• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Genesis contradictions?

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You seem to speak with authority yet that in is really just your take on things. It is certainly not everyone's opinion on the matter.
It's more than just "my take on things." it happens to be the considered stance of most OT scholars. While there certainly is some room for debate and conjecture -- while we can know nothing for certain, we can formulate some pretty accurate hypotheses, whose reasoning exceeds the "It's God's Word, so it has to be factual" argument. I'm in the former camp. If you want to be in the latter camp, that's your prerogative, but you're going to have to substantiate your argument.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Especially among those who believe the Bible. :yes:

Most seminary Bible professors are Bible scholars. Most of them are Christians, who believe the Bible. :yes:

Others are Jews, who believe in the Tanakh.
 

Zardoz

Wonderful Wizard
Premium Member
Others are Jews, who believe in the Tanakh.

Well, yes exactly.

Since it seems no one bothered to follow my link and visit my post over in the Messianic DIR on this topic, I'll bring it here.



And G-d said, let us make Man in our image in our likeness...

This passage, seized on by Trinitarians to prove their theology, is the key to understanding the relationship of Evolution and Creation in the process of the making of Humanity. If one assigns an incorrect interpretation to the significance of this passage, then it naturally follows that more error precipitates. This passage is not an account of multiple gods or parts of a god discussing the creation of Man. There is only one G-d. Also, G-d is not pronouncing 'Let there be Man' like he did to create Light, no, later in the next chapter we see G-d make man from soil from the Earth. So, if the words G-d speaks is not to other gods, nor directly creating Man, what is the significance of the announcement? The truth is that this is being spoken by G-d in the Heavenly Court. The audience is the Angels. The true nature of Angels is outside the scope of the topic at hand, but in short they are charged with controlling and regulating the natural world. They are the spiritual element of the physical universe, and a good portion of them do not have minds or egos as we know these. Most are little more than automatons. This physical world is but a reflection of their spiritual world. The Angels who do have minds and intelligence were actually opposed to the creation of Man. Contrary to popular myth, they are not our guardians, unless specifically assigned by G-d to be so.

G-d addresses the Angels in the Heavenly Court and says 'Let us make Man in our image in our likeness' to give them their own portion of the task of making Man. The Angels are spiritual beings in charge of the forces of nature, the physical world, yet they are not part of that nature. This at last is where G-d reveals the point of the entire creation. Man, or at this point, the concept of Man, would be the fusion of Spirit and Matter in a way that the Angels could never be.

Here G-d is saying, you will create, with the processes and nature of the physical world, the physical form of Man. In your likeness. I will create his soul, in My image. G-d says to Nature; You will produce the Guph (body) and I will produce the Neshama (Soul). The result of this union was to be a unique entity, which would be capable of Free Will. (the angels, contrary to popular belief, do not have free will, but that is another topic... and a big one!)

Darwin was right. Of course we can expect that Nature built our bodies using the process of Evolution, which we can study and marvel at. There were many false paths and evolutionary dead ends, how many we will never know. Perhaps not just on this world, but others as well. Does it matter how many fingers and toes we have? These bodies are NOT an image of G-d, as G-d has no body. It is our Neshama which is in G-d's image. The bodies we have evolved into this shape by many forces, but at some point the bodies and minds were adequate to the mission and G-d judged our form complete.

Nature has done it's job. Here is an animal with all the abilities and traits that are needed. Tools for the final task. The mold is done. Here G-d takes over the creation process. G-d creates Adam personally, out of soil from every part of the World and formed it. Every gene in Adam's chromosomes were taken from the best example to be found in the population of Homo sapiens. This was genetic engineering of the the Genome of Adam on a scale we can't even imagine. Adam would have been a perfect blend of every race and tribe on Earth. His body was not only free of genetic imperfections, it was better than any individual Nature could produce, as he was the sum of all the best. He was made to be as close to immortal as flesh and blood could be. This is one reason why Eve was made from his flesh, as how could perfection be improved, and why duplicated? (Other reasons are of course to be seen in the rib but you see this point.) Now G-d breathes the Neshama, which he made, into the body and Adam lives.

What happens next is a topic best left for later, but we soon find Adam and Eve exiled from Eden. (wherever that Garden was, I doubt it's on Earth now) We do not know how long they were in Eden the view is it was one day but as I already said, these days of creation are subjective. It could have been centuries on Earth. Speaking of Earth that is where they find themselves. Among Homo sapiens. Quite frankly I don't know when or how the population of the world get souls whether G-d gave them though Adam exclusively or every new baby got a soul from this point forward. However, we can be fairly sure that other people are around. Who else would Cain and Able marry, their sisters (where are they)? Furthermore, we know that Able had no heir but when Cain murdered him and was banished, he complained to G-d: “whoever meets me will kill me!” Who? IF there's only Adam and Eve and Cain and some daughters of Eve that the narrative fails to mention... just WHO is Cain afraid of? Nonsense. Adam and his family are not alone once they leave Eden. One interesting note, the 'begats' have troubled many a person with the incredible lifespans recorded. To be sure, these lifespans are not typical of Homo sapiens, but the legacy of Adam's genes. Adam himself lives to the age of 930 but he was murdered so it's possible to imagine he could have outlived even Methuselah otherwise...

And that pretty much puts to rest all this 'incest or no incest' debate, doesn't it?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Nature has done it's job. Here is an animal with all the abilities and traits that are needed. Tools for the final task. The mold is done. Here G-d takes over the creation process. G-d creates Adam personally, out of soil from every part of the World and formed it. Every gene in Adam's chromosomes were taken from the best example to be found in the population of Homo sapiens.
The ignorant yet pompous arrogance here is astonishing.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Yes. He can direct someone to his favorite books, but you have to ask for it.

But other than that... I've RARELY seen him engage in a debate. Most of the time, he either calls you stupid, or stays silent.
What, specifically, would you like to debate, and are you prepared to do so?
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
What, specifically, would you like to debate, and are you prepared to do so?

I was making a side comment to another member based on my observations. I didn't say I wanted to debate with you at the moment.

Especially since you're more well-read than I am; I, personally, am NOT prepared to debate one-on-one with you at the moment.

But it would be nice if you could contribute more to a public debate in which others are participating than just "that's stupid." If you're going to say that, back it up. Otherwise everybody will just glance over your posts, not even reading what you have to say.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I was making a side comment to another member based on my observations. I didn't say I wanted to debate with you at the moment.
Out of curiosity, were you interested in debating, how might you approach a claim that ...
Every gene in Adam's chromosomes were taken from the best example to be found in the population of Homo sapiens.​
other than characterize it as wholly worthless drivel?
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Out of curiosity, were you interested in debating, how might you approach a claim that ...
Every gene in Adam's chromosomes were taken from the best example to be found in the population of Homo sapiens.
other than characterize it as wholly worthless drivel?
I don't think I could have put it much better, Jay. You manage to say so much with so few words.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Not all opinions are created equal. There is a sniveling presumption that all claims are debatable and worthy of respectful debate. It's a thoughtless presumption that does little but honor ignorant pedantry and coddle those who wallow in it.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Out of curiosity, were you interested in debating, how might you approach a claim that ...
Every gene in Adam's chromosomes were taken from the best example to be found in the population of Homo sapiens.​
other than characterize it as wholly worthless drivel?

I would back my statement up by saying WHY it is worthless drivel.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Excellent. Why do you think that statement is worthless drivel?

The main problem I have with it is the way it's worded; without carefully breaking it apart, I have no idea what he's trying to say.

Every gene in Adam's chromosomes were taken from the best exampleS to be found in the population of Homo sapiens.

From what I can gather, what he's trying to say is, God basically took all the best genes from homo sapiens and meshed them together to create Adam.

Without any corroboration, the statement is meaningless.
 

Zardoz

Wonderful Wizard
Premium Member
The ignorant yet pompous arrogance here is astonishing.
Welcome, at long last, to my ignore list. Feel free to return the favor.

...From what I can gather, what he's trying to say is, God basically took all the best genes from homo sapiens and meshed them together to create Adam...
You got it right, that's exactly what my Rebbi taught us. Adam wasn't born he was made by G-d atom by atom, chromosome by chromosome. A perfect body, with no genetic defects. As you'd expect, why would he do anything different? Why did he use homo sapiens as the prototype? That's the nature of the creation, the only thing G-d made from nothing was light.

But, of course you're going to attack this instead of realizing my post answers the OP's question, which was:

i have come across some things in the book of genesis that i believe are contradictory, many of them involving adam and eve.an example that has stuck out to me is although christians say incest is wrong,the children of adam and eve would have to have had an incestuous relationship (unless of course there were other humans present).i would like to hear a christian defense of this.

Qwert12345, The answer is yes, there was other humans present. No incest.

But, no, go ahead the rest of you and rip away. Don't care, as I've answered the OP's question I'm done with this thread.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
From what I can gather, what he's trying to say is, God basically took all the best genes from homo sapiens and meshed them together to create Adam.

Without any corroboration, the statement is meaningless.
And, of course, there is absolutely no way to corroborate such rubbish. Very good. But I also (and primarily) characterized it as "ignorant yet pompous arrogance." Take some time to read up on afarensis, a beautiful and highly successful hominid. Would you agree that our genes are 'better' than her's?
 
Top