Genesis contradictions?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Seriously JS, you honestly believe that the Adam spoken about in Genesis was collective humankind?

That is not what I said - a further example of why you might consider reading comprehension an area in dire need of improvement.

 

[sojourner]

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

Paula is speaking metaphorically. Luke's genaeology is also a literary device, and not meant to be taken literalistically.

 

[Deeje]

That is not what I said - a further example of why you might consider reading comprehension an area in dire need of improvement.

Back up your argument with scripture JS, or it's just speculation. An opinion is not truth.
Where does it tell us in the Bible that Adam was not a single human being?

 

[Riverwolf]

Back up your argument with scripture JS, or it's just speculation. An opinion is not truth.
Where does it tell us in the Bible that Adam was not a single human being?

It's not speculation. It's a THEORY, one supported by centuries of scholarship and scientific knowledge.

Have you ever cracked open a study Bible?

 

[Deeje]

Paula is speaking metaphorically. Luke's genaeology is also a literary device, and not meant to be taken literalistically.

I'm sure you meant Paul, but again, back this up with scripture or it is just an opinion. Which you are entitled to...but don't pass it off as fact without proof.

 

[Deeje]

It's not speculation. It's a THEORY, one supported by centuries of scholarship and scientific knowledge.

Have you ever cracked open a study Bible?

Been studying the Bible for over 40 years...you want to talk to me about scholarship and scientific knowledge and fancy sounding titles that mean nothing? Seriously, I am like Christ's first disciples...unlettered and ignorant. Hallelujah!

1 Cor 3:18-20 "Let no one be seducing himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” And again: “The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile."
Luke 10:21. "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones, and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you."

I rest my case.... I would rather be classified by you as ignorant than to be designated as such by God . :drool:

Deeje

 

[Riverwolf]

Been studying the Bible for over 40 years...you want to talk to me about scholarship and scientific knowledge and fancy sounding titles that mean nothing? Seriously, I am like Christ's first disciples...unlettered and ignorant. Hallelujah!

1 Cor 3:18-20 "Let no one be seducing himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” And again: “The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile."

Paul's own opinion. You yourself said opinion isn't truth.

Luke 10:21. "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones, and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you."

I hardly call the pharisees and priests in the gospels "wise." Surely the disciples, despite being some of the most dense people in all of literature, are FAR wiser than the pharisees, etc.

Intellectual knowledge is useless without wisdom (vice-versa can sometimes also be true, but not always, and never as profoundly.) The Sages have long been saying so, even before Jesus:

Shvetaketu was Uddalaka's son.
When he was twelve, his father said to him:
"it is time for you to find a teacher,
Dear one, for no one in our family
Is a stranger to the spiritual life."

So Shvetaketu went to a teacher
And studied all the Vedas for twelve years.
At the end of this time he returned home,
Proud of his intellectual knowledge.

"You seem to be proud of all this learning,"
Said Uddalaka. "But did you ask
Your teacher for that spiritual wisdom
Which enables your heart to hear the unheard,
Think the unthought, and know the unknown?"

"What is that wisdom, Father?" asked the son.

Uddalaka said to Shvetaketu:
"AS by knowing one lump of clay, dear one,
We come to know all things made out of clay
That they differ only in name and form,
While the stuff of which are all made out of clay;
As by knowing one gold nugget, dear one,
We come to know all things made out of gold:
That they differ only in name and form,
While the stuff of which all are made is gold;
AS by knowing one tool of iron, dear one,
We come to know all things made out of iron:
That they differ only in name and form,
While the stuff of which all are made is iron-
So through that spiritual wisdom, dear one,
We come to know that all of life is one."

"My teachers must not have known this wisdom,"
Said Shvetaketu, "for if they had known,
How could they have failed to teach it to me? Please
instruct me in this wisdom, Father."

"Yes, dear one, I will," replied his father.
-Chandogya Upanishad, 6:1.1-1.7

I rest my case.... I would rather be classified by you as ignorant than to be designated as such by God . :drool:

Deeje

Not quite ignorant, especially if you have been studying the Bible as long as that.


But have you been studying the Bible, or have you been studying a single translation of it, and only studying Christian commentaries? Because the best way to study the Bible is to read ALL the commentaries on it, not just Christian/Evangelical ones.

 

[Deeje]

Paul's own opinion. You yourself said opinion isn't truth.

My opinion is not part of the Bible, Paul's was.

I hardly call the pharisees and priests in the gospels "wise." Surely the disciples, despite being some of the most dense people in all of literature, are FAR wiser than the pharisees, etc.

The point Jesus was making was that they were wise in their own eyes, in their own estimation...self righteous. This wasn't how God viewed them. They were delusional. :yes:

Intellectual knowledge is useless without wisdom (vice-versa can sometimes also be true, but not always, and never as profoundly.) The Sages have long been saying so, even before Jesus:

The worldly wise have nothing to teach me when I have the Creator of the universe and his son as tutors. It is these who impart wisdom along with knowledge and all is tempered with God's cardinal quality of love.

Not quite ignorant, especially if you have been studying the Bible as long as that.

