of each.

In as case such as this one, negating the claims on God's infinite power and wisdom. This characteristic alone should be enough to draw attention to the discrepancy.

but the problem is just that, and you will have to put aside your religion for a second to see this: some depictions of god are NOT infinitely powerful or wise. the one J certainly is not. the one in E is only slightly better. but it takes some willingness to look at the texts with fresh, unbiased eyes, and not try to read our religious beliefs into them.

in J, we see a god who gravely regrets ever making mankind. that's a very human emotion, for someone so abstractly different than us. and quite odd for a god who is perfect in every way, omnipotent and omniscient, to admit that things have gotten out of his control.

now, the god of isaiah and jeremiah might disagree. there, god himself takes credit for creating everything, and controlling everything: the blessing of the promised land, and the curse of exile. it's all god, and nothing ever left his control and watchful eye for a second. it's important to recognize that these are two different ideas, and they are both very valid and present in the text. and they both speak truths about the nature of god. without one depcition, the bible only gives us half the picture.

We can conclude this by taking note of the first account which is presented chronologically(six consecutive days or periods). The second is written in order of topical importance.

no, this argument does not fly. they are both written consecutively (specifically, using the vav-consecutive), and the rationality of the second story depends entirely on its order. plants must be created after man, because man needs to tend them. animals must be created after man, because the logic is that man is alone. womam must then be created after animals, because animals weren't good enough. if we rearrange the story to suit genesis 1, it makes as much sense as reading a "choose your own adventure" book from front to back. and non-linear stories are a relatively new invention.

So you see, contrary to what some would believe, God was not working by trial and error(as it would seem).

sure, if you simply re-write the story so it says what you want it to. but the way it's been for the last 2600 years or so has been in a logical order, where each action depends entirely on the action before, and each action is then judged "good" or "bad." that's trial and error.

but you see, that statement is imbibed with anachronism. what we know of the universe today is very different from what the ancient jews knew of the universe. even the description given in genesis 1 (which is much newer) is far, far more simplistic than what we know today. the same level of cognitive dissonance rarely happens when we read of marduk forming man from clay. marduk is a god, surely he could get it right the first time! makes about as much sense --

-- what you're doing is changing something around because of what you personally believe. there's issues with having the text of the bible dictate belief, but there is a much greater issue with belief dictating the text of the bible. at the very least, it should go in the other direction. read it like it's any other book, not like you know what it's really supposed to say.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 129 by pbee, posted 08-31-2007 7:21 PM		pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 131 by pbee, posted 09-01-2007 12:34 AM		arachnophilia has replied

pbee

Member (Idle past 6050 days)

Posts: 339

Joined: 06-20-2007

pbee Posts Only

Message 131 of 161 (419111)
09-01-2007 12:34 AM

Reply to: Message 130 by arachnophilia
08-31-2007 11:54 PM

quote:
don't mean to sound crass here, but the idea of "contradicting a larger portion of the scriptures" is simply a myth. the bible is library of texts, many of which were written specifically to find fault with other texts already in the library. there are many different ideas of god and judaism contained between its two covers. and anyone who pretends that there is one consistent ideology either hasn't read the text critically enough, or is trying to decieve. or both. on a strictly logical level, the reason we have so much redundancy (2 creation acounts, 2 sets of 10 commandments, 4 gospels, kings AND chronicles, etc) is because of the differences between the texts. if they simply said the same thing, there'd only be one of each.

I'm not sure my argument was properly conveyed here. The contradiction issue takes place when a particular theory or beliefs is chosen based on scriptural understanding which ends up in contradiction throughout the biblical criticism. For example, there was no need to choose the second account of Genesis over the first as the outstanding theory, yet it was chosen. However, in doing so, the person(s) find themselves in contempt with numerous biblical terms and compromising on host of accounts and other biblical scriptures.

So to summarize, we have people cherry picking one out of many possibilities while completely ignoring the signs that the reasoning is not withstanding of the remainder of scriptures.

Such an example though basic, raises some very obvious issues with the reasoning you presented.

quote:
but the problem is just that, and you will have to put aside your religion for a second to see this: some depictions of god are NOT infinitely powerful or wise. the one J certainly is not. the one in E is only slightly better. but it takes some willingness to look at the texts with fresh, unbiased eyes, and not try to read our religious beliefs into them.

in J, we see a god who gravely regrets ever making mankind. that's a very human emotion, for someone so abstractly different than us. and quite odd for a god who is perfect in every way, omnipotent and omniscient, to admit that things have gotten out of his control.

now, the god of isaiah and jeremiah might disagree. there, god himself takes credit for creating everything, and controlling everything: the blessing of the promised land, and the curse of exile. it's all god, and nothing ever left his control and watchful eye for a second. it's important to recognize that these are two different ideas, and they are both very valid and present in the text. and they both speak truths about the nature of god. without one depcition, the bible only gives us half the picture.

You raise a good point. Unfortunately, I never took the initiative to dedicated my research to other religious doctrines. Though my choice was based on Christianity, it is unfortunate that alternate faiths and beliefs remain very much bound by geographic and ethnic implications. I for one would of loved to travel the world and study all of the options to that effect. Having said this, I am pleased to say that I am not bound by any religious group or enterprises.

In the mid part of your comment, you make reference to a human emotion in the J document(Not sure what this means btw). And to this I would like to mention that your reasoning of this scripture seems somewhat skewed. For example; is it even sound to conclude that God demonstrates *a human emotion when we were etched in God's image? Would it not be the other way around? Furthermore, some translations render the the account with the term "regret" however the Greek and Hebrew scriptures present it with a different emotion. One of long thought or contemplation. In either case, God demonstrated that He had feelings. By all accounts this is a good thing.

