Together with Gen. 3:20. Dun, dun, DUNNNNNÑ!
Jan, this just furthur proves how full of horse shit the Bible is.
Biblical Contradictions: Question #2
- Thread starter Thoreau
- Start date
Together with Gen. 3:20. Dun, dun, DUNNNNNÑ!
Jan, this just furthur proves how full of horse shit the Bible is.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I must have missed that post.
HectorDecimal
Registered Senior Member
Are you referring to Genesis 1:27 to 28? (et al to 31)?
I don't see "RE-plenish." I use the NIV, though, so "fill the earth and subdue it"
I want to refer to (the NIV about) Genesis 2:1 - 3 then forward to 4. The story does not say God stopped forever at verse 3. In 4 it simply says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When God made the earth and the heavens - 5 and no shrub of the field ... and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord god had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but steams (subnote = mists) came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground...
Then He goes on to create Adam; "the man." What separates the creation instances of 1 & 2 is the essential difference between a rain forest saturated by geysers and springs, in 1, and shrubs and plants of the field which appears to be a new agronomy experiment for God, so a new type of humanoid was needed. A rain forest dweller and a dweller of the open field would need different anthropomorphic architecture.
Creation went on come the 8th day.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
For questions like this (assuming there are no Hebrew proficient posters here) you can also look at Young's Literal Translation, which attempts to preserve more precisely the word choice (and tenses) from the original Hebrew than the King James Version does.
The YLT text reads:
"And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over every living thing that is creeping upon the earth.'"
So "replenish" seems to be an artifact that was added only in translation. That said, it's just a story, I don't think it was intended to be taken as an historical account.
HectorDecimal
Registered Senior Member
NIV reads: 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve because she would become the mother of all the living.
It doesn't state "progenitor" nor "biological mother." It doesn't depict her as the "spawn source of all the living." That would be absurd. It would not be absurd to see her as adopting and caring for all the living. Remember by this time Adam had given no name to his wife. She ate the fruit of the knowledge of "right and wrong," then shared it with Adam. He named her Eve after God punished them.
Consider that the fruit of that tree was really like pscilocibin. Perhaps all the trees of knowledge were naturally containing a tryptamine, but the central tree contained a different host that opened specific areas of the brain, like summatryptan shuts down blood vessels in migraines, that tree was necessary to provide the basic, genetic knowledge content for all the shoots God used to create other knowledge enhancing fruits, yet there wasn't enough of the hosts in other fruits to point out the danger of eating from that mother tree.
If one learned right ideas, the reciprocal would be learning wrong ideas.
God was kind and doctored their new found paranoia, but loved them enough to let them live, only outside His perfect garden. He gave them the ground outside to work and made it more difficult to bear offspring.
These were the most intelligent of the human race. Perhaps the decline of the Neanderthals and cro-Magnon humans and incline of the Modern Man.
Somwhere all this will head toward the great deluge, but in this thread it may be off topic. Nonetheless, remember God likely exists in "Hypospace" where one of His days are about 1000 years here on Earth, (distinguished from earth.)
It sounds absurd, because it is absurd. And scientifically false.
That's when you shoot up magic mushrooms and see God.
Too bad that you, as a human, can't tell whether an explanation is irrefutable or not.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
... Who said I couldn't?
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
And lay off the personal insults.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
ir·ref·u·ta·ble /ɪˈrɛfyətəbəl, ˌɪrɪˈfyutəbəl/ Show Spelled[ih-ref-yuh-tuh-buhl, ir-i-fyoo-tuh-buhl]
adjective
that cannot be refuted or disproved: irrefutable logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1610–20; < Late Latin irrefūtābilis. See ir-2 , refutable
Related forms
ir·ref·u·ta·bil·i·ty, ir·ref·u·ta·ble·ness, noun
ir·ref·u·ta·bly, adverb
Synonyms
indisputable, incontrovertible, undeniable.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrefutable
Huh? Google finds 4.3M "Bible contradictions". My point was: it makes more sense to look to the origins of the creation myth, thus allowing for contradictions, than it does to invent a rationale for explaining them.
As I said, this assumption treats the Bible as a coherent work (as from a single source) which it isn't. So any relationship between passages within the Bible is already problematic. (Ignoring that such a search is absurd when trying to literalize a myth.) I'm not sure what other scriptural sources you may be referring to, since all sources are unknown (e.g. we have no autographs). More to the point: the sources (relevant to this topic) are all rooted in tradition (lore).
