adam and eve

God never once changed His/Her mind: a new agreement (covenant) came about after a breach in the agreement (covenant) and the Jews were told long ago that a new agreement (covenant) was coming.

There seems to be no restrictions on how many wives or concubine a man was allowed to have in the Old Testiment but he did have to provide for them. In the New Testiment the word used for wife or wives needs to be checked with the oldest manuscript for plurality or singularity of the word. Even Isaiah wrote "seven women shall take hold of one man"...wow, 7 women to 1 man :confused:

Incest? It seems in the Old Testiment if a child saw a parent naked the child was cursed, not to mention literal intimacy.
 
FieryIce said:
God never once changed His/Her mind: a new agreement (covenant) came about after a breach in the agreement (covenant) and the Jews were told long ago that a new agreement (covenant) was coming.

There seems to be no restrictions on how many wives or concubine a man was allowed to have in the Old Testiment but he did have to provide for them. In the New Testiment the word used for wife or wives needs to be checked with the oldest manuscript for plurality or singularity of the word. Even Isaiah wrote "seven women shall take hold of one man"...wow, 7 women to 1 man :confused:

Incest? It seems in the Old Testiment if a child saw a parent naked the child was cursed, not to mention literal intimacy.
Click to expand...

if you dont know there had to be incest in the OT you must not be very familiar with it.
 
Fieryice
The best part of that seven women will become a man's is that they agree to provide for themselves. *big cheesy smile"

It is obvious to us today that incest was the only way of propagating the human race. Not only once, but twice, as the off spring of Noah would have had to closely inter-mary for a few hundred years.
 
That inter-marrying was not considered incest.
It seems today people call it incest to marry a cousin...but not in the time of the OT.
 
FieryIce said:
That inter-marrying was not considered incest.
It seems today people call it incest to marry a cousin...but not in the time of the OT.
Click to expand...

it is pretty funny how the relativeness of morals in regard to incest is argued here, but the absolutist view of the bible is held so strong. if you can argue that morals can change why hold so tightly to the arbitrary beliefs you hold now? god could have changed his mind and just not told you. you re a gonner
 
God never once changed His/Her mind: a new agreement (covenant) came about after a breach in the agreement (covenant) and the Jews were told long ago that a new agreement (covenant) was coming.
You cannot post me one citation where He/She did change His/Her mind; not one.
If God was going to do an action, He always warned mankind through His Holy Ones.
This cannot be construed with changing His/Her mind.
 
Well, there's several other points to take into account:

A) The bible is not a day-by-day written work, with huge gaps in the story telling. As I've pointed out before, Noah isn't even spoken about until he's 500 years old, which is a massive gap in the story of half a millennium. As such you can't really account for anything that might have happened in those time frames. If every lightning bolt, every 1.2 richter scale earthquake, and every headache are part of god's doing, you've most certainly missed a massive portion of history.

B) If there was a god being, why would he need to inform the humans as to his decision making, or indeed his change in mind? He could be sitting up in the clouds saying to himself.. "Hmm, I'm going to blow up [insert place name here] with some sulphur bombs... actually, on second thoughts..", in which case you'd never hear about it.

If God was going to do an action, He always warned mankind through His Holy Ones.
Click to expand...

Always? Again, I'd point out the massive gaps in the story. While it does inform us of the 'big' cases- such as complete and total world annihilation and the bombarding of cities, it doesn't inform us of the evildoer individuals who got struck down with lightning, or killed by a heavy smack on the head from a falling 'god-pushed' apple. There's no way we can say god warned these people.
 
SnakeLord, how big did YOU want the bible to be? To include all the day-to-day events of everyone mentioned? The evildoers as you call them; I bet they know exactly whom they are and what is coming.
Lightning bolts, 1.2 Richter scale earthquakes, and every headache, have not been mentioned until now :D
And yes, warned, pre-warned....imagine that :cool:
 
SnakeLord, how big did YOU want the bible to be? To include all the day-to-day events of everyone mentioned? The evildoers as you call them; I bet they know exactly whom they are and what is coming.
Lightning bolts, 1.2 Richter scale earthquakes, and every headache, have not been mentioned until now
And yes, warned, pre-warned....imagine that
Click to expand...

Yes.. and in saying so you completely make my point. I really don't care how big the bible is, but without every detail that ever happened, you're not in a position to say what he did or didnt do...

Crater: who was your response to, and with reference to what exactly?
 
As a Creation Theorist, hell I guess that is about as good of a name / title as any, reading the bible as most call it has held my interest because of its scientific content and view point on our universe. What is so very simply stated in ancient languages is extremely difficult for most to comprehend. As an example, try to describe to me in any language that was in use two thousand years ago the launching of a space shuttle. They didn’t have the vocabulary. As the bible is about our past, present, and future the timeline of many passages becomes more difficult to discern. A most intriguing book to say the least.
 
reading the bible as most call it has held my interest because of its scientific content
Click to expand...

Is there anything specific you're referring to? If not, any example of the bible's "scientific content" will suffice.

There are many ancient texts that say stuff that to us would look bizarre. As such the 'mahabharata' which has mentions of air borne things that shot strange weapons at each other. Without so much as a pause for reflection, many self-proclaimed scholars jumped on the bandwagon and said "nuclear weapons!". While the text is most certainly interesting, it shouldn't give rise to instant outbursts, and top 10 seller books because of it. What must also be taken into account is the text as a whole. While it does mention things in the air it also speaks of a boy who gets his head chopped off by his father. The father then realises the boy was his son, so he chops the head off an elephant, attaches it to his sons remains and brings him back to life. The boy then walks around with an elephant head.

No, I never saw some self-proclaimed scholar jump up and say "quick! elephant heads might save your life!"

In saying this, what you might assume are the signs of nuclear weapons or future events, (yes, someone here even made a claim regarding the bible and 9/11), are most likely nothing more than simple story telling. They might sound fascinating, but then again so did all of Jules Vernes novels.

However, I am still intrigued to see what you regard as biblical scientific content.
 
SnakeLord, try reading the book called Esdras not just Ezra and Nehemiah.
 
Last edited:
there is nothing scientific in the bible, it lacks any factually based realizations about the universe. it is based on "faith" in someone writing something in the ancient past.
 
SnakeLord, how about:
"weight for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a blast of wind or call back for me the day that is past".
If you check Norval's past posts he already posted this.
 
FieryIce said:
God never once changed His/Her mind: a new agreement (covenant) came about after a breach in the agreement (covenant) and the Jews were told long ago that a new agreement (covenant) was coming.

There seems to be no restrictions on how many wives or concubine a man was allowed to have in the Old Testiment but he did have to provide for them. In the New Testiment the word used for wife or wives needs to be checked with the oldest manuscript for plurality or singularity of the word. Even Isaiah wrote "seven women shall take hold of one man"...wow, 7 women to 1 man :confused:

Incest? It seems in the Old Testiment if a child saw a parent naked the child was cursed, not to mention literal intimacy.
Click to expand...
Does God change his mind?


Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."


vs.


Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."


As the famous detective Lee on the OJ trial said. "there's something wrong here"
 
SnakeLord, how about_:
"weight for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a blast of wind or call back for me the day that is past".
If you check Norval's past posts he already posted this.
Click to expand...

O.....k, but I have no idea where this fits in to anything I've said here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top