Why I think a lot of the Bible is False

[little_monkey]

I personally don't think that the story of Adam and Eve is factual. I think it was a story made up by their decendents to explain where they come from. I don't have evidence to support that, but I think it makes sense. My belief is they did not have any stories (or written accounts) of anyone before Adam and Eve, so therefore constructed the story to explain how they got there. It may even have never been intended to be taken seriously, just a fun story to explain where they came from. It seems likely to me that there were many other people around at the time of Adam and Eve as evident by the fact there are others around in the story you have quoted.

Some Christians claim that Adam and Eve had 100s of other children and that those children were the ones people like Cain were talking about. (And one of them was who Abel went to marry... was it Abel? I can't remember). However I find that hard to believe. It sounds like there were many other tribes of people unrelated to Adam and Eve there.

Anyway, the big discussion about where all these other people came from becomes moot when you consider that they were all wiped out by the big flood. Then you have the problem of how the world's population got so big with just Noah and his family being the only survivors!

If you deny Adam and Eve, then you deny the original sin for which Jesus died on the cross. Simply put, you invalidate Christianity.

 

[Riverwolf]

If you deny Adam and Eve, then you deny the original sin for which Jesus died on the cross. Simply put, you invalidate Christianity.

Well, actually, I don't think it was for some kind of blood payment that Jesus died; as far as I can remember, the Gospels never actually say that. I think he died so that he could become well-known, so that people could know what he said.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Another semantic attack. It's that all you non-religious people can come up with?

only religious people can possibly be persistent good people. .

WHAT?????


Have you ever heard of 9/11??

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Even if we don't resort to symbolism or allegory, the story of Cain need not be illogical if one takes a careful reading of the verses.

Two principles that stick out to me are these: firstly, we are only told about the people we reasonably need to know about (see Gen5:4 for example), and secondly, I don't believe that after having been told "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth.." that Adam and his wife would have only had two kids in a 130 year period before Seth popped out. C'mon folks, we are supposed to read between the lines here.

We could make a strong argument that Cain was the firstborn, but we cannot make the same argument that Abel was the second born, only that he was born after Cain, and we only seem to be told about his existence so we can understand what happened next between he and his older brother.

In any case, even if there were just three after the death of Abel, it may well have been that Cain feared that his parents and/or any future offspring they produce might have a go at him. I think we would all be pretty tense around our Dad if we just killed one of his other kids, yes?


Here is a very bizzare Jewish take on the story if anyone is interested. Remember, I said it was bizarre.

Just sounds like a whole bunch of freaky incest to me....

 

[rocketman]

Just sounds like a whole bunch of freaky incest to me....

Uhuh. Though whether you believe in Adam and Eve or evolutionary/mitochondrial 'Eve' there is, by necessity, some degree of incest in the ancestry of us all.

:run:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Where she said that all babies are evil; that's nowhere in the Bible.

I agree, yet there is a difference you are missing. All of us are born under the curse of death because of sin. That does not make one evil.

Why? Killing is killing, regardless.

Not all killing is genocide. Try using the correct term.

Oh, please. God says that numerous times in the Torah.

Even though I didn't ask you, you still offered no source.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sandy? These are actual conversations I've had with actual Christians. When I ask them why it was moral for God to order Hebrew to kill innocent newborn babies, they reply that those babies aren't innocent; they're born wicked, like all of us. Yuck. Disgusting philosophy.

I can see why you are horribly confused. You asked a Christian. You cannot ignore, though, that all of mankind falls under the curse of death. The Bible is clear though that there are none that are righteous and that the wages of sin is death. I believe you are confusing death and eternal destiny.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Uh... no. Adam sinned. Eve sinned. The serpent sinned.

Sins of the father don't carry to the future generations in other peoples' beliefs, including mine. Granted, I've sinned, but I sinned after I was born; when I was an infant, I had a clean slate.

That's the argument.

That is not a Biblical position:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..."
Romans 5:12 KJV

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, actually, I don't think it was for some kind of blood payment that Jesus died; as far as I can remember, the Gospels never actually say that. I think he died so that he could become well-known, so that people could know what he said.

There is more to the bible than the Gospels and many Christians use the entire Bible for their doctrine. In that light, Jesus made a blood payment for atonement.

 

[little_monkey]

Well, actually, I don't think it was for some kind of blood payment that Jesus died; as far as I can remember, the Gospels never actually say that. I think he died so that he could become well-known, so that people could know what he said.

You only say that because you're not hooked on St-Paul...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Uhuh. Though whether you believe in Adam and Eve or evolutionary/mitochondrial 'Eve' there is, by necessity, some degree of incest in the ancestry of us all.

:run:

Oh...I'm sorry...

I was just making an observation.......When I open the book......it appears that all of them were brother, sisters and cousins....So I'm not talking about evolutionary incest....where all of the races on the planet on some molecular level are related.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You cannot ignore, though, that all of mankind falls under the curse of death. The Bible is clear though that there are none that are righteous and that the wages of sin is death.

Assuming you are a follower and believe any thing that book says.....

 

[rocketman]

I was just making an observation.......

Yeah I know. 'Freaky incest' was the term you used. I was in turn just making the observation that we all have freaky incest in our history even if we don't accept the bible. I was refering to the way a species like ours begins, starting as it would with a tiny population coming out of mitochondrial 'Eve'.( as for molecular similarity, after all these years there is still only about .1% genetic difference between any two random humans. Have a nice day, 'brother'.)

 

[Riverwolf]

That is not a Biblical position:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..."
Romans 5:12 KJV

Except Paul said that, not Jesus.

