Biblical Contradictions: Question #2

[garbonzo]

Still no one has dared to ask God himself and report back with integrity.

Are you saying if you Ask God (I don't know what the hell you ask him), you will come back (where do you come back from?) without integrity???

Umm... not sure if this is what you mean, but I have asked God about many things and have yet to receive an answer. :shrug:

 

[Balerion]

:bugeye:

Why in spirit? The Bible is clear that God said to Adam to he fruitful and become many. Then it states Jesus will come from Abraham who came from Adam. All humanity comes from Adam. Physically. Why through spirit? The Bible does not say that. Where do you people get these things from??????? Is this forum a magnet for ignorance? You, this Knowledge91 guy, Jan, Adstar, all have these weird stories that are not backed up by any evidence at all!!!! What the fuck? I feel like I'm being punk'd. :bugeye: I'm totally flabbergasted here.

Spidergoat seems to be the most intelligent here.

They're all talking out of their asses, garbonzo. I've never seen a forum where people are more concerned with having the appearance of intelligence than having actual discussions.

 

[garbonzo]

They're all talking out of their asses, garbonzo. I've never seen a forum where people are more concerned with having the appearance of intelligence than having actual discussions.

Me neither. But they aren't even talking out of their asses. The sad thing is that they seem to believe everything they say. Its like they are part of a cult, possessed by the Devil (LOL), but most likely just very mentally ill. I think I'm just going to have to stop coming here. It got overrun by wackos. Do you have an alternative?

 

[wynn]

For one, limiting oneself to the physical is traditional Jewish thinking - the kind of thinking according to which one can only be a member of a religion by birth, but not by conversion.

For two, my explanation doesn't exclude physical progeny, it includes it.

For three, all humans are indeed in the same kind of problem as A & E were in the Garden of Eden.

 

[wynn]

They're all talking out of their asses, garbonzo. I've never seen a forum where people are more concerned with having the appearance of intelligence than having actual discussions.

Me neither. But they aren't even talking out of their asses. The sad thing is that they seem to believe everything they say. Its like they are part of a cult, possessed by the Devil (LOL), but most likely just very mentally ill. I think I'm just going to have to stop coming here. It got overrun by wackos. Do you have an alternative?

Like I always say - it's tough being enlightened!

 

[garbonzo]

For one, limiting oneself to the physical is traditional Jewish thinking - the kind of thinking according to which one can only be a member of a religion by birth, but not by conversion.

For two, my explanation doesn't exclude physical progeny, it includes it.

For three, all humans are indeed in the same kind of problem as A & E were in the Garden of Eden.

I'm talking about physical progeny. I thought you said we descended from A & E spiritually, as in spiritual progeny, which makes no sense. Maybe you can come down from your mighty high stool and speak layman terms? Some of us only have a high school education....

 

[wynn]

I tjhink I was clear the first time around:

Isn't this supposed to mean that all men and women are descendants of Adam and Eve "in spirit" - ie. just as Adam and Eve partook of the tree of knowledge, so everyone else who is born a human does -?

Note the quote marks around "in spirit" and what is said afterwards to explain them - the ie.

 

[Balerion]

I tjhink I was clear the first time around:

Isn't this supposed to mean that all men and women are descendants of Adam and Eve "in spirit" - ie. just as Adam and Eve partook of the tree of knowledge, so everyone else who is born a human does -?

Note the quote marks around "in spirit" and what is said afterwards to explain them - the ie.

No. It's supposed to mean that all men and women are physical descendants of Adam and Eve. And where do you get the idea that all people who are born have bit the apple "in spirit?"

 

[garbonzo]

Like I always say - it's tough being enlightened!


Are you including yourself among us, atheists, or these wackos? If it is the wackos you mean, then, yeah it met be tough being a wacko. I can only imagine. :bugeye: While I was once a theist also, at least I was not a major contrarian and always went by the Bible as best I could, and I was reasonable. These guys take the word unreasonable, crap, piss, and vomit on it, sprinkle it with spit and scabs, put it on a pizza made out of toenails and blood, cut the piazza up into tiny pieces, put it in a blender, mix it with hot oil, wrap it in human flesh, burn it and throw the ashes over a cliff and into a swamp. And all in 5 seconds flat. :bugeye: :m:

 

[Balerion]

Are you addressing that to me? If you are, I've been an atheist since I was old enough to know what the word meant.

 

[garbonzo]

No. It's supposed to mean that all men and women are physical descendants of Adam and Eve. And where do you get the idea that all people who are born have bit the apple "in spirit?"

Maybe he means since, according to the Bible, we all are sinners, since we all came from Adam who sinned. Why he just doesn't say that instead of saying we bit the apple in spirit is beyond me.

 

[garbonzo]

Are you addressing that to me? If you are, I've been an atheist since I was old enough to know what the word meant.

No, I tried to quote wynn, but it messed up, I guess. Becoming an athiest without researching the other side is as ignorant as becoming a thiest without researching the other side. I became a thiest because I thought I researched the other side, when in actuality, I only researched what 1 side told me to research, lol.

 

[Jan Ardena]

garbonzo,

By the time Cain killed Abel, there could have been 50+ people already born, as God said, go forth and multiply.

God didn't tell Adam to go forth and multiply.

Does the Bible state that people were being born by that time?
NO!!!!
So why think this?

This could be interpreted to mean God blessed A and E and their relative offspring with exceptional reproductive systems.

Then why stick to 50+, why not say 1,000,000 plus?
Why invent stuff?
Why not just accept what the text says?

