Genesis contradictions?

[Humanistheart]

The point Jay is trying to make is that you have not provided an argument; you've stated a fact. Saying that the Bible has contradictions is like saying "air has oxygen"(as my English teacher would say.) It's been common knowledge for centuries.

You have not provided any debatable argument.

Debatable is a matter of opinion. Jesus never ful filled the messianic prophicies for example, this is a fact, but christians will still debate this. Not well mind you, but they will debate it. And who said facts aren't relevant to a post? Are you saying that facts aren't important? But on the other hand you at least articulated WHY you felt the previous post unhelpful or unnecessary, unlike Jay. You are making a point; he was not.

And air has oxygen would be a vast over simplification of the molicules that make up our atmosphere. This bit of limited thinking makes it clear why your 'teacher' is just an English teacher and not say, a science or philosophy teacher.

 

[Riverwolf]

Debatable is a matter of opinion. Jesus never ful filled the messianic prophicies for example, this is a fact, but christians will still debate this. Not well mind you, but they will debate it. And who said facts aren't relevant to a post? Are you saying that facts aren't important?

Of course not. Facts are very important. But they're useless if you don't tell us what they mean.

But on the other hand you at least articulated WHY you felt the previous post unhelpful or unnecessary, unlike Jay. You are making a point; he was not.

Thank you.

And air has oxygen would be a vast over simplification of the molicules that make up our atmosphere. This bit of limited thinking makes it clear why your 'teacher' is just an English teacher and not say, a science or philosophy teacher.

Air does have oxygen. That's a fact that can't be debated. That is the point he was trying to make. Saying "air has oxygen" is not saying "air only has oxygen."

My teacher COULD have been a philosophy teacher, because he wasn't just teaching us how to write; he was teaching us how to THINK. (Therefore many of the students hated him. lol)

 

[Humanistheart]

Of course not. Facts are very important. But they're useless if you don't tell us what they mean.

My teacher COULD have been a philosophy teacher, because he wasn't just teaching us how to write; he was teaching us how to THINK. (Therefore many of the students hated him. lol)

Hmm, I'd be weary of this. I had proffesors in lower division class's that would have said the same thing. However teaching one to think is sometimes the same as teaching one to think the way certian individuals want them to. Or in other words conditioning or brainwashing people. I had one proffesor who addimately believed and taught that humankind evolved in Mexico, hopped on big logs and floated to africa, and that's why people think we evolved in africa. This was at Sonoma State, a school I left after 2 semisters for a higher level college, Cal Poly in Slo. I hope you take everything the afformentioned teacher and other's say with a grain of salt, and look into their accuracy on your own before accepting them. You probably already do, but if not, I'd start.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hmm, I'd be weary of this. I had proffesors in lower division class's that would have said the same thing. However teaching one to think is sometimes the same as teaching one to think the way certian individuals want them to. Or in other words conditioning or brainwashing people. I had one proffesor who addimately believed and taught that humankind evolved in Mexico, hopped on big logs and floated to africa, and that's why people think we evolved in africa. This was at Sonoma State, a school I left after 2 semisters for a higher level college, Cal Poly in Slo. I hope you take everything the afformentioned teacher and other's say with a grain of salt, and look into their accuracy on your own before accepting them. You probably already do, but if not, I'd start.

Hence why I said HOW to think, instead of WHAT to think. Maybe it would have been more accurate to say think analytically and work methodically.

 

[Humanistheart]

Hence why I said HOW to think, instead of WHAT to think. Maybe it would have been more accurate to say think analytically and work methodically.

Ah yes, good rewrite. I undestood you meant how and not what, but depending on what is meant by 'how' to think I did not consider this better. Although looking back my chosen example probabaly did not make this distinction clear. I should have gone with a bettter example, lol. But at any rate I'd completely support the new way you put that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hmm, I'd be weary of this. had proffesors in lower division class's that would have said the same thing.

Classic ...

 

[Father Heathen]

Laundry lists of contradictions are regurgitated almost weekly in innumerably forums such as this. They are devoid of seriousness, devoid of scholarship, and devoid of value, being little more than juvenile attempt at ridicule.

Yes, there are contradictions in Genesis.

Yes, critical theists and Biblical scholars by the thousands have known about them and studied them for centuries.