You will already have problems with the idea of "actual text" since that is in the semi-moribund language of ancient Hebrew. For example, we can argue all day whether the Hebrew word "adm" means Adam, clay/red, or man. I can almost as easily claim it means "skadiddlyhopper".
That the Hebrew word "chue", translated "Eve", is used as a name of a person, as when Adam names her "chue that she becomes mother of all living ones". And then the rest of the evidence I refer to is the body of Biblical exegesis, the correlation of Genesis to predecessor myths, e.g.,earlier tablets found at Nineveh, correlations to Phoenician and Mesopotamian myth in general, and the teaching Mind over Matter referred to, which is more closely founded in the roots of all Christianity (Catholicism) than any other source. If you wish to explore other Jewish sources, then you would probably need to diverge into the Masoretic texts. My comment was: not only is there an abundance of evidence, but additionally, you simply may be unwilling to accept it.
First you would have to define "actual". I suppose we would then digress into an exegesis in Hebrew. I'm not sure how most native English speakers would do that head to head. It would probably disintegrate into a polemic over semantics.
Your statement that precipitated my remark
is, on its face, opinion. The discussion that centers around the sense of the Bible presumes it makes sense to make sense of a myth via strict analysis. But if we were to proceed down that route, any statement you make that begins with
is immediately confronted by the exegesis (or ensuing polemics) over what it actually states, as in comparing the following:
True in what sense? True to a lost source? True in translation? ...etc. This is a discussion over contradiction. The basis for that discussion would necessarily revolve around truth. "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C" is a kind of truth we establish to determine whether "A≠C" qualifies as a contradiction. Most people would say yes, and would insist that establishing truth of hypotheses is a fundamental element of the discussion.
As in my remark above, the establishment of truth would necessarily turn on whether the source is a traditional myth.
You interpret this text on many levels. At at a minimum it's an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation. But there's probably a few more levels of nesting if we accounted for all interpretation creep.
But my actual point was directed at the problem of finding correlations between texts that you may assume were contemporaneous. What has happened is that a later storyteller references some fragment from an earlier storyteller. The two fragments appear side by side in the same binding (unlike the way scrolls were kept). So you may derive all kinds of false impressions by making such comparisons.
But you mention male and female. Speaking of contradictions, it contradicts the personification of God as "He" by joining the phrase "in His image he created them" with the phrase "male and female he created them." This contradiction may actually be an allusion to the female persona of God found in predecessor religions, also echoed in the phrase I'd really like to meet her.
I assure you my posts are relevant to this topic. You need only open your mind a crack, just let a few atoms of my ideas penetrate your stoic resolve to discount them without exploring them.
Last edited:
wynn said:
Which requires authorship, somewhat of a problematic issue for a story rooted in tradition and myth.
wynn said:
The kind of analysis you give has trouble withstanding some minimal exegetical scrutiny. I was addressing your remark
"supposed to mean" is entirely problematic, the subject of exegesis. Suppose I were to conclude that it wasn't supposed to mean anything, it was just a fireside yarn that went viral. The yarn-spinners might be astonished at how much contradiction has been employed to cast their innocuous little tales in so much concrete.
Aqueous Id,
Probably the subject of this thread is about 1/2 million of those, but yet there is no contradiction if we study the text. It only seems that way due to religious influence.
What matters in this thread is whether or not the texts are contradictory.
What you're proposing is a different topic of discussion.
As above.
We have working definitions of those words, so let's use those, see if there is a contradiction, and come to a conclusion.
We can also see what other, non hebrew, non abrahamic scirptures say on the subject of creation, as they all pertain to the one god.
The hebrew word is ''Chavvah'' which means life or living, the first woman, or, the wife of Adam.
Mother is comes from the word 'em which means:
1) mother
a) of humans
b) of Deborah's relationship to the people (fig.)
c) of animals
2) point of departure or division
It's not a case of unwillingness to accept, more than it doesn't make any sense. I don't see the point of adding ideas to it, so that it fits an ideology.
What I mean by ''actual'', is to question what it says, and make conclusions based on that, rather than add stuff that isn't there in a bid to make it sit right with an individual or organisation. IOW, there is no need of interpretation, as it states clearly what is meant.
Maybe, but that is a different stage of (un)development.
Based on what it says, there is no contradiction.
Then the title of the thread should be changed, as it assumes the texts mean what they say, but contradicts itself.
Or, start a new thread looking into the origin of the Bible itself.
Obviously we cannot establish, via the scientific method, whether or not it is ''truth'', as it deals with a trancendant nature (God). So we'll be back to the topic ''Does God Exist'', pretending belief in God is irrelevant.