But have you been studying the Bible, or have you been studying a single translation of it, and only studying Christian commentaries? Because the best way to study the Bible is to read ALL the commentaries on it, not just Christian/Evangelical ones.

I have several translations that I use, though I have my favorites. What need is there for Commentaries from outside Christianity? I make the distinction between "churchianity" and genuine "Christianity". Thinking outside the square is something I have always done. How can one evaluate anything if one does not explore all the facts?
Pagan religion holds nothing for me. It is satan's smorgasboard...tuck in, fill up, walk away empty.

Deeje

 

[Riverwolf]

My opinion is not part of the Bible, Paul's was.

And it wasn't added until later.

Having read his letters, I disagree with most of what he said.

The point Jesus was making was that they were wise in their own eyes, in their own estimation...self righteous. This wasn't how God viewed them. They were delusional. :yes:

I agree.

The worldly wise have nothing to teach me when I have the Creator of the universe and his son as tutors. It is these who impart wisdom along with knowledge and all is tempered with God's cardinal quality of love.

Then why listen to what Paul said? He was as worldly as you and me.

I have several translations that I use, though I have my favorites. What need is there for Commentaries from outside Christianity? I make the distinction between "churchianity" and genuine "Christianity". Thinking outside the square is something I have always done. How can one evaluate anything if one does not explore all the facts?

Then it should be no problem for you to take a look at Jewish commentaries on the Bible, as well as literary commentaries on it.

Pagan religion holds nothing for me. It is satan's smorgasboard...tuck in, fill up, walk away empty.

Deeje

What's paganism have to do with anything?

 

[sojourner]

Back up your argument with scripture JS, or it's just speculation. An opinion is not truth.
Where does it tell us in the Bible that Adam was not a single human being?

In the Hebrew language (in which Genesis was written), that's what the word a'dam means. The Hebrew word for "man" is ish.

I'm sure you meant Paul, but again, back this up with scripture or it is just an opinion. Which you are entitled to...but don't pass it off as fact without proof.

Paul was a Jew and would have spoken Hebrew. He was fully aware of what the term a'dam meant. Therefore, it only makes sense that he knew the Genesis account to be allegorical.

The Biblical account of the creation is allegorical. Hebrew is the language of the OT and means what it means. There's your "Biblical proof."

 

[sojourner]

I am like Christ's first disciples...unlettered and ignorant. Hallelujah!

They were also quite familiar with the Biblical languages and the culture out of which the texts came. We are not. Therefore, it behooves us to study in order to become familiar with them, as the first disciples were.

1 Cor 3:18-20 "Let no one be seducing himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” And again: “The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile."

This isn't talking about Bible scholarship. It's talking about the system of leadership in the Church. Therefore, this passage is not cogent to your argument.

Luke 10:21. "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones, and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you."

This quotation is widely believed to be a later interpolation by the author, and not an authentic quotation of Jesus. As such, its credibility can only be carried so far.

I rest my case

Maybe you should find a stronger foundation upon which to rest your case, other than your own ideas about what the Bible is saying...

My opinion is not part of the Bible, Paul's was.

Not when he wrote it.

The point Jesus was making was that they were wise in their own eyes, in their own estimation...self righteous. This wasn't how God viewed them. They were delusional.

In what way is responsible Bible scholarship "self-righteous?" If not, in what way does this particular passage prove anything?

In fact, it's statements like these:

Seriously, I am like Christ's first disciples...unlettered and ignorant. Hallelujah!

that appear to be self-righteous.
As well as this:

The worldly wise have nothing to teach me when I have the Creator of the universe and his son as tutors.

What need is there for Commentaries from outside Christianity?

Some of the best scholars are not Christian. They should be heard, as well.

I make the distinction between "churchianity" and genuine "Christianity".

Useless where Biblical exegesis is concerned.

How can one evaluate anything if one does not explore all the facts?

How can one explore all the facts, without listening to all the reputable voices on the subject?

Pagan religion holds nothing for me. It is satan's smorgasboard...tuck in, fill up, walk away empty.

Except that the OT stories have a whole lot of parallels in earlier, Pagan stories, and are widely thought to have evolved from them. One should always read the list of ingredients before consuming anything...

 

[Deeje]

They were also quite familiar with the Biblical languages and the culture out of which the texts came. We are not. Therefore, it behooves us to study in order to become familiar with them, as the first disciples were.

This isn't talking about Bible scholarship. It's talking about the system of leadership in the Church. Therefore, this passage is not cogent to your argument.

This quotation is widely believed to be a later interpolation by the author, and not an authentic quotation of Jesus. As such, its credibility can only be carried so far.

Maybe you should find a stronger foundation upon which to rest your case, other than your own ideas about what the Bible is saying...

Not when he wrote it.

In what way is responsible Bible scholarship "self-righteous?" If not, in what way does this particular passage prove anything?

In fact, it's statements like these:

that appear to be self-righteous.
As well as this:


Some of the best scholars are not Christian. They should be heard, as well.

Useless where Biblical exegesis is concerned.

How can one explore all the facts, without listening to all the reputable voices on the subject?

Except that the OT stories have a whole lot of parallels in earlier, Pagan stories, and are widely thought to have evolved from them. One should always read the list of ingredients before consuming anything...
In the Hebrew language (in which Genesis was written), that's what the word a'dam means. The Hebrew word for "man" is ish.
Paul was a Jew and would have spoken Hebrew. He was fully aware of what the term a'dam meant. Therefore, it only makes sense that he knew the Genesis account to be allegorical.

The Biblical account of the creation is allegorical. Hebrew is the language of the OT and means what it means. There's your "Biblical proof."

Whatever you reckon sojourner .....a man convinced against his will has nothing to learn from an ignoramus like me!! :ignore: You've really gone to a lot of trouble to provide your scriptural backing I see. Lots of proof there.

We are all free to believe whatever we wish. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Let's all just hope we are eating the right pudding. :eat: Perhaps Armageddon is allegorical too.


Deeje

 

[Deeje]

And it wasn't added until later.

Having read his letters, I disagree with most of what he said.

I'm sure Paul would be devastated to hear this.

Then why listen to what Paul said? He was as worldly as you and me.

"Worldly"?? by who's definition? Jesus obviously didn't have any problem with him, Paul being personally chosen by Christ himself; but you probably dispute this. Again, Paul would be crushed at your rejection of him. :faint:

Then it should be no problem for you to take a look at Jewish commentaries on the Bible, as well as literary commentaries on it.

What's paganism have to do with anything?

Jewish commentaries are taken on board RW because the Jews are part of Christian history. One can only understand Christianity by studying Jewish history.

'What's paganism got to do with anything?'...only that 99% of the world is pagan, or has accepted pagan teachings into their worship...even those who claim to worship the true God. That which masquerades as Christian worship today isn't necessarily Christian. And anything outside true Christianity holds little interest for me except to explore what others believe out of curiosity. Those who choose to be whatever they wish are free to do so. Those who want to express their views here are also free to do so. It's a big planet.

But, seriously, is that the best you can do?? Sarcasm is hardly a response. :sarcastic

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm sure Paul would be devastated to hear this.

Don't care.

"Worldly"?? by who's definition? Jesus obviously didn't have any problem with him, Paul being personally chosen by Christ himself; but you probably dispute this. Again, Paul would be crushed at your rejection of him. :faint:

Why accept someone I disagree with? I really don't care if someone is devastated by my rejection of them, and frankly, neither should they. One who is affected by another's rejection of him is not enlightened, but still attached to worldly cares. I see nothing but a worldly opinion in Paul's writings. Valid, yes, but nonetheless, an opinion.

And you're right. I don't believe Jesus ever came to Paul, as I believe Jesus to be an Enlightened Sage, one of many. The messiah is little more than a mythological character, in my opinion.

Jewish commentaries are taken on board RW because the Jews are part of Christian history. One can only understand Christianity by studying Jewish history.

Good. Now, what about literary commentaries by people who don't mention their own beliefs in them?

'What's paganism got to do with anything?'...only that 99% of the world is pagan, or has accepted pagan teachings into their worship...even those who claim to worship the true God. That which masquerades as Christian worship today isn't necessarily Christian. And anything outside true Christianity holds little interest for me except to explore what others believe out of curiosity. Those who choose to be whatever they wish are free to do so. Those who want to express their views here are also free to do so. It's a big planet.

I still don't understand. All religions teach more or less the same things, with minor cultural variations. (Jesus and the Buddha taught nearly identical things, with the only variations being their native religions; Jesus was Jewish and the Buddha was Hindu.)

So you're saying that 99% of all humanity has fallen under the domain of Satan? Then I guess Satan has won and humanity was a failure. Especially since God and Satan are indistinguishable.

And by the way, we humor you by listening to you and considering what you say. Would you extend the same to us, or do you fear being proven wrong?

 

[Riverwolf]

And by the way, it might behoove you to look up the definition of "pagan."

 

[converted]

Interesting discussion! I disagree that all religions teach more or less the same things. What religion teaches that God, Heavenly Father, has a perfect body of flesh and bones and that man can become exactly like Him.

 

[sojourner]

a man convinced against his will has nothing to learn from an ignoramus like me!!

Convinced against his will??!! I have no idea what you're talking about here.

You've really gone to a lot of trouble to provide your scriptural backing I see. Lots of proof there.

"Scriptural backing," in and of itself, represents a sola scriptura stance -- one which I do not espouse. Therefore, "scriptural backing" is relatively meaningless. In order to understand what Genesis and luke are saying, we need to do some scholarship outside the texts themselves. You're looking for a proof that would only end up being a red herring.

 

[Riverwolf]

Interesting discussion! I disagree that all religions teach more or less the same things. What religion teaches that God, Heavenly Father, has a perfect body of flesh and bones and that man can become exactly like Him.

Ever hear of Krishna?

There are those who believe the Buddha to be more or less God-incarnate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Interesting discussion! I disagree that all religions teach more or less the same things. What religion teaches that God, Heavenly Father, has a perfect body of flesh and bones and that man can become exactly like Him.

Idolatrous anthropomorphic ones?

 

[Arlanbb]

DeeJe ~ When are you going to comment on my questions on post # 235??? Hope soon. arlan