I don't listen to Paul or that part of the Bible, as from what I've heard of what Paul said, his philosophy doesn't agree with mine in any way. If someone else, such as you, wants to listen to him, that's fine. I don't consider him to be part of the "canon" of my personal Christian aspects; with Christianity, if Christ didn't say it, it doesn't count. After all, Jesus frequently debunked his own apostles because they were misunderstanding him; I see no reason why Paul wouldn't make similar mistakes, and he didn't have Jesus at his side constantly to correct him. (the resurrection for me is an allegory) But, that's my opinion.

My point is, if you want to convince me of something like why death is in the world, you'll have to quote either the Torah or Jesus himself. I currently consider the rest of the Bible to be secondary in their philosophies at best. (Even if they're good stories, such as Esther)

 

[rocketman]

Except Paul said that, not Jesus.

I don't listen to Paul or that part of the Bible, as from what I've heard of what Paul said, his philosophy doesn't agree with mine in any way. If someone else, such as you, wants to listen to him, that's fine. I don't consider him to be part of the "canon" of my personal Christian aspects; with Christianity, if Christ didn't say it, it doesn't count. After all, Jesus frequently debunked his own apostles because they were misunderstanding him; I see no reason why Paul wouldn't make similar mistakes, and he didn't have Jesus at his side constantly to correct him. (the resurrection for me is an allegory) But, that's my opinion.

My point is, if you want to convince me of something like why death is in the world, you'll have to quote either the Torah or Jesus himself. I currently consider the rest of the Bible to be secondary in their philosophies at best. (Even if they're good stories, such as Esther)

Hi Riverwolf. I'm curious as to how you see the NT and your beliefs. What do you make of the words of Jesus being recorded by others and not himself? For example, almost all scholars agree that the author of Luke wrote both the gospel of Luke as well as the book of Acts, the latter which quotes Jesus as saying that Paul was his chosen instrument (9:15). Do you reject that, and if so, do you in turn reject the words of Jesus as recorded by the gospel of Luke? Thanks.

 

[McBell]

You cannot ignore, though, that all of mankind falls under the curse of death.

Curse?
Interesting take on it.

The Bible is clear though that there are none that are righteous and that the wages of sin is death.

Then why strive for that wich you cannot obtain?
Further more, why do those who strive for something they cabbot ever obtain insist on telling everyone else that they needs strive as well?
Seems a bit insane, don't you think?

I believe you are confusing death and eternal destiny.

ah yes.
Destiny.
Before I begin though, is destiny the same as fate or do you distinguish the two?
If you distinguish the two, please be so kind as to explain how you distinguish them.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hi Riverwolf. I'm curious as to how you see the NT and your beliefs. What do you make of the words of Jesus being recorded by others and not himself? For example, almost all scholars agree that the author of Luke wrote both the gospel of Luke as well as the book of Acts, the latter which quotes Jesus as saying that Paul was his chosen instrument (9:15). Do you reject that, and if so, do you in turn reject the words of Jesus as recorded by the gospel of Luke? Thanks.

Well, technically, he never actually wrote anything down himself.

I know that "Luke" (his real name is unknown) is the author of both the Gospel of that name and the Acts of the Apostles. I consider his account to be a secondary source of information on Jesus, as he wasn't an eyewitness. I think that Paul told Luke that Jesus came to him and told him to be his instrument, so I don't doubt Luke was speaking the truth; it's Paul's honesty that I question. (I do not consider the "words" of Jesus after his death to be "valid", as I feel the death and "resurrection" to be an allegory for a rejection and acceptance of Jesus's philosophy.)

Though I am a Neopagan in my mythological beliefs, I consider myself Christian in that I try to follow Jesus's philosophy as well as try to understand even the parts that on the surface seem to be quite violent in nature, such as the parable of cutting off the hand that sins. But only the words during his life, not afterward. I consider Paul's writings to be nothing more than his commentary on Jesus's teachings, and I was never one for commentaries; I prefer to look at the source and come up with my own interpretation. After all, what Jesus said wasn't complicated or difficult to understand.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not all killing is genocide. Try using the correct term.

Well, instead of trying to tell us we're wrong, why not try correcting us?

"Geno-cide" is simply the killing of a gene-pool. And humans have been doing this for ever, not just with each other, but with all life.

Even though I didn't ask you, you still offered no source.

So, because he hasn't cited the quote, it doesn't exist? Do you think that God didn't say that? Have you actually read the Torah?

I didn't cite it because I don't see the need to, as God says it numerous times in the Torah, primarily in the parts that deal with Idolatry.

But, since you insist on not looking yourself...

BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: jealous god

 

[rocketman]

I think that Paul told Luke that Jesus came to him and told him to be his instrument, ....

I can understand that, and although I personally think it could have been Ananias who told Luke, I can see where you are coming from. Thanks very much for explaining your views.

 

[emiliano]

Daeksttariscool,

The Bible teaches us to believe in one god, the one mentioned in the Bible. This is one of the Ten Commandments.

The Bible also teaches us that God is perfect and is a loving God. If this were true, how come he would damn someone who does not believe in him.
If this were true???????????? I don’t think that God damns someone because they don’t believe in Him. I think that those that don’t believe damned themselves.

You don't have to be a Christian to be a good person and good people should not be damned. To me such a god is far from loving and perfect.

But the reasons for Christians to believe is to find the way back to God (the one mentioned in the Bible), we believe in what Jesus said Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me. So if one wants to make it to God’s kingdom (Jesus father) one must be a Christian, that’s the Christian doctrine.