Nevertheless, I remain interested in the scriptural passages which you make reference to in your argument.

quote:
sure, if you simply re-write the story so it says what you want it to. but the way it's been for the last 2600 years or so has been in a logical order, where each action depends entirely on the action before, and each action is then judged "good" or "bad." that's trial and error.

Do we even have 2600 year old data to scrutinize? Last I looked the latest we had at our disposition were 700 year old documents. Thought we do have the dead sea scrolls, they remain fragmented and the Genesis account seems to be missing.

quote:
what you're doing is changing something around because of what you personally believe. there's issues with having the text of the bible dictate belief, but there is a much greater issue with belief dictating the text of the bible. at the very least, it should go in the other direction. read it like it's any other book, not like you know what it's really supposed to say.

Thats an interesting statement. I think reality would prove otherwise. Unlike most people, I was not raised in a religious environment. In fact, I was drawn to my own path without any inherent or biased desires. It was not until I began to study the ancient scriptures that I chose to settle on a belief. As far as I can tell, it came after the fact. So you see, it was by your own emotions that you assumed such things.

Nevertheless, I have no issues with any such accusations, I do however find it interesting that the only viable option to explain my own contradictions is that I am bound by some religious belief or otherwise. Thought it remains quite possible that my observations were based purely on my own scriptural research and understanding.

Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 130 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2007 11:54 PM		arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 150 by arachnophilia, posted 09-02-2007 12:52 AM		pbee has replied

Rob

Suspended Member (Idle past 5871 days)

Posts: 2297

Joined: 06-01-2006

Rob Posts Only

Message 132 of 161 (419116)
09-01-2007 2:07 AM

Reply to: Message 7 by ringo
07-13-2007 4:24 PM

Ringo:

The fact is we do question, we always have and, hopefully, we always will.

Why?

What are we looking for?

And what were we questioning?

Ringo:

Thinking is a good thing.

Why would a human being think of doing something that He (or she) doesn't need or want to think about in the first place (ie. what your brother tastes like skined and fried in oil)?

For arguments sake, if humanity was in fact created good by God's influence... then how would we explain our badness unless there was some other influencing factor other than God?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 7 by ringo, posted 07-13-2007 4:24 PM		ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 133 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-01-2007 2:33 AM	Rob has not replied
	Message 135 by ringo, posted 09-01-2007 9:48 AM	Rob has replied

Archer Opteryx

Member (Idle past 3620 days)

Posts: 1811

From: East Asia

Joined: 08-16-2006

Archer Opteryx Posts Only

Message 133 of 161 (419119)
09-01-2007 2:33 AM

Reply to: Message 132 by Rob
09-01-2007 2:07 AM

the species that asks

Rob:

Why?

What are we looking for?

And what were we questioning?

We question because that leads to the gathering of information, formation of concepts, and gaining of understanding.

This ability has been our strong suit as a species.

It wasn't our flying ability, that's for sure. But notice that, through our ability to ask questions and come to understandings, we can now fly higher and faster than any bird.

It serves us well. So we keep doing it. As a species it is 'that thing we do.'

Birds fly. We ask.

Why would a human being think of doing something that He (or she) doesn't need or want to think about in the first place (ie. what your brother tastes like skined and fried in oil)?

I wasn't thinking about that. You were, though, so you can tell us.

___

Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 132 by Rob, posted 09-01-2007 2:07 AM		Rob has not replied

Archer Opteryx

Member (Idle past 3620 days)

Posts: 1811

From: East Asia

Joined: 08-16-2006

Archer Opteryx Posts Only

Message 134 of 161 (419120)
09-01-2007 2:47 AM

Reply to: Message 69 by CK
08-24-2007 4:26 PM

oldies but goodies

CK:

When God creates the universe - he knows every action in the universe upon til the end of the universe before he creates it. Therefore any actions in the universe are a direct result of the how god created the universe and therefore there is no freewill and no actions occur that are not a direct result of how he creates the universe. Well unless he makes the creation event random and does not know how it will all turn out until he creates it but if he does not know how it will all turn out then he is not god and did not create the universe.

In short - it's a made-up story.

Welcome back, CK. Good to find you here.

A similar situation, interestingly enough, appears in Wagner's retelling of the Icelandic Ring saga. In order to achieve certain goals that are important to him the chief god, Wotan, needs to sire a free agent that will act in complete independence of his control. The catch is that, in allowing this free agent to exist, he really does have to surrender control. Wotan has to give up on the idea that the goals he values will ever be achieved at all.

It's also a made-up story.

___

This message is a reply to:
	Message 69 by CK, posted 08-24-2007 4:26 PM		CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 137 by Rob, posted 09-01-2007 10:43 AM		Archer Opteryx has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 434 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

ringo Posts Only

Message 135 of 161 (419139)
09-01-2007 9:48 AM

Reply to: Message 132 by Rob
09-01-2007 2:07 AM

Rob writes:

quote:
The fact is we do question, we always have and, hopefully, we always will.

Why?

What are we looking for?

And what were we questioning?

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Why would a human being think of doing something that He (or she) doesn't need or want to think about in the first place....

I didn't say he (or she) would.

I said, "Thinking is a good thing." I didn't say that all thoughts are equally good. Thinking is necessary to separate the good from the bad.

For arguments sake, if humanity was in fact created good by God's influence... then how would we explain our badness unless there was some other influencing factor other than God?

If we were created good, there would be no need for thought at all. The reason we can recognize "badness" in ourselves is because we question what is good and what is bad.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 132 by Rob, posted 09-01-2007 2:07 AM		Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 136 by Rob, posted 09-01-2007 10:31 AM		ringo has replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

...

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	DrJones*, LamarkNewAge, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,480 Year: 3,737/9,624 Month: 608/974 Week: 221/276 Day: 61/34 Hour: 4/3