Problem with the Bible

[301ouncer]

Tony, do you still visit my thread? I have added quite alot of information in it. Check it out when you get a chance and maybe have your input. Thanks.

 

[Humanistheart]

Originally, man was holy and the basic inclination of his nature was toward God. He was not neutral toward God.
At creation, man had no original inward tendency to sin, as we have now. Though he was capable of being tempted, he was neither compelled nor impelled to sin. .

I find your statement to be contrictory. If they were without any inclination to 'sin' then how could they be tempted at all, let alone by a piece of fruit. Hardly logical.

 

[Humanistheart]

Well, if God doesn't speak the language of the people, his messages would be completely worthless.

Lol, your saying if god doesn't make his message attractive the people wont follow it. Well, that's a real powerful god they got there.

 

[Smoke]

I find your statement to be contrictory. If they were without any inclination to 'sin' then how could they be tempted at all, let alone by a piece of fruit. Hardly logical.

Let me guess. The carnal mind can't understand spiritual things.

 

[Riverwolf]

Lol, your saying if god doesn't make his message attractive the people wont follow it. Well, that's a real powerful god they got there.

It's not about "attractiveness;" it's about effective communication.

 

[TheNorthernExodus]

Your skill in ratification is most impressive.
Most impressive indeed.

Cheers mate, but I am sure you will get your own back in due course, its the beauty of a never ending debate

 

[Humanistheart]

It's not about "attractiveness;" it's about effective communication.

Oh, and he couldn't communicate slavery was wrong so he communicated rules for slavery instead? How interesting.

 

[TheNorthernExodus]

Humanist

The Bible does not talk about slavery or atleast slavery as the word is defined today.
For instance how many West Africans sold themselves as slaves?
Being of West African descent/slave stock myself I am aware of the answer already.
If you read the rules in the Bible, and I mean read them, you will understand that.

Slavery as we define it today is wrong but there are still an estimated 13 million slaves in the world today.

Read the rules for "slavery" in the Bible and see if they relate to the lives lived by modern day slaves of by Africans in recent centuries.
See how many rights the Hebrew slaves are entitled to, the circumstances to become a slave etc.
The Bible does not defend or support slavery in the modern definition of it because it does not discuss the topic.
The word slave is used true enough but a word is defined by the people using it at the time and the ancient Hebrew definition is different to ours some 25 centuries plus later.

These were rules written for ancient Hebrews, if your knowledge of ancient Hebrew society is slim, its no wonder that you are missing these points.

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh, and he couldn't communicate slavery was wrong so he communicated rules for slavery instead? How interesting.

Would people have listened? Is it really realistic to expect an entire culture to just up and change everything? The Torah already calls for drastic changes to the culture of the time.

 

[TheKnight]

I find your statement to be contrictory. If they were without any inclination to 'sin' then how could they be tempted at all, let alone by a piece of fruit. Hardly logical.

The most logical Christian answer would be that there was no temptation until Satan came along and misled Eve. Before she would have had no conflict as far as eating the fruit, after that (because of Satan) she would consider eating.

Now, when you ask them how Satan could sin they generally don't have any coherent answer to that.

 

[McBell]

Now, when you ask them how Satan could sin they generally don't have any coherent answer to that.

Did Satan sin?
Of course, I define sin as going against the wishes/will of your chosen deity.

If Satan tempting Eve was all part of God's plan, then is it fair to say that Satan sinned?

 

[TheKnight]

Did Satan sin?
Of course, I define sin as going against the wishes/will of your chosen deity.

If Satan tempting Eve was all part of God's plan, then is it fair to say that Satan sinned?

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Either way, the reason Adam and Eve, though perfect, were able to sin was because of Satan's external influence. That's the most common Christian answer I've heard to "how can two perfect beings sin if they were perfect?"

 

[McBell]

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Either way, the reason Adam and Eve, though perfect, were able to sin was because of Satan's external influence. That's the most common Christian answer I've heard to "how can two perfect beings sin if they were perfect?"

