Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Discussion of Genesis

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 1:24:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Genesis is the first book of the Holy Bible, the word of God. It tells us how existence came about. It's a beautiful work by the author, presumed to be Moses, but it's also a skeptic's biggest weapon against God. Every syllable is scrutinized, and they claim that science disproves the creation story. I beg to differ, and here's why...

*WARNING: WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ CONTAINS PREACHING AND PROSELYTIZING (and a little humor)...To those who are burned when in contact with Holy water, be warned, there is truth and reason in what you are about to read. It may burn just as badly as Holy water. Proceed at your own peril. :)

Personally, I believe that the author of Genesis was given information about the origins of the universe, and of life, and this info was given to him by God Himself. This explains how he knew things that he shouldn't have known at that time.

The problem is that he had to find a way to explain it to the people of his time. This is why I believe that a literal reading causes us problems. He had to explain the complexities of origins and of mankind, to an uneducated, unscientific people, and do so in a way that they could understand. He knew that the future would bring knowledge about how God accomplished certain feats so he wasn't concerned about writing it to educate US on the natural events of creation. He knew that believers could see the truth. He didn't concern himself with writing something that would stand up to scrutiny of skeptics. The Bible is for believers in God, it was written for us, not for those who seek to destroy God.

Genesis' value to us now, as an educated society, is that it's proof that the Bible is God's word. In a sense it's prophetic, it predicted what we would later prove scientifically, and presented it in a way that people of that time understood it.

For example, the first line of the Bible, metaphorically, points to time, space, and matter, the building blocks of all that exists. But the people of his time wouldn't have understood what the heck he was talking about if he had said that. So he said to them, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Educational to those peoples, prophetic to us, and evidence to show that the Bible is the inspired word of God. To me Genesis is a true miracle, of epic proportion.

Unfortunately, skeptics don't seem to like my view of what Genesis is. My view puts God in control of the skeptic's nuclear missiles, evolution and the big bang(or whatever natural theory you espouse). God makes sense of how "nothing" exploded into "everything", because there never really was "nothing", God was always there and He willed the universe into existence.

BANG!!!...The angels heard a roar as the universe popped into being, and the foundations of Heaven shook as it expanded rapidly below them. In a matter of seconds it appeared below them, and they began to dance and sing in unison...

"Whoomp there it is!! Whoomp there it is!! Whoomp there it is!! Whoomp there it is!!"

Though we may theorize, the exact way that He accomplished that, will not be proven by empirical evidence, ever, and the Bible tells us that...

Ecclesiastes 3:11...He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. (emphasis mine)

You can never prove your theories by observation and testability. Your theories will never stand up to your own, pre-set, standards of proof that you apply to God. Can you create your own universe that supports human, plant, and animal life?? Remember, it's you who wants observation and testability. Absence of evidence= Evidence of absence, in this case. Searching for answers for the betterment of mankind is great, but if you're trying to use this against God, it's mere folly. It's vexation of your own spirit.

What the world calls evolution, can be summed up by Ecclesiastes 3:1...

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven (emphasis mine)

To everything, there is a season. Evolution need not be any more complicated than that. To study nature, as God made it, for the purposes of doing good for mankind is one thing. But to try and USE nature to disprove God, is mere folly and vexation of your own spirit.

So, as you can see, my view of Genesis is not at all harmed by any science that you have. I own the same science that you do. Not only is the creation story unscathed in my view, but it stands as irrefutable proof of God's glory and power. A temple to His omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence, that can't be destroyed.

So long as the book of Genesis is in print, it can never be claimed that there is no evidence for the existence of God. You cannot claim that God hasn't presented Himself to you in a way that you can understand, just as the author of Genesis presented creation to the people of his time.

Matthew 7: 7-8 says...

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

To those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, it will be given.

Seek Him, and He will find you, for He already knows you are there, He made you.