If not, the closer the offspring would be to perfection, the more perfect they would be. And if you discount even that (which I believe IS Biblical teaching), and Eve's offspring concieved of lets say 1 child every 2 years (not counting twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.), and then who KNOWS how many daughters Eve had.

Same as above.

Even at 3 daughters (it makes sense that each brother would have at least 1 person to mate with), we are looking at about 127 offspring in 100 years (I took age 15 as age of first conception) from Eve's daughters ALONE! Now what about Eve's daughter's offspring and Eve's granddaughter's offspring and so on and so forth???? That is ALOT of people, LOL! And all that is only if Cain killed Abel 100 years after Cain's mate was born. It could have been much later for all we know.

This is such a simple no-brainer, guys, WTF? :bugeye:

You're making stuff up.

The above can all be explained by Christian viewpoints on the Bible. There is no need to say there were other people before Adam.

That's one way of explaining it.
The trouble with that way, is, you have to make stuff up, to suit your pov.

Try using only what is written.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Mind Over Matter,

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are the same story, told from different view points. In other words, the man and woman in Genesis 1 is Adam and Eve.

Why are you so sure of this?

Basically, the two chapters show two sides of the same God.

Same as above.

Genesis 1 shows God the All-Powerful Creator of the Universe - "And God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light".

And then in Genesis 2, we see God the Loving Father. You can see this in the image of God carefully molding man out of the clay, walking with man through the Garden, and allowing man to name all the animals in the world.

This is your own spin.
Genesis 1 shows that God created mankind, male and female, and instructed them to go forth and multiple, to RE-plenish the earth.

That is what it say's.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Mind Over Matter,

The idea that Adam and Eve's children had relations with non-humans and produced children doesn't seem to be compatible with Scripture which states that none of the animals were a suitable mate for Adam.

They had relations with other humans. The humans who having been created, were told to go forth and multiply.
What is the difficulty with that?

Only another person-- a human endowed with a soul-- is a suitable mate for another human. God instituted marriage between Adam and Eve. Their children could not find suitable marriage partners among non-humans.

Same as above.

I am not sure why people try so hard to get around the obvious: The Church teaches we had a real set of first parents from whom all descend, the Bible makes it clear animals were not suitable mates for Man, and that's that.

What's obvious is that there were other humans around, and A+E weren't the first humans, ever.

The Bible teaches that mankind was created to RE-plenish the earth before the creation of Adam. There is ample evidence in the Bible to conclude that this was the case. There is no evidence to the contrary, plus, the contradictory claim makes no sense whatsoever. Which is why the anti-theists agree with it. They want the Bible to make no sense, so that they feel justified in their thinking.

There's the 'ick' factor of incest of course - but if it was necessary it wasn't a sin, and remember Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and half-sister, so even in his day it wasn't a taboo or a sin.

There's no need to invoke incest.
There were humans before Adam. Why is that so hard to believe, as it is actually written, whereas, nothing supports your pov, unless you add some bizzare ideas?


jan.

 

[wynn]

This is your own spin.

But he has an enormous organization behind him to support it!

 

[Hertz]

Genesis 4

1And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

...

8And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up ... and slew him.

...

2And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

 

[HectorDecimal]

You can't just add things to the Bible. That's stupid.

Assessing what is implied certainly isn't stupid, However, accusing others of doing something that merely seems stupid to the accuser might be.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps God only told Moses enough to spark our minds instead of doing all our homework for us? The Bible also subscribes to hyperspace theory when it mentions that a day in heaven is as a thousand years here on the Earth.

It's a shame that someone might bring up something that challenges another's belief in disbelief. Atheism is merely another religion that seeks to diminish the first and oldest and most educated lifeform in the universe.

That's something like taking over the Dean's office at gunpoint thinking nobody will call the cops

 

[garbonzo]

garbonzo,





God didn't tell Adam to go forth and multiply.

Does the Bible state that people were being born by that time?
NO!!!!
So why think this?





Then why stick to 50+, why not say 1,000,000 plus?
Why invent stuff?
Why not just accept what the text says?





Same as above.





You're making stuff up.





That's one way of explaining it.
The trouble with that way, is, you have to make stuff up, to suit your pov.

Try using only what is written.


jan.

Wow, after re-reading Gen again with an open mind, you actually could be right. And for that I apologize. I give credit where credit is due. BUT! There is 1 major verse that says otherwise! Read Gen. 3:20 and tell me what it says.

But there are still more questions.

What would God's reasoning be for creating Adam? Would not the Bible STATE the reason? Why the garden of Eden? Why the elaborate tree of good and bad and the tree of wisdom?

Why does Gen 3 state this? What is the meaning?

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

Snakes do not eat dust to this day. What do you suppose 15 means to you?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Christians,

Please explain the following:

If Adam and Even had two children, both sons, how are we here today? Did Cain sleep with Eve, his mother? If so, doesn't the God of the bible specifically say that incest in against God's law (See Lev. 20:11-14)?

The story comes to us from ancient Isrealites, who were fashioning a monotheism out of its pantheistic roots. It's unclear if their story intends any of the meanings given here. The text has been stitched together. Genesis 1 & 2 are apparently from two different sources, telling two different creation stories.

Adam is a name recorded in one of the oldest tablets found at Nineveh, the name of one of the oldest kings they could remember. It is possible this name was in their lore when Abraham led to immigrants from Ur (Iraq) on their trek eastward.

Also, more contradictory (is this your question #3?) is the account of the the river that flows in "the land of the Cush" which is in Africa. This river would have to flow upward (against gravity) in places, and of course it would have to cross the Red Sea.