Interesting how they seem to not consider that sinning does not make one imperfect.
Of course, it could also be that Adam and Eve simply were not perfect.

 

[TheKnight]

Interesting how they seem to not consider that sinning does not make one imperfect.
Of course, it could also be that Adam and Eve simply were not perfect.

I would say Judaism tends to agree with the Adam. The Bible never says they were perfect. Similarly, we (humanity) are not intrinsically different now then we were before Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Our perception of ourselves is different, we (at our core) are still the same.

 

[TheNorthernExodus]

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Either way, the reason Adam and Eve, though perfect, were able to sin was because of Satan's external influence. That's the most common Christian answer I've heard to "how can two perfect beings sin if they were perfect?"

I am going to add here that at no point in the Bible are Adam and Eve described as being perfect beings.
Also the Bible does not say that the serpent is satan, that is a leap some Christians make, and they may be right to make that leap but we can be in no way certain either way.
Also the word satan is a tricky one.
Satan means adversary, now we today make a picture in our minds of Satan meaning a wicked chap with horns etc but the word satan simply means adversary, the leap to satan meaning a wicked chap with horns is a leap some Christians make and may me right to do so but again we cannot be sure.
The word satan crops up many times in the Bible though not as many as some may think, we cannot be certain that a person is saying satan meaning adversary or wicked chap with horns or both.

for example:Jesus says to Judas "get behind me satan" now is Judas Satan the wicked one with horns? is Judas an adversary ? or is he both rolled into one?

For my own purposes of reading the account of forbidden fruit, I am of the opinion that there never was a tree, no fruit and no serpent either, the text is written in poetry, and they are poetic devices to illustrate a very different situation.
The choice between right and wrong, lies and truth, trust and betrayal are what are to be seen here imho.
Not to get anyones back up but to my mind anybody who views the Eden fruit theft incident as literal history and a word for word literal telling of an exact event is just plain nuts.

I could be wrong on all counts though, the truth is that in this life we are not going to find out either way, as with all of us I can only use my best judgement.

Cheers NE

 

[TheKnight]

I am going to add here that at no point in the Bible are Adam and Eve described as being perfect beings.
Also the Bible does not say that the serpent is satan, that is a leap some Christians make, and they may be right to make that leap but we can be in no way certain either way.

I agree that they are not described as perfect. However, certain sects of Christianity (Reformed) believe that mankind was created perfect.

I also agree that the Bible never calls the snake satan. Although I suppose one could argue that he was their adversary.

For my own purposes of reading the account of forbidden fruit, I am of the opinion that there never was a tree, no fruit and no serpent either, the text is written in poetry, and they are poetic devices to illustrate a very different situation.
The choice between right and wrong, lies and truth, trust and betrayal are what are to be seen here imho.
Not to get anyones back up but to my mind anybody who views the Eden fruit theft incident as literal history and a word for word literal telling of an exact event is just plain nuts.

I would strongly disagree. While there is evidence (especially in the Hebrew of the account) that the account could be entirely metaphorical, I think that to say so is a huge jump.

 

[McBell]

I would say Judaism tends to agree with the Adam. The Bible never says they were perfect. Similarly, we (humanity) are not intrinsically different now then we were before Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Our perception of ourselves is different, we (at our core) are still the same.

Thus the reason I tend to lean towards the two you quoted.

 

[TheNorthernExodus]

I would strongly disagree. While there is evidence (especially in the Hebrew of the account) that the account could be entirely metaphorical, I think that to say so is a huge jump.

I am not immune to making huge jumps either
I am happy for any Christian to have there own reading of it as there salvation is not at risk, I mean no matter how these verses get viewed by many diverse minded eyes the core element of what they mean is never lost as far as I have seen.
Christians may see different coloured bricks so to speak but for all of us the foundations of the house remain the same.

There will be some exceptions I am sure but I have yet to hear of them.