Yes, the most reasonable (and widely embraced) explanation is that the Tanakh is a human effort.

Therefore?​

You do realize that such "juvenile laundry lists of contradictions" are often used to address fundamentalists who hold the torah, bible, etc to be literal, inerrant and infallible works, right? It obviously tears you up on the inside when the "tanakh" doesn't get the reverence and admiration you think it deserves, doesn't it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You do realize that such "juvenile laundry lists of contradictions" are often used to address fundamentalists who hold the torah, bible, etc to be literal, inerrant and infallible works, right?

Of course.

It obviously tears you up on the inside when the "tanakh" doesn't get the reverence and admiration you think it deserves, doesn't it?

I just consider the source.

 

[Arlanbb]

Of course.
I just consider the source.

Hi Jayhawker ~ I honestly would be interested in your opinion of what kind of "reverence and admiration" you think the Tanakh deserves? I'm not trying to pick an argument just would like to understand your theology better. You have a great day.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi Jayhawker ~ I honestly would be interested in your opinion of what kind of "reverence and admiration" you think the Tanakh deserves? I'm not trying to pick an argument just would like to understand your theology better. You have a great day.

Thanks for the question.

The answer is complicated, more so given a religious naturalism that does not presume, much less insist upon, the existence of God -- mine is a somewhat deficient theology.

You might wish to start here. We can pursue the question further in a different thread if you wish ...

 

[logician]

There was no Adam or Eve, we evolved from other primates. That said, I'm sure there was much incest going on throughout the history of our species. In fact, incest, or inbreeding, is how "fixing" of genetic traits happens the fastest. Ask any dog breeder.

 

[Deeje]

I listed scripture that clearly shows male and female was created on sixth day. Eve was not created till after the seventh day, also proven in scripture. This is proof all other races was created on the sixth day. Genesis 4: 16 &17 back it up even more. I have given plenty of evidence, it is your interpretation that differs from what the scripture actually says, not mine.

Sorry if I am repeating something already posted, this is a tedious thread...:sleep:

I just wanted to mention that "male and female" created at the end of the 6th day were Adam and Eve, not all races. They did not sin till the beginning of the 7th day...the one where God RESTED from all his creative works. (Hence no creation of anything or anyone) There were no children in the Garden because they were childless when they were expelled. All races today did not descend from Adam directly...they descended from Noah. :yes: Remember the flood?

Did you not read the rest of Genesis?

Deeje

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry if I am repeating something already posted, this is a tedious thread...:sleep:

I just wanted to mention that "male and female" created at the end of the 6th day were Adam and Eve, not all races. ... Did you not read the rest of Genesis?

Did you? And did you know what you were reading? The best rendering of the Biblical Hebrew adam in Genesis 1:26-27 is humankind - see Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis.

 

[Arlanbb]

Thanks for the question.

The answer is complicated, more so given a religious naturalism that does not presume, much less insist upon, the existence of God -- mine is a somewhat deficient theology.

You might wish to start here. We can pursue the question further in a different thread if you wish ...

Yes, I went "here" and see what you mean by "complicated". I'm not sure i'm ready to go in that direction. I guess i have traveled to far down a different road to turn around @ my age. I'm convinced, through my experiences in archaeology in Israel, that the many books in the bible are only a short history of what the Hebrews think God has done for them. The Hebrew story of creation and Adam and Eve does not match the real history of this earth where bi-pedial humans have been walking this planet for over 3,000,000 years.
I do enjoy your one and two lines that you pop up with every once in a while.
Sounds like you live in the Levant area of th world. Most of the time when i was there on a dig, it was just south of the Sea of Galiliee at Sha'ar Hagolan in the Jordan Valley working with Dr. Yosef Garfinkel uncovering the Neolithic period, about 8,000 years ago.
Out of all the places in the world i have visited my time in Israel was the most memerable and would love to go back every year if i had the $$$. Keep ing arlan

 

[Arlanbb]

All races today did not descend from Adam directly...they descended from Noah. :yes: Remember the flood?

Did you not read the rest of Genesis?