God is in Genesis, my friends. Go get Him.
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 1:30:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I disgree on the literal sense, but, Everything else, I loved. We are Christian and have Jesus Christ and that is all that matters.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 1:44:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow...rather middle ages like. You missed the three different tradition in Genesis, its role in the pentateuch, redaction and the oral traditions. No truly educated society or individual takes it "literally".
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 2:08:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 1:44:21 PM, logicrules wrote:
Wow...rather middle ages like. You missed the three different tradition in Genesis, its role in the pentateuch, redaction and the oral traditions. No truly educated society or individual takes it "literally".

This sermon was focused mainly on the creation story. What specific tradition are you referring to??
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 2:16:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 2:08:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:44:21 PM, logicrules wrote:
Wow...rather middle ages like. You missed the three different tradition in Genesis, its role in the pentateuch, redaction and the oral traditions. No truly educated society or individual takes it "literally".

This sermon was focused mainly on the creation story. What specific tradition are you referring to??

Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly. As to Creation narrative....Its just story about the folly of humans. First thing Adam and eve do after eating a bit of fruit is put on clothes...to fix how God made um. The creation story is earlier than the AnE one....and God made them. As to image, first account (P) it is ALL humans that are the image not just one...or perhaps it is our substance which is the image and the accidence is accidental. (Aristotle) An Interesting aside....If you accept Adam and Eve we aint in his image.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 4:55:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 2:16:19 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/6/2012 2:08:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:44:21 PM, logicrules wrote:
Wow...rather middle ages like. You missed the three different tradition in Genesis, its role in the pentateuch, redaction and the oral traditions. No truly educated society or individual takes it "literally".

This sermon was focused mainly on the creation story. What specific tradition are you referring to??

Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly. As to Creation narrative....Its just story about the folly of humans. First thing Adam and eve do after eating a bit of fruit is put on clothes...to fix how God made um. The creation story is earlier than the AnE one....and God made them. As to image, first account (P) it is ALL humans that are the image not just one...or perhaps it is our substance which is the image and the accidence is accidental. (Aristotle) An Interesting aside....If you accept Adam and Eve we aint in his image.

Perhaps it's the fact that they were created perfectly good, and without sin, that caused the author to say that they were made in God's image. Again though, I think a literal reading is problematic. I do believe that God created men and women, but what if the Garden of Eden story is the author's attempt to explain the existence of evil, in a way that his people would understand?? Could it be just that, a story, meant to explain what would have been a difficult concept for them to understand??

I do think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be read literally, but I also think that alot of things that are read literally, and are causes for problems, should be seen for what they are. If we look at the Bible in this way, God is bulletproof. Those problems go away, and we reclaim the Bible as the weapon that it was meant to be.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 5:18:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 4:55:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 2:16:19 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/6/2012 2:08:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:44:21 PM, logicrules wrote:
Wow...rather middle ages like. You missed the three different tradition in Genesis, its role in the pentateuch, redaction and the oral traditions. No truly educated society or individual takes it "literally".

This sermon was focused mainly on the creation story. What specific tradition are you referring to??

Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly. As to Creation narrative....Its just story about the folly of humans. First thing Adam and eve do after eating a bit of fruit is put on clothes...to fix how God made um. The creation story is earlier than the AnE one....and God made them. As to image, first account (P) it is ALL humans that are the image not just one...or perhaps it is our substance which is the image and the accidence is accidental. (Aristotle) An Interesting aside....If you accept Adam and Eve we aint in his image.

Perhaps it's the fact that they were created perfectly good, and without sin, that caused the author to say that they were made in God's image. Again though, I think a literal reading is problematic. I do believe that God created men and women, but what if the Garden of Eden story is the author's attempt to explain the existence of evil, in a way that his people would understand?? Could it be just that, a story, meant to explain what would have been a difficult concept for them to understand??

I do think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be read literally, but I also think that alot of things that are read literally, and are causes for problems, should be seen for what they are. If we look at the Bible in this way, God is bulletproof. Those problems go away, and we reclaim the Bible as the weapon that it was meant to be.

It could be many things, hence the scholarship. First, we know the story is not unique to Jewish scripture. Second, we know that ADAM is Hebrew for mankind. Third, Each of the three traditions had different agenda....Priest were into rules (Leviticus), Yawhist into the authority of God and Eloist the chosen people aspect. Adam and Eve fits perfectly into the ones who just love rules. The point is follow the rules or bad things happen...and we just happen to have a few hundred or so for ya. (they still exist and usually become accountants or cops)

The Bible is not a weapon, nor was it ever designed to be so. It is a collection of sacred texts telling the story of Creation reaching fulfillment in the incarnation. All that is has been dignified by and through the incarnation. All is created by God and God dignified our existence by becoming man and living here on this earth. No weapon.

Lastly, the Word should be taken as is, not in "parts" like a cafeteria presentation.
think41self
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 7:56:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 1:24:27 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Genesis is the first book of the Holy Bible, the word of God. It tells us how existence came about. It's a beautiful work by the author, presumed to be Moses, but it's also a skeptic's biggest weapon against God. Every syllable is scrutinized, and they claim that science disproves the creation story. I beg to differ, and here's why...

*WARNING: WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ CONTAINS PREACHING AND PROSELYTIZING (and a little humor)...To those who are burned when in contact with Holy water, be warned, there is truth and reason in what you are about to read. It may burn just as badly as Holy water. Proceed at your own peril. :)

Personally, I believe that the author of Genesis was given information about the origins of the universe, and of life, and this info was given to him by God Himself. This explains how he knew things that he shouldn't have known at that time.

The problem is that he had to find a way to explain it to the people of his time. This is why I believe that a literal reading causes us problems. He had to explain the complexities of origins and of mankind, to an uneducated, unscientific people, and do so in a way that they could understand. He knew that the future would bring knowledge about how God accomplished certain feats so he wasn't concerned about writing it to educate US on the natural events of creation. He knew that believers could see the truth. He didn't concern himself with writing something that would stand up to scrutiny of skeptics. The Bible is for believers in God, it was written for us, not for those who seek to destroy God.

Genesis' value to us now, as an educated society, is that it's proof that the Bible is God's word. In a sense it's prophetic, it predicted what we would later prove scientifically, and presented it in a way that people of that time understood it.

For example, the first line of the Bible, metaphorically, points to time, space, and matter, the building blocks of all that exists. But the people of his time wouldn't have understood what the heck he was talking about if he had said that. So he said to them, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Educational to those peoples, prophetic to us, and evidence to show that the Bible is the inspired word of God. To me Genesis is a true miracle, of epic proportion.

Unfortunately, skeptics don't seem to like my view of what Genesis is. My view puts God in control of the skeptic's nuclear missiles, evolution and the big bang(or whatever natural theory you espouse). God makes sense of how "nothing" exploded into "everything", because there never really was "nothing", God was always there and He willed the universe into existence.

BANG!!!...The angels heard a roar as the universe popped into being, and the foundations of Heaven shook as it expanded rapidly below them. In a matter of seconds it appeared below them, and they began to dance and sing in unison...

"Whoomp there it is!! Whoomp there it is!! Whoomp there it is!! Whoomp there it is!!"

Though we may theorize, the exact way that He accomplished that, will not be proven by empirical evidence, ever, and the Bible tells us that...

Ecclesiastes 3:11...He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. (emphasis mine)

You can never prove your theories by observation and testability. Your theories will never stand up to your own, pre-set, standards of proof that you apply to God. Can you create your own universe that supports human, plant, and animal life?? Remember, it's you who wants observation and testability. Absence of evidence= Evidence of absence, in this case. Searching for answers for the betterment of mankind is great, but if you're trying to use this against God, it's mere folly. It's vexation of your own spirit.

What the world calls evolution, can be summed up by Ecclesiastes 3:1...

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven (emphasis mine)

To everything, there is a season. Evolution need not be any more complicated than that. To study nature, as God made it, for the purposes of doing good for mankind is one thing. But to try and USE nature to disprove God, is mere folly and vexation of your own spirit.

So, as you can see, my view of Genesis is not at all harmed by any science that you have. I own the same science that you do. Not only is the creation story unscathed in my view, but it stands as irrefutable proof of God's glory and power. A temple to His omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence, that can't be destroyed.

So long as the book of Genesis is in print, it can never be claimed that there is no evidence for the existence of God. You cannot claim that God hasn't presented Himself to you in a way that you can understand, just as the author of Genesis presented creation to the people of his time.

Matthew 7: 7-8 says...

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

To those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, it will be given.

Seek Him, and He will find you, for He already knows you are there, He made you.

God is in Genesis, my friends. Go get Him.

What in GENESIS do you see as divine scientific knowledge?

Could it be the firmament of the flat earth model which was believed up until 500bc and a shortly after? Do you know what a firmament is? It is a solid dome over the flat earth and is explicitly flat earth terminology. What about the windows of heaven to let rain on the the earth in Genesis 6/7? This is also flat earth terminology and not merely phenomenological language. Not one word of the OT speaks of the earth other than flat. I wait for your verses from Isaiah which I will gladly show your error.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 11:43:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 7:56:20 PM, think41self wrote:

What in GENESIS do you see as divine scientific knowledge?

I gave 3 examples in the OP.

Could it be the firmament of the flat earth model which was believed up until 500bc and a shortly after? Do you know what a firmament is? It is a solid dome over the flat earth and is explicitly flat earth terminology. What about the windows of heaven to let rain on the the earth in Genesis 6/7? This is also flat earth terminology and not merely phenomenological language. Not one word of the OT speaks of the earth other than flat. I wait for your verses from Isaiah which I will gladly show your error.

Did you read the OP?? It does address this issue. The author had to relate information to the people in a way that they would understand. They would not have understood a planet shaped like a round rock, that could hold water on it, and could remain suspended in the sky while spinning and circling the sun. A flat earth was the prevalent belief of that time. Moses was no cosmologist, why would you think he would need to take on the issue of what shape the earth is?? He had more important things to teach.

The problem here is that the shape of the earth is of little concern, from a spiritual standpoint, and the same was likely back then too. You place such great value in these minor details because it is critical for you, because you seek to disprove God and the Bible. You NEED to make this important, but to us it's just something that is. It's like a blade of grass. There are many kinds of grass, and what kind of grass that blade is is irrelevant. We know it's there, but it has nothing to do with spirituality.
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 11:51:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was curious about how you translate these passages. There is a few, so, I will seperate them.

1. Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they werefair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also isflesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare childrento them, the same becamemighty men which wereof old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man wasgreat in the earth, and thatevery imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

2. Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his ownimage, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Compared to :
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man ofthe dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. & Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This isnow bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:41:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 11:51:21 AM, TheAsylum wrote:
I was curious about how you translate these passages. There is a few, so, I will seperate them.

1. Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they werefair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also isflesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare childrento them, the same becamemighty men which wereof old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man wasgreat in the earth, and thatevery imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

2. Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his ownimage, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Compared to :
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man ofthe dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. & Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This isnow bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

You want English translated?
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:43:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:41:48 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/7/2012 11:51:21 AM, TheAsylum wrote:
I was curious about how you translate these passages. There is a few, so, I will seperate them.

1. Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they werefair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also isflesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare childrento them, the same becamemighty men which wereof old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man wasgreat in the earth, and thatevery imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

2. Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his ownimage, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Compared to :
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man ofthe dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. & Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This isnow bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

You want English translated?

Not from you. Your opinion means notta.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:45:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:43:43 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:41:48 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/7/2012 11:51:21 AM, TheAsylum wrote:
I was curious about how you translate these passages. There is a few, so, I will seperate them.

1. Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they werefair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also isflesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare childrento them, the same becamemighty men which wereof old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man wasgreat in the earth, and thatevery imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

2. Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his ownimage, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Compared to :
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man ofthe dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. & Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This isnow bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

You want English translated?

Not from you. Your opinion means notta.

To funny....the word is understood or interpreted...not translated. Res Ipsa Loquitor
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:51:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You want English translated?

Not from you. Your opinion means notta.

To funny....the word is understood or interpreted...not translated. Res Ipsa Loquitor

Yes means UNDERSTOOD or interpreted and also;
to interpret into a form others can understand; or
To express the meaning of in other, especially simpler, words.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:58:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Asylum, I'm at work today and work 24 hour shifts, so if I'm not running calls I'll try to get to your post, and the Daniel thread.

Logic, after seeing a number of your posts, you don't seem like an unintelligent person, however I'm very perplexed about why you seem to have such hostility for a fellow Christian.
slo1
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:58:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 4:55:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:


I do think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be read literally, but I also think that alot of things that are read literally, and are causes for problems, should be seen for what they are. If we look at the Bible in this way, God is bulletproof. Those problems go away, and we reclaim the Bible as the weapon that it was meant to be.


That is too bad he didn't give a guide book on what sections to take allegorically versus literally. Seeing how the variances between Christian sects are so different in interpretations I would say the holy spirit is doing a piss poor job of it too. I would surely not call that "bulletproof"
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 1:02:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:58:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 4:55:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:


I do think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be read literally, but I also think that alot of things that are read literally, and are causes for problems, should be seen for what they are. If we look at the Bible in this way, God is bulletproof. Those problems go away, and we reclaim the Bible as the weapon that it was meant to be.


That is too bad he didn't give a guide book on what sections to take allegorically versus literally. Seeing how the variances between Christian sects are so different in interpretations I would say the holy spirit is doing a piss poor job of it too. I would surely not call that "bulletproof"

LOL naw it isn't the Spirit's fault. Humans always prefer to make god in their image, makes things easier and results in things like "family Values" and "Hope and Change".
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 1:03:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:58:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 4:55:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:


I do think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be read literally, but I also think that alot of things that are read literally, and are causes for problems, should be seen for what they are. If we look at the Bible in this way, God is bulletproof. Those problems go away, and we reclaim the Bible as the weapon that it was meant to be.


That is too bad he didn't give a guide book on what sections to take allegorically versus literally. Seeing how the variances between Christian sects are so different in interpretations I would say the holy spirit is doing a piss poor job of it too. I would surely not call that "bulletproof"

You opinion and how much does that mean? O
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 1:05:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:58:42 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Asylum, I'm at work today and work 24 hour shifts, so if I'm not running calls I'll try to get to your post, and the Daniel thread.

Thanks, when ever you can. I was just seeking your opinion. You seem reasonable and capable.
Logic, after seeing a number of your posts, you don't seem like an unintelligent person, however I'm very perplexed about why you seem to have such hostility for a fellow Christian.:
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 1:06:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:45:38 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:43:43 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:41:48 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/7/2012 11:51:21 AM, TheAsylum wrote:
I was curious about how you translate these passages. There is a few, so, I will seperate them.

1. Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they werefair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also isflesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare childrento them, the same becamemighty men which wereof old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man wasgreat in the earth, and thatevery imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

2. Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his ownimage, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Compared to :
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man ofthe dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. & Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This isnow bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

You want English translated?

Not from you. Your opinion means notta.

To funny....the word is understood or interpreted...not translated. Res Ipsa Loquitor

I understood exactly what he meant, without rephrasing. He already knows what it means to him. He's asking what it means to me.

BTW, Mr. Grammar Cop...it should be...Too funny, not To funny...lol
think41self
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 1:07:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 11:43:00 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 7:56:20 PM, think41self wrote:

What in GENESIS do you see as divine scientific knowledge?

I gave 3 examples in the OP.

Could it be the firmament of the flat earth model which was believed up until 500bc and a shortly after? Do you know what a firmament is? It is a solid dome over the flat earth and is explicitly flat earth terminology. What about the windows of heaven to let rain on the the earth in Genesis 6/7? This is also flat earth terminology and not merely phenomenological language. Not one word of the OT speaks of the earth other than flat. I wait for your verses from Isaiah which I will gladly show your error.

Did you read the OP?? It does address this issue. The author had to relate information to the people in a way that they would understand. They would not have understood a planet shaped like a round rock, that could hold water on it, and could remain suspended in the sky while spinning and circling the sun. A flat earth was the prevalent belief of that time. Moses was no cosmologist, why would you think he would need to take on the issue of what shape the earth is?? He had more important things to teach.

More important things to teach? Like how to conduct slavery, or sell your daughter at the age of twelve and one day? Or to stone a person for gathering sticks on the sabbath?

Concerning the part about Moses relating the material...
Language is better equipped than that. The Hebrew language had a word for sphere, yet not once is it used in association with the earth. The word is Dur meaning sphere ball or pile. In any language we see the accomodation of ideas expressed by invention of words to correctly explain those ideas.

The Greek scientist Eratosthenes was able to convey his understanding of the spherical earth quite well, infact he paved the way for our modern understanding.

Another point would be that, if the author of Genesis was divinely inspired how come god couldn't get past the language barrier? He must be incompetent in that aspect.

The problem here is that the shape of the earth is of little concern, from a spiritual standpoint, and the same was likely back then too. You place such great value in these minor details because it is critical for you, because you seek to disprove God and the Bible. You NEED to make this important, but to us it's just something that is. It's like a blade of grass. There are many kinds of grass, and what kind of grass that blade is is irrelevant. We know it's there, but it has nothing to do with spirituality.

Of course it isn't because you understand that the bible speaks of a flat earth, but if it had spoken of a spherical earth you would be all over it.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 1:09:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

BTW, Mr. Grammar Cop...it should be...Too funny, not To funny...lol

lol....never grammer mr. verbosity....communication. If you knew what he meant then the meaning of the word is different for you than for those who use definitions, making communication rather difficult. FYI....grammar is punctuation, literacy is proper term usage. Spelling is rote...just for futuer reference.
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 1:13:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 1:09:57 PM, logicrules wrote:

BTW, Mr. Grammar Cop...it should be...Too funny, not To funny...lol

lol....never grammer mr. verbosity....communication. If you knew what he meant then the meaning of the word is different for you than for those who use definitions, making communication rather difficult. FYI....grammar is punctuation, literacy is proper term usage. Spelling is rote...just for futuer reference.

Yeah why dont you bring forth all dictionary quotes of the term translation....'I have briefly'..which you ignored, which means, exzactly what I said.
slo1
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 1:41:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 1:03:51 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:58:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 4:55:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:


I do think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be read literally, but I also think that alot of things that are read literally, and are causes for problems, should be seen for what they are. If we look at the Bible in this way, God is bulletproof. Those problems go away, and we reclaim the Bible as the weapon that it was meant to be.


That is too bad he didn't give a guide book on what sections to take allegorically versus literally. Seeing how the variances between Christian sects are so different in interpretations I would say the holy spirit is doing a piss poor job of it too. I would surely not call that "bulletproof"

You opinion and how much does that mean? O

It is an opinion that the various major and minor sects of Christianity significantly interpret the bible differently?

There are millions of people who would call the OP blasphemous suggesting the Genesis creation story is allegory or altered to fit the times.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 2:00:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 1:07:41 PM, think41self wrote:
At 9/7/2012 11:43:00 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 7:56:20 PM, think41self wrote:

What in GENESIS do you see as divine scientific knowledge?