How would YOU look to achieve whether or not the Bible or any scripture is truth?
There is no need of interpretation. It says what it says.
The problem stems from interpretion.
Who do you think are the storytellers?
Male and Female refer to bodies, and the functions of those bodies, like you have cars which are femine in their appearance, and cars that are masculine. The essence is the same. It is the activity of God, in the scriptures that are male. In other scriptures, the female aspect of God is dominent in some instances.
I just think you're shifting the goalposts, bringing topics up that do not relate to the character of the thread. IOW, you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.
jan.
Probably the subject of this thread is about 1/2 million of those, but yet there is no contradiction if we study the text. It only seems that way due to religious influence.
What matters in this thread is whether or not the texts are contradictory.
What you're proposing is a different topic of discussion.
As above.
We have working definitions of those words, so let's use those, see if there is a contradiction, and come to a conclusion.
We can also see what other, non hebrew, non abrahamic scirptures say on the subject of creation, as they all pertain to the one god.
The hebrew word is ''Chavvah'' which means life or living, the first woman, or, the wife of Adam.
Mother is comes from the word 'em which means:
1) mother
a) of humans
b) of Deborah's relationship to the people (fig.)
c) of animals
2) point of departure or division
It's not a case of unwillingness to accept, more than it doesn't make any sense. I don't see the point of adding ideas to it, so that it fits an ideology.
What I mean by ''actual'', is to question what it says, and make conclusions based on that, rather than add stuff that isn't there in a bid to make it sit right with an individual or organisation. IOW, there is no need of interpretation, as it states clearly what is meant.
Maybe, but that is a different stage of (un)development.
Based on what it says, there is no contradiction.
Then the title of the thread should be changed, as it assumes the texts mean what they say, but contradicts itself.
Or, start a new thread looking into the origin of the Bible itself.
Obviously we cannot establish, via the scientific method, whether or not it is ''truth'', as it deals with a trancendant nature (God). So we'll be back to the topic ''Does God Exist'', pretending belief in God is irrelevant.
How would YOU look to achieve whether or not the Bible or any scripture is truth?
There is no need of interpretation. It says what it says.
The problem stems from interpretion.
Who do you think are the storytellers?
Male and Female refer to bodies, and the functions of those bodies, like you have cars which are femine in their appearance, and cars that are masculine. The essence is the same. It is the activity of God, in the scriptures that are male. In other scriptures, the female aspect of God is dominent in some instances.
I just think you're shifting the goalposts, bringing topics up that do not relate to the character of the thread. IOW, you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.
jan.
I sometimes wonder if some ancient truffle hunt, and its associated cookoff, produced a wild toga party, speaking in tongues and venerating Baal, resulting in the psychedelic ideations found in Revelations. Horrified onlookers not qualified to partake, such as servers, may have appeared to them as specters such pillars of salt or seraphim. An attempt to recreate the Persian ritual of fire-jumping, over a burning bush, could have stimulated certain auditory hallucinations, that the burning bush was speaking to them. The visual effect sometimes called "tracers", while gazing into the night sky may have suggested flaming chariots. The animals who stole from their plates may have been afflicted, resulting in the otherwise improbable scenario that the lion lay down with the lamb. Such an onlooker, correlating the onset of mass hysteria with the feast, may have may have originated the dietary restrictions on yeast. For example, suppose they had previously noticed a powdery substance growing on their grain which produced a similar effect. Indeed they may have just barely missed the opportunity of conversating with the gods of Quetzalcoatl, simply by overlooking other psychoactive plants in the region, or available from travelling merchants, that might have been put to religious use.
If anything, such a party might give them cause to get out the goatskins the morning after, when revelers awoke in every compromising position imaginable, yet somehow strangely enlightened. They may have decided to start documenting their story, in the event that some of their prophetic experiences were to come to full fruition. Perhaps it was a message to a subsequent passer-by, the ancient version of the proverbial "Gone to Lunch" sign on the doctor's door, but left behind to explain the reason for their sudden disappearance, made clear to anyone who were to read the prescription and fully comprehend "the rapture".
Suppose God was the shroom, the name that must never be mentioned, lest the Gentiles inquire further, discover it, and come grab their stash. What's a gentile anyway? Who's to say it didn't connote hooded vigilantes, or "straight"??
spidey, I hope you don't find this too tedious. It's just offered to acknowledge the hundreds of insightful, poignant and often hilarious quips you regularly contribute which are are great for dragging us out of the doldrums and back into the candy store.
All rise. A toast for spidergoat:
Hip hip hooray
Hip hip hooray
Hip hip hooray
:cheers: