Biblical Contradictions: Question #2

[garbonzo]

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:

Originally Posted by Photizo "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And He is not served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 'For in Him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill.

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead.""--Acts 17

 

[spidergoat]

Thank you AI!

I don't think the mental capacity of the ancient Jews was any different than any other human, the use of plant based entheogens is common in many cultures, and did constitute, for a time, the way people did religion. The Indians did soma, South Americans did ayahuasca, North Americans did a potent strain of tobacco, as well as peyote, Africans had :m: and ibogane and who knows what else. Also, certain rituals of endurance produce similar effects. Moses probably found some strange berries and had a vision. The trouble is Jews tended to avoid most intoxicants besides wine, and so they thought this experience was unique to certain special people. They lost a very precious secret and began the degeneration from a living spiritual practice to a written and dead one.

 

[garbonzo]

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.

If you want to take the Bible literally, then it it saying the Earth was created in roughly 4000 years ago. Why would we see stars that a millions of light-years away, if Earth was only 4000 years old?

 

[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.

How can you avoid religious influence while upholding the Scriptures that are the foundation for the religion? You and several others have said this before, but I don't understand the logic. Can there be a religion of one, or within a family or tribe, that is universally accepted as a religion of "ones"? Some churches profess to exist like this.

What matters in this thread is whether or not the texts are contradictory. What you're proposing is a different topic of discussion.
OK but a contradiction arising from a disparity is congruent with our common sense of the order of things, just an agreement between alleged facts, arising from disparate sources, sounds the alarm. This is likely just a case of a later author parroting an earlier one. That is often proved by noting the two are writing from two different eras, reporting events that can be used to date then, or, in some cases, they appear to be trying to reconstruct the older text in a later era.

And disparity pops out at us first thing, with the two different creation accounts appearing from the get-go in Genesis 1 & 2.

I suppose it could be considered a different topic of discussion, but we can probably nip that in the bud right here with a little fact checking.

We have working definitions of those words, so let's use those, see if there is a contradiction, and come to a conclusion.

When do I use "adm" to mean Adam, not "human" as in the transliteration I gave? That would be problematic don't you think? Otherwise, if you start out assuming a meaning, you will quickly arrive at the desired finding that Mankind preceded the guy, Adam.

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.

And there the problem is that we'd be going out on a limb even further with a preconceived notion that these different cultures were connected at the hip in their sense of deity. What the evidence seems to indicate (i.e., site artifacts) is that they were often at odds with one another in this respect, and newer cults sprang up merely by reinventing the deity in some counterpoised role or persona. Eventually they hit on one that stuck, the monolithic version of Judaism. If you just want to compare present day beliefs dealing with one God, you're going to have to weed out a lot of candidates, unless you just try to make certain equivalences, such as Yahweh and Brahma. Speaking of other threads, I suppose that's another subject. But we ought to be able to do a spot check. I guess if you disqualify Brahma, that leaves you without the numbers that would give the idea some traction. I don't see it, because we don't imagine that the priests of ancient Israel had an ongoing contact with the Far East.

I don't think that was the thrust of your statement; I'm not sure. You seem to be saying that religions of today share this linkage, and you seem to be speaking from the position of faith, as opposed to the exegesis or science of discovering the meaning behind the words.

The hebrew word is ''Chavvah'' which means life or living, the first woman, or, the wife of Adam.

You say tomahto, I say tomayto. "Chue" is to "Chavvah" as "YHWH" is to "Jehovah." Some write "Chavah". But you won't arrive at a conclusion as to its precise meaning, since the word only occurs four times in the Bible, and always within this context of the name given to "his woman". (Male chauvinist pigs that they were, you know).

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

And as far as contradictions, Eve is created after Adam, yet she is the mother of all the living, which has to include Adam.

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.

How is striving for objectivity an ideology? It's not the adding of ideas, but the acknowledgement of all that has already been added to the soup while it was in the kitchen. Exegesis lets us reduce it back down to the stock from whence it came. Besides it's a striving for the truth by subjecting the work to the same standards we would normally use for investigating truth of any work.

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.

But "what is meant" is precisely the goal of exegesis, while beginning with the foregone conclusion that "it states clearly what is meant" is the quintessential reasoning behind "a bid to make it sit right with an individual or organisation". The exegete simply asks "what does it say" and leaves no stone unturned in discovering the answer. How is that a bid to make it sit right with anything? Typically these scholars come from all kinds of personal ideologies. Besides, anyone true to a common sense of honesty, whether religious, atheist or however you describe yourself (individualist?) would be equally successful in getting to the truth by virtue of merely pursuing it. And though you might personally believe it needs no interpretation, there are schools of divinity all over the world that exist as living evidence that interpretation is considered necessary.

Maybe, but that is a different stage of (un)development.
Based on what it says, there is no contradiction.

Based on the what it says - Eve was the mother of all the living - there is no conflict with the ban against incest? Huh? :bugeye:

Then the title of the thread should be changed, as it assumes the texts mean what they say, but contradicts itself.

OK well it's only asking us to compare two well established tenets of Bible readers: (1) that Eve was mother of us all and (2) that incest is taboo

Or, start a new thread looking into the origin of the Bible itself.

That would be OK I guess, I'm not big on threading the needle, I just like to watch camels pass though it. Maybe we can settle for a passing synopsis of what a thread like that might say.

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.

This inquiry does not affect the question of whether God exists, just whether the rational mind exists, and whether the mere application of logic can answer the question, regardless of whether God exists.

How would YOU look to achieve whether or not the Bible or any scripture is truth?

Reasonable people don't deny that world scripture contains many truths, indeed sometimes beautiful and profound ones (feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, visit the sick and imprisoned is my favorite). But is it true in the way your signature would be deemed true in court - authentic, written by you - that's another dimension of truth. When the experts go off in pursuit of that kind of truth about the Bible, and come back with all kinds of findings (you don't loop or slant a certain way, the fingerprints don't match, you were in Timbuktu on the date the check was endorsed in Monaco) - these are corroborating evidence.

In matters of truth, we never want to shun evidence.

There is no need of interpretation. It says what it says.
The problem stems from interpretion.

Again, it says Eve is mother of us all, so the first line of inference, before dragging in any other ideology or - what did you say? personal bias? something like that - we are left to infer a contradiction: God's plan for procreation had to begin with incest.

Who do you think are the storytellers?

Most likely Phoenician sailors who made purple dye from snails, and sailed the known world peddling it, as this was considered a sign of royalty to be robed in this color. They were best positioned to gather stories from around the Levant, and they owned the parent language of Hebrew and Aramaic. Words and ideas like Elohim, the pantheon of cherubim and seraphim, a mother goddess adored by the Israelites (the bride of God), other parallels like these, point to these folks as having some early influence. A recent Discovery Channel story connects the infusion of Yahweh into the earlier belief in Elohim, as attributable to the fall of a city call Yah, suggesting that a survivor wandered into an Israelite village and while elaborating on the powers of Yah, gave the Isrealites the idea that there must be one chief God.

A better rendering of the ideas I am trying to put forward is found in

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html#

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.

That's fine, as an opinion, or belief, or even as an observation about comparative religion, or even as an ontological or metaphysical archetype. I agree that gender infiltrates the notions of deities, which is one aspect that gives us pause, to note how often anthropomorphic ideation creeps in. I would liken Eve to Tiamat, the mother of us all, from Babylonian myth. (Remember, they say they came from Ur, so there is a cultural connection to that region.) And Tiamat was possessed, or the embodiment of, a serpent. The taking of the rib to form her is diametrically opposed to a bone from Tiamat being capable of generating the Milky Way. And the serpent is crushed under the foot of man, and forever at our heel in a manner that would seem to indicate that Tiamat has been fully subjugated by the God of the Israelites. The video above explains how the goddess Asherah relates to early Israelite beliefs, and for the Biblical references to her. Eve may

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.

I don't think any of my ideas are original, and to the extent these ideas are presented in classes on ancient history, mythology, theology, or any science dealing with the collection and analysis of artifacts, I guess I'm not convinced that anything that adds to truth should be avoided only because it seems too complicated. If I seem near the goalposts, it doesn't mean I moved them. Maybe I just moved the ball closer in.

BTW, I'm arguing against you right and left, in utter disagreement, yet this response you gave seems like the most reasoned you ever engaged me with so far. Is the sky clearing, or is this just the calm before the storm?

 

[wynn]

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

So. Do you still believe that you, as a human, can find a claim to be irrefutable?

 

[garbonzo]

How can you avoid religious influence while upholding the Scriptures that are the foundation for the religion? You and several others have said this before, but I don't understand the logic. Can there be a religion of one, or within a family or tribe, that is universally accepted as a religion of "ones"? Some churches profess to exist like this.


And disparity pops out at us first thing, with the two different creation accounts appearing from the get-go in Genesis 1 & 2.

I suppose it could be considered a different topic of discussion, but we can probably nip that in the bud right here with a little fact checking.


When do I use "adm" to mean Adam, not "human" as in the transliteration I gave? That would be problematic don't you think? Otherwise, if you start out assuming a meaning, you will quickly arrive at the desired finding that Mankind preceded the guy, Adam.


And there the problem is that we'd be going out on a limb even further with a preconceived notion that these different cultures were connected at the hip in their sense of deity. What the evidence seems to indicate (i.e., site artifacts) is that they were often at odds with one another in this respect, and newer cults sprang up merely by reinventing the deity in some counterpoised role or persona. Eventually they hit on one that stuck, the monolithic version of Judaism. If you just want to compare present day beliefs dealing with one God, you're going to have to weed out a lot of candidates, unless you just try to make certain equivalences, such as Yahweh and Brahma. Speaking of other threads, I suppose that's another subject. But we ought to be able to do a spot check. I guess if you disqualify Brahma, that leaves you without the numbers that would give the idea some traction. I don't see it, because we don't imagine that the priests of ancient Israel had an ongoing contact with the Far East.

I don't think that was the thrust of your statement; I'm not sure. You seem to be saying that religions of today share this linkage, and you seem to be speaking from the position of faith, as opposed to the exegesis or science of discovering the meaning behind the words.


You say tomahto, I say tomayto. "Chue" is to "Chavvah" as "YHWH" is to "Jehovah." Some write "Chavah". But you won't arrive at a conclusion as to its precise meaning, since the word only occurs four times in the Bible, and always within this context of the name given to "his woman". (Male chauvinist pigs that they were, you know).


And as far as contradictions, Eve is created after Adam, yet she is the mother of all the living, which has to include Adam.


How is striving for objectivity an ideology? It's not the adding of ideas, but the acknowledgement of all that has already been added to the soup while it was in the kitchen. Exegesis lets us reduce it back down to the stock from whence it came. Besides it's a striving for the truth by subjecting the work to the same standards we would normally use for investigating truth of any work.


But "what is meant" is precisely the goal of exegesis, while beginning with the foregone conclusion that "it states clearly what is meant" is the quintessential reasoning behind "a bid to make it sit right with an individual or organisation". The exegete simply asks "what does it say" and leaves no stone unturned in discovering the answer. How is that a bid to make it sit right with anything? Typically these scholars come from all kinds of personal ideologies. Besides, anyone true to a common sense of honesty, whether religious, atheist or however you describe yourself (individualist?) would be equally successful in getting to the truth by virtue of merely pursuing it. And though you might personally believe it needs no interpretation, there are schools of divinity all over the world that exist as living evidence that interpretation is considered necessary.


Based on the what it says - Eve was the mother of all the living - there is no conflict with the ban against incest? Huh? :bugeye:


OK well it's only asking us to compare two well established tenets of Bible readers: (1) that Eve was mother of us all and (2) that incest is taboo



That would be OK I guess, I'm not big on threading the needle, I just like to watch camels pass though it. Maybe we can settle for a passing synopsis of what a thread like that might say.

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.

This inquiry does not affect the question of whether God exists, just whether the rational mind exists, and whether the mere application of logic can answer the question, regardless of whether God exists.


Reasonable people don't deny that world scripture contains many truths, indeed sometimes beautiful and profound ones (feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, visit the sick and imprisoned is my favorite). But is it true in the way your signature would be deemed true in court - authentic, written by you - that's another dimension of truth. When the experts go off in pursuit of that kind of truth about the Bible, and come back with all kinds of findings (you don't loop or slant a certain way, the fingerprints don't match, you were in Timbuktu on the date the check was endorsed in Monaco) - these are corroborating evidence.

In matters of truth, we never want to shun evidence.


Again, it says Eve is mother of us all, so the first line of inference, before dragging in any other ideology or - what did you say? personal bias? something like that - we are left to infer a contradiction: God's plan for procreation had to begin with incest.


Most likely Phoenician sailors who made purple dye from snails, and sailed the known world peddling it, as this was considered a sign of royalty to be robed in this color. They were best positioned to gather stories from around the Levant, and they owned the parent language of Hebrew and Aramaic. Words and ideas like Elohim, the pantheon of cherubim and seraphim, a mother goddess adored by the Israelites (the bride of God), other parallels like these, point to these folks as having some early influence. A recent Discovery Channel story connects the infusion of Yahweh into the earlier belief in Elohim, as attributable to the fall of a city call Yah, suggesting that a survivor wandered into an Israelite village and while elaborating on the powers of Yah, gave the Isrealites the idea that there must be one chief God.

A better rendering of the ideas I am trying to put forward is found in

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html#


That's fine, as an opinion, or belief, or even as an observation about comparative religion, or even as an ontological or metaphysical archetype. I agree that gender infiltrates the notions of deities, which is one aspect that gives us pause, to note how often anthropomorphic ideation creeps in. I would liken Eve to Tiamat, the mother of us all, from Babylonian myth. (Remember, they say they came from Ur, so there is a cultural connection to that region.) And Tiamat was possessed, or the embodiment of, a serpent. The taking of the rib to form her is diametrically opposed to a bone from Tiamat being capable of generating the Milky Way. And the serpent is crushed under the foot of man, and forever at our heel in a manner that would seem to indicate that Tiamat has been fully subjugated by the God of the Israelites. The video above explains how the goddess Asherah relates to early Israelite beliefs, and for the Biblical references to her. Eve may


I don't think any of my ideas are original, and to the extent these ideas are presented in classes on ancient history, mythology, theology, or any science dealing with the collection and analysis of artifacts, I guess I'm not convinced that anything that adds to truth should be avoided only because it seems too complicated. If I seem near the goalposts, it doesn't mean I moved them. Maybe I just moved the ball closer in.

BTW, I'm arguing against you right and left, in utter disagreement, yet this response you gave seems like the most reasoned you ever engaged me with so far. Is the sky clearing, or is this just the calm before the storm?

What is the name of that Discovery Channel Program? I'd like to show it to my Dad who is still theist.

Why are you insisting that the OP is a Biblical contradiction? How many times so I have to show you that it is not. You don't discredit Wants Clause by saying reindeer don't exist. Don't use a "contradiction" which isn't at all a contradiction, when you have so many others to choose from.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueous Id,

How can you avoid religious influence while upholding the Scriptures that are the foundation for the religion?

Religion, as we know it, is separate from scriptures.
While scriptures are the best foundation for understanding of self, God, and how it all relates, it say's nothing of religion.

You and several others have said this before, but I don't understand the logic.

Religions are based on a person, for example, Jesus Christ. In order to for that religion to flourish spiritually, it must follow the example. The teaching of Christ can be found in the Bible, and in other documents in India (for those who accept he went there). Jesus didn't start religion (as we know it), he invited individuals to learn the art of self-realization, then spreading the gospel to other like-minded individuals. The Christian religion doesn't seem to share Jesus' teachings, but yet they are a religion.

Can there be a religion of one, or within a family or tribe, that is universally accepted as a religion of "ones"? Some churches profess to exist like this.

There is only one spirituality.

And disparity pops out at us first thing, with the two different creation accounts appearing from the get-go in Genesis 1 & 2.

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.

and...


And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

They may be different creation accounts, but they don't contradict each other. The former says he created mankind which was spread over the earth, hence different tribes and nations. The latter speaks of the creation of a man, and later on his wife was formed to help him.
Now that's not difficult is it?

I suppose it could be considered a different topic of discussion, but we can probably nip that in the bud right here with a little fact checking.

Check away.

When do I use "adm" to mean Adam, not "human" as in the transliteration I gave? That would be problematic don't you think? Otherwise, if you start out assuming a meaning, you will quickly arrive at the desired finding that Mankind preceded the guy, Adam.

''Man has come a long way.''

''The man has come a long way.''

You've got 20 minutes, starting...... now!

We can also see what other, non hebrew, non abrahamic scriptures say on the subject of creation, as they all pertain to the one god.

And there the problem is that we'd be going out on a limb even further with a preconceived notion that these different cultures were connected at the hip in their sense of deity.
What the evidence seems to indicate (i.e., site artifacts) is that they were often at odds with one another in this respect, and newer cults sprang up merely by reinventing the deity in some counterpoised role or persona. Eventually they hit on one that stuck, the monolithic version of Judaism.

If you just want to compare present day beliefs dealing with one God, you're going to have to weed out a lot of candidates, unless you just try to make certain equivalences, such as Yahweh and Brahma. Speaking of other threads, I suppose that's another subject. But we ought to be able to do a spot check. I guess if you disqualify Brahma, that leaves you without the numbers that would give the idea some traction. I don't see it, because we don't imagine that the priests of ancient Israel had an ongoing contact with the Far East.

Wtf are you talking about?

I don't think that was the thrust of your statement; I'm not sure. You seem to be saying that religions of today share this linkage, and you seem to be speaking from the position of faith, as opposed to the exegesis or science of discovering the meaning behind the words.

Read the bolded part, then try again.

You say tomahto, I say tomayto. "Chue" is to "Chavvah" as "YHWH" is to "Jehovah." Some write "Chavah". But you won't arrive at a conclusion as to its precise meaning, since the word only occurs four times in the Bible, and always within this context of the name given to "his woman". (Male chauvinist pigs that they were, you know).

What's chauvanistic about a man claiming ''his woman''?

And as far as contradictions, Eve is created after Adam, yet she is the mother of all the living, which has to include Adam.

(sigh!) In scriptures, women are regarded as ''mother'' out of respect for woman. The idea is that people respect their mother, so if all women are mother, all women will have respect. In a civilised society, people don't lust after their mothers.

How is striving for objectivity an ideology?

My point is, there is no need to fix something that isn't broke.

It's not the adding of ideas, but the acknowledgement of all that has already been added to the soup while it was in the kitchen.

The thread is of the assumption that the soup is what it is.l

Exegesis lets us reduce it back down to the stock from whence it came. Besides it's a striving for the truth by subjecting the work to the same standards we would normally use for investigating truth of any work.

For those who like to tinker, maybe. But for those who get from the soup, the point of the soup, eg, satisfaction of the pallet, and tum, and from it, develop nicely, there is no need of tinkering. They just get on with the next stage, development.

But "what is meant" is precisely the goal of exegesis, while beginning with the foregone conclusion that "it states clearly what is meant" is the quintessential reasoning behind "a bid to make it sit right with an individual or organisation". The exegete simply asks "what does it say" and leaves no stone unturned in discovering the answer.

We've already established what it says. It says what it says.
What it says, makes sense, not only with the rest of the scripture, but with other scriptures (which one would expect). What need is there to tinker, if not to change what is said?

How is that a bid to make it sit right with anything? Typically these scholars come from all kinds of personal ideologies. Besides, anyone true to a common sense of honesty, whether religious, atheist or however you describe yourself (individualist?) would be equally successful in getting to the truth by virtue of merely pursuing it. And though you might personally believe it needs no interpretation, there are schools of divinity all over the world that exist as living evidence that interpretation is considered necessary.

Yes, it is necessary because they want to change it to suit their whims.
All these different ideologies have vested interests in changing the scriptures, and in all there interpretations there are serious blind spots which they ignore, come up with stupid explanations that don't makes sense. None of them stand up to what is actually being said.

Based on the what it says - Eve was the mother of all the living - there is no conflict with the ban against incest? Huh? :bugeye:

I've already covered this.

OK well it's only asking us to compare two well established tenets of Bible readers: (1) that Eve was mother of us all and (2) that incest is taboo

And there's noooooo other alternative to these alien ideas?

This inquiry does not affect the question of whether God exists, just whether the rational mind exists, and whether the mere application of logic can answer the question, regardless of whether God exists.

This inquiry fails to take everything into account.

Reasonable people don't deny that world scripture contains many truths, indeed sometimes beautiful and profound ones (feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, visit the sick and imprisoned is my favorite).

You regard these as scriptoral truths?

But is it true in the way your signature would be deemed true in court - authentic, written by you - that's another dimension of truth. When the experts go off in pursuit of that kind of truth about the Bible, and come back with all kinds of findings (you don't loop or slant a certain way, the fingerprints don't match, you were in Timbuktu on the date the check was endorsed in Monaco) - these are corroborating evidence.

What do you mean by ''truth''?

In matters of truth, we never want to shun evidence.

You mean, if a statement reads ''I am a person'', we should not accept that's what it says, but dig real deep by bringing in the scientific brigade, the council of philosophers, police, and judicial system. Only to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that it means what it says?

Most likely Phoenician sailors who made purple dye from snails, and sailed the known world peddling it, as this was considered a sign of royalty to be robed in this color. They were best positioned to gather stories from around the Levant, and they owned the parent language of Hebrew and Aramaic. Words and ideas like Elohim, the pantheon of cherubim and seraphim, a mother goddess adored by the Israelites (the bride of God), other parallels like these, point to these folks as having some early influence. A recent Discovery Channel story connects the infusion of Yahweh into the earlier belief in Elohim, as attributable to the fall of a city call Yah, suggesting that a survivor wandered into an Israelite village and while elaborating on the powers of Yah, gave the Isrealites the idea that there must be one chief God.

Mmkay!

I don't think any of my ideas are original, and to the extent these ideas are presented in classes on ancient history, mythology, theology, or any science dealing with the collection and analysis of artifacts, I guess I'm not convinced that anything that adds to truth should be avoided only because it seems too complicated. If I seem near the goalposts, it doesn't mean I moved them. Maybe I just moved the ball closer in.

I didn't say it was too complicated. I said you complicate it more than is necessary. For example, you don't seem to be aware of title of ''mother'' given to older, or married women, nor the reason for this. This is elementary, and practical, in alot of cultures. You will find that a queen is also regarded as mother. In India, the cow is revered as mother because she gives milk to mankind. Mother is a title given also to planet earth.
Mother, is a title, not just a biological position.

[quoteBTW, I'm arguing against you right and left, in utter disagreement, yet this response you gave seems like the most reasoned you ever engaged me with so far. Is the sky clearing, or is this just the calm before the storm? [/QUOTE]

I think you are labouring under the notion that you are, by default, a reasoned person, and I, by default, am not.
I don't think this does you any favours, in that you don't actually take note of what I say. You see my words as something to pit your intellect against. More like a game.

jan.

 

[Thoreau]

You guys ready for Shitstorm #3? Err.. I mean, Biblical Contradictions: Question #3? It's coming up shortly.

 

[Aqueous Id]

What is the name of that Discovery Channel Program? I'd like to show it to my Dad who is still theist.

sure here you go:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html#

Why are you insisting that the OP is a Biblical contradiction?

I am agreeing with the OP. Here is a synopsis of what I've been saying:

Genesis is a myth.
Exegesis of the text produces several kinds of issues.
One of these is the literal interpretation that Eve was a person.
The person, Eve, is described as the mother of all of us.
Therefore incest was required among her children.
Incest is taboo.
A contradiction arises from the union of these facts.

How many times so I have to show you that it is not.

I didn't notice that you had showed me this. I will look again.

You don't discredit Wants Clause by saying reindeer don't exist.

I don't understand this sentence.

Don't use a "contradiction" which isn't at all a contradiction, when you have so many others to choose from.

I don't understand this either.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You guys ready for Shitstorm #3? Err.. I mean, Biblical Contradictions: Question #3? It's coming up shortly.

Are we leaving the antediluvian era? If so, I would like to add that the river that connects the Tigris and Euphrates to the Kush (Somalia) is a whopper, too.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Religion, as we know it, is separate from scriptures.

Most folks would say that their religion is founded on scripture.

While scriptures are the best foundation for understanding of self, God, and how it all relates, it say's nothing of religion.

Most people would answer you by reciting religious beliefs from within their scripture, so it’s not clear what you mean here.

Religions are based on a person, for example, Jesus Christ.

The personification of God arises out of the tradition and the scripture. There are many devout believers who will say they are in a state of spiritual connectedness to the Spirit of God, especially when observing their religious rituals, or prayer or meditation, etc.

In order to for that religion to flourish spiritually, it must follow the example.

OK

The teaching of Christ can be found in the Bible, and in other documents in India.

The only narratives of Christ are in the Gospels, with no such connection. Any correlation with India is probably coincidental.

(for those who accept he went there)

Do you believe Jesus went to India?

Jesus didn't start religion (as we know it), he invited individuals to learn the art of self-realization, then spreading the gospel to other like-minded individuals.

An argument I often hear is that God started religion, Jesus is God, therefore it’s OK to say Jesus started religion. I would say that the first person to tell a story of the resurrection of a dead man probably started this ball rolling, as far as the Christian religion was concerned. In the same regard, all religions have some (usually) unknown starting position.

Self-realization also seems to be the perennial theme of the Hebrew writings, don’t you think? It may even be more striking by the end of the Apocrypha, say Maccabees, in which there seems to be no explanation for why their God allowed the Temple to be destroyed, and when God was going to send them a warrior king to triumph over foreign aggression. Also, destruction of a temple was considered a sign of a god’s weakness. By the time the Romans came to do it all over again (66-67 AD), it would seem to give them a reason to seriously re-evaluate their world view, and perhaps the self-actualizing Zealot, who stood up to the Romans in defense of the Temple, was adopted by the example of a crucified teacher. For the next few hundred years they effectively committed suicide, by placing their defense of belief higher than their defense of their own lives and safety.

The Christian religion doesn't seem to share Jesus' teachings, but yet they are a religion.

What is your complaint against Christianity?

There is only one spirituality.

Spirituality can mean a lot of things, and quickly dissolve into a web of definitions and experiences. I could describe “religious experiences” in terms of romance, procreation, or even the experience of standing over some raw outcropping over a turbulent ocean, or a waterfall, or at the summit of a mountain. These experiences can be so powerful as to rob us of all pretense. Is that spirituality, or do you strictly attach more to it?

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.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

They may be different creation accounts, but they don't contradict each other. The former says he created mankind which was spread over the earth, hence different tribes and nations. The latter speaks of the creation of a man, and later on his wife was formed to help him.
Now that's not difficult is it?

What is difficult is the exclusion of all other knowledge needed for correct understanding: That the story is a myth, developed by oral tradition. That these are actually two threads, one from the Elohim school of teaching (Gen 1) and one from the Yahwist school (Gen 2). These two schools, or tribes, each had their own version of the creation myth, and they apparently struck a deal to allow both stories to coexist, even though they are distinct and contradictory. It also seems to imply that they might have questioned the issue of incest if two humans appeared out of thin air. Perhaps this was their way of proposing two scenarios, until the issue could be resolved. Regardless, here it is, plain for us to see.

We can also see what other, non hebrew, non abrahamic scriptures say on the subject of creation, as they all pertain to the one god.
:
: (then i say some stuff)
:
Wtf are you talking about?

hahaha. Good question. I thought I was answering you, but apparently you meant something different.

I don't think that was the thrust of your statement; I'm not sure. You seem to be saying that religions of today share this linkage, and you seem to be speaking from the position of faith, as opposed to the exegesis or science of discovering the meaning behind the words.

Read the bolded part, then try again.

OK we can check the Vedas if you like. I was only questioning the purpose of such an exercise.

What's chauvanistic about a man claiming ''his woman''?

This phrase encapsulates the reality that they were kept women. For example, they were not allowed beyond the women’s lobby of the temple. Men were closer to God, and kept this way, by such devices.

And as far as contradictions, Eve is created after Adam, yet she is the mother of all the living, which has to include Adam.

(sigh!) In scriptures, women are regarded as ''mother'' out of respect for woman. The idea is that people respect their mother, so if all women are mother, all women will have respect. In a civilised society, people don't lust after their mothers.

Sure, but this overlooks that the myth is attempting to explain the origin of populations. They are searching for the explanation of a common ancestor, so they invent Adam and Eve as the mythical parents of all humans. Well where did Adam and Eve come from? Where indeed. …Out of thin air, no doubt. How? By the breath of Elohim, ancient god (gods really) of Ugarit, known to work such wonders. How could Elohim do this? Well, in Sumer they say their god made a man out of clay. Anyone can see how easily that can be done. So Elohim took some clay, breathed into it, and the clay became Adam and Eve, walking talking people who began having babies and thus the populations came to be. But wait: how did they know to have sex? Weren't they made pure--or did Elohim (or Yahweh) give them lust? Uh… Uh… no, they were pure at first.... So who taught them about sex? And so the story gets a little allegorical, they have to corrupt themselves, to create lust, to have sex, to have children, to build populations. Aha! this explains why people are sometimes corrupt. Thus a myth was born. There is one messy detail, though. The appearance out of thin air of a common ancestor creates the requirement for incest. Note, since we actually evolved, no such issue arises. The mutant breeds with one of its ancestral kind (not necessarily in the same family) and the mutations are handed down.

How is striving for objectivity an ideology?

My point is, there is no need to fix something that isn't broke.

I'm saying Falsehood = Broke, worthy or capable of being set right, or fixed.

It's not the adding of ideas, but the acknowledgement of all that has already been added to the soup while it was in the kitchen.

The thread is of the assumption that the soup is what it is.

I only wish to differentiate soup from hypnotic potion.

Exegesis lets us reduce it back down to the stock from whence it came. Besides it's a striving for the truth by subjecting the work to the same standards we would normally use for investigating truth of any work.

For those who like to tinker, maybe. But for those who get from the soup, the point of the soup, eg, satisfaction of the pallet, and tum, and from it, develop nicely, there is no need of tinkering. They just get on with the next stage, development.

Ah, spiritual food. I suppose the diners take satisfaction from the creation myth more than the idea that Adam was a hominid and Eve was the first human. (I think a woman mutated first, as a possible explanation for labor during childbirth). I guess biology doesn’t suit your tastes. OK.

As for tinkering: the first tinkerers were the people who spun this tale, without any clue that all life evolved. The next stage, development, is where we are today. We have all of science and history to explain how this story arose. We know how to interpret it, what pitfalls to avoid. That’s all I meant by “boiling it down”. It’s a necessary step in seeking truth to consider all the facts, the best evidence, the proven or highly likely inferences drawn from the evidence, and best, most reliable reasoning. Perhaps that’s just common sense, but it’s quite a different thing than tinkering.

But "what is meant" is precisely the goal of exegesis, while beginning with the foregone conclusion that "it states clearly what is meant" is the quintessential reasoning behind "a bid to make it sit right with an individual or organisation". The exegete simply asks "what does it say" and leaves no stone unturned in discovering the answer.

We've already established what it says. It says what it says.
What it says, makes sense, not only with the rest of the scripture, but with other scriptures (which one would expect). What need is there to tinker, if not to change what is said?

I think we’ve established that we disagree on what it says. My view is as follows. Gen 1 is the creation myth by the Ugarit pantheon Elohim. Gen 2 recasts the story with the Canaanites evolving into a single God: Yahweh-Elohim. They are two different sources of tradition. The rest of the tinkering comes with the translation, which loses these meanings. “LORD God” in Gen 2 (Yahweh) would be better translated “Chief God” or “Principle God”, since they were arriving at this position from a tradition of polytheism. None of that comes across in King James, or even the older Latin Vulgate. That’s the problem with giving any document a sacred position from which there is no examination of how much tinkering has already been done. I agree, it’s not palatable to the partakers of spiritual food. I suppose I'm out of place, bringing tin snips to a banquet. But I'm suggesting we check our bowls. There's a fly in the soup.

How is that a bid to make it sit right with anything? Typically these scholars come from all kinds of personal ideologies. Besides, anyone true to a common sense of honesty, whether religious, atheist or however you describe yourself (individualist?) would be equally successful in getting to the truth by virtue of merely pursuing it. And though you might personally believe it needs no interpretation, there are schools of divinity all over the world that exist as living evidence that interpretation is considered necessary.

Yes, it is necessary because they want to change it to suit their whims.
All these different ideologies have vested interests in changing the scriptures, and in all there interpretations there are serious blind spots which they ignore, come up with stupid explanations that don't makes sense. None of them stand up to what is actually being said.

But history and science aren’t stupid. We use them as tools of understanding every day, before assuming what we think is true. At some point, a Bible translator did the same thing, and it seems to be transparent, but it’s not. If you stick to the plain literal English, an error arises, in which you lose all of the rest of the story—the prologue, if you will—that clarifies why the translation, literally construed, can not be correct.

Simply stated (as you dislike complication): every English Bible should contain a warning notice, like on cigarettes: “WARNING – reading this text literally without reading the prologue, can be dangerous to your religious and/or psychological health. Please refer to the Bibliography for a description of works constituting the prologue” something like that. And then they should have to give you access to those materials. It used to be that few people had a Bible, until the printing press made them available for home use. Some believers today claim that the Catholic Church was withholding the Bible as a way to require the believers to rely on the priests to explain the meanings certain texts, and the printing press liberated them from that reliance. I would turn that around and say: you rely on the same Church authority that gave you that document, to rail against it. Yet you refuse to investigate the prologue, which the Church did not give you. What’s wrong with that picture? (That’s not directed at you, Jan, but to other readers).

Reasonable people don't deny that world scripture contains many truths, indeed sometimes beautiful and profound ones (feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, visit the sick and imprisoned is my favorite).

You regard these as scriptoral truths?

I regard them as universal truths, like many others found in scriptures, and every other form of literature and art. Who could deny that these are fundamental expressions of human compassion that are universally held sacred, even by atheists.

But is it true in the way your signature would be deemed true in court - authentic, written by you - that's another dimension of truth. When the experts go off in pursuit of that kind of truth about the Bible, and come back with all kinds of findings (you don't loop or slant a certain way, the fingerprints don't match, you were in Timbuktu on the date the check was endorsed in Monaco) - these are corroborating evidence.

What do you mean by ''truth''?

The whole truth, without cutting corners.

In matters of truth, we never want to shun evidence.

You mean, if a statement reads ''I am a person'', we should not accept that's what it says, but dig real deep by bringing in the scientific brigade, the council of philosophers, police, and judicial system. Only to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that it means what it says?

If it said that. But this is not the case. It gives us Elohim (the ancestral gods) in Gen 1, and Yahweh Elohim (the chief of the gods) in Gen 2 and thereafter. It’s basically saying “we are the people” [Gods] and then “I am one of many people” [Gods], only the translator renders this is “I am a person” [I am the lord your God]. So if you walk away with that meaning, you form a false conclusion, believing that everything you need is in that soup. But it’s not. Not for a correct meaning, anyway. I don’t dispute that the soup tastes good to you, I'm worrying about the fly.

Most likely Phoenician sailors who made purple dye from snails, and sailed the known world peddling it, as this was considered a sign of royalty to be robed in this color. They were best positioned to gather stories from around the Levant, and they owned the parent language of Hebrew and Aramaic. Words and ideas like Elohim, the pantheon of cherubim and seraphim, a mother goddess adored by the Israelites (the bride of God), other parallels like these, point to these folks as having some early influence. A recent Discovery Channel story connects the infusion of Yahweh into the earlier belief in Elohim, as attributable to the fall of a city call Yah, suggesting that a survivor wandered into an Israelite village and while elaborating on the powers of Yah, gave the Isrealites the idea that there must be one chief God.

Mmkay!

I said Discovery Channel – it was a PBS NOVA program. I got the name of that town wrong, it was something like YHW, which is why the scholars in the program link it to the origin of YHWH, the monolithic God who first appears in Gen 2.

I don't think any of my ideas are original, and to the extent these ideas are presented in classes on ancient history, mythology, theology, or any science dealing with the collection and analysis of artifacts, I guess I'm not convinced that anything that adds to truth should be avoided only