I gave 3 examples in the OP.

Could it be the firmament of the flat earth model which was believed up until 500bc and a shortly after? Do you know what a firmament is? It is a solid dome over the flat earth and is explicitly flat earth terminology. What about the windows of heaven to let rain on the the earth in Genesis 6/7? This is also flat earth terminology and not merely phenomenological language. Not one word of the OT speaks of the earth other than flat. I wait for your verses from Isaiah which I will gladly show your error.

Did you read the OP?? It does address this issue. The author had to relate information to the people in a way that they would understand. They would not have understood a planet shaped like a round rock, that could hold water on it, and could remain suspended in the sky while spinning and circling the sun. A flat earth was the prevalent belief of that time. Moses was no cosmologist, why would you think he would need to take on the issue of what shape the earth is?? He had more important things to teach.

More important things to teach? Like how to conduct slavery, or sell your daughter at the age of twelve and one day? Or to stone a person for gathering sticks on the sabbath?

Yes, more important things to teach.

Concerning the part about Moses relating the material...
Language is better equipped than that. The Hebrew language had a word for sphere, yet not once is it used in association with the earth. The word is Dur meaning sphere ball or pile. In any language we see the accomodation of ideas expressed by invention of words to correctly explain those ideas.

I didn't say that there wasn't a word that could be used. I said that they wouldn't have understood the concept.

In addition, just because you find a word that could have been used, doesn't necessarily mean that it was a word that all groups of people used on a routine basis thousands of years ago. We find that true here in the states. People use different terminologies to convey the same thought. In the north we drank pop, but when I moved to the south a lot of people looked at me like I had 3 heads when I said pop. I had to start calling it soda.

The Greek scientist Eratosthenes was able to convey his understanding of the spherical earth quite well, infact he paved the way for our modern understanding.

He was a scientist, Moses was not. The shape of the earth was not an important point that Moses was trying to teach. It was of little consequence. Like I said, it's only important to you guys.

Another point would be that, if the author of Genesis was divinely inspired how come god couldn't get past the language barrier? He must be incompetent in that aspect.

Not sure I get what you mean exactly.

The problem here is that the shape of the earth is of little concern, from a spiritual standpoint, and the same was likely back then too. You place such great value in these minor details because it is critical for you, because you seek to disprove God and the Bible. You NEED to make this important, but to us it's just something that is. It's like a blade of grass. There are many kinds of grass, and what kind of grass that blade is is irrelevant. We know it's there, but it has nothing to do with spirituality.

Of course it isn't because you understand that the bible speaks of a flat earth, but if it had spoken of a spherical earth you would be all over it.

It would be helpful, but only to take that argument away from you. If he called the earth a sphere in Genesis, you guys would ignore it, and just find something else to bmc about.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 2:05:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:58:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 4:55:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:


I do think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be read literally, but I also think that alot of things that are read literally, and are causes for problems, should be seen for what they are. If we look at the Bible in this way, God is bulletproof. Those problems go away, and we reclaim the Bible as the weapon that it was meant to be.


That is too bad he didn't give a guide book on what sections to take allegorically versus literally. Seeing how the variances between Christian sects are so different in interpretations I would say the holy spirit is doing a piss poor job of it too. I would surely not call that "bulletproof"

I've yet to be swayed, so He seems bulletproof to me.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 2:06:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 1:13:07 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/7/2012 1:09:57 PM, logicrules wrote:

BTW, Mr. Grammar Cop...it should be...Too funny, not To funny...lol

lol....never grammer mr. verbosity....communication. If you knew what he meant then the meaning of the word is different for you than for those who use definitions, making communication rather difficult. FYI....grammar is punctuation, literacy is proper term usage. Spelling is rote...just for futuer reference.

Yeah why dont you bring forth all dictionary quotes of the term translation....'I have briefly'..which you ignored, which means, exzactly what I said.

lol...Show me