Hi Deeje ~ You say that "All races" are descendants of Noah, does that include the Aztec's of Central America who lived there 8,000 years ago, and the Aborigines of Australia who have lived there for about 80,000 or so years? By the way when did the Genesis flood happen?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, I went "here" and see what you mean by "complicated". I'm not sure i'm ready to go in that direction. I guess i have traveled to far down a different road to turn around @ my age. I'm convinced, through my experiences in archaeology in Israel, that the many books in the bible are only a short history of what the Hebrews think God has done for them. The Hebrew story of creation and Adam and Eve does not match the real history of this earth where bi-pedial humans have been walking this planet for over 3,000,000 years.

One should not expect someone at your age and with your purported experiences in archaeology to employ terms such as "bi-pedial." Bipedalism, on the other hand, is traceable back to afarensis. And no, the Biblical story of Adam and Eve does not match the "real" history of Earth.

Sounds like you live in the Levant area of th world.

I live on the Northwestern Mesopatamian fringe of Chicago ...

 

[Arlanbb]

One should not expect someone at your age and with your purported experiences in archaeology to employ terms such as "bi-pedial." Bipedalism, on the other hand, is traceable back to afarensis. And no, the Biblical story of Adam and Eve does not match the "real" history of Earth.

I live on the Northwestern Mesopatamian fringe of Chicago ...

Did I used "Bi-Pedial", -- i sure did - It looks like i didn't proof read all my own posting. I guess it is something like trying to use the word "bipetalous" for describing someone who is pedaling a one seat bike, -- right? "Afarensis' that's a new one for me.:foot:

 

[Deeje]

Did you? And did you know what you were reading? The best rendering of the Biblical Hebrew adam in Genesis 1:26-27 is humankind - see Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis.

Seriously JS, you honestly believe that the Adam spoken about in Genesis was collective humankind?
Genesis 2:7, 8, "And the Lord God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul. Further, the Lord God planted a garden in E′den, toward the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed."

Genesis 2:19, 20. “Now the Lord God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call it, each living soul, that was its name. So the man was calling the names of all the domestic animals and of the flying creatures of the heavens and of every wild beast of the field, but for man there was found no helper as a complement of him.”

Genesis 2:21, 22, "Hence the Lord God had a deep sleep fall upon the man and, while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. And the Lord God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man."
Does this sound like something that happened to 'collective humankind'?

Genesis 3:20, "After this Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she had to become the mother of everyone living."

It does not appear to be 'humankind' spoken about here. It appears to be a singular man who was alone and in need of a mate. When a mate was provided "she" had to become the mother of "everyone living".

Sorry, but your take on Genesis is a little skewed IMO.

Deeje

 

[sojourner]

It does not appear to be 'humankind' spoken about here. It appears to be a singular man who was alone and in need of a mate.

When a mate was provided "she" had to become the mother of "everyone living".

When you don't have the correct lenses on your face, things can appear in all sorts of ways that are not so. You sound like George Costanza spotting raccoons on the highway without his glasses. (They were really mail boxes.) JS is absolutely correct here. Adam isnt a person, but a literary type, used to describe humanity.

 

[Deeje]

When you don't have the correct lenses on your face, things can appear in all sorts of ways that are not so. You sound like George Costanza spotting raccoons on the highway without his glasses. (They were really mail boxes.) JS is absolutely correct here. Adam isnt a person, but a literary type, used to describe humanity.

Mmmm. Paul obviously didn't think so...in Romans 5:12 he says: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” So, according to the Bible, the basic reason why people do bad things is inheritance—we have inherited sinful, wrong tendencies from "one man". Did mankind collectively eat from the forbidden fruit? Was it a mob attack on that tree?

The Jews were meticulous record keepers. Look at the genealogy recorded in Luke Chapter 3. It is a record of real people in a direct line, beginning with Jesus and ending with...
[son] of E′noch,
[son] of Ja′red,
[son] of Ma·ha′la·le·el,
[son] of Ca·i′nan,
38 [son] of E′nosh,
[son] of Seth,
[son] of Adam,
[son] of God.

1 Corinthians 15:45 says, "It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit" The last Adam is Jesus Christ whose life corresponded with his. He gave his life in fulfillment of God's Law, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life". It is why Christ had to be born as a human child and offer his life as a 'corresponding' ransom for what Adam forfeited; 'a perfect life for a perfect life'.
Why do you want the Bible to say what it does not say? By what authority do you assume that your statements are true? Back them up with scriptures.

Maybe it's your raccoons that are mailboxes....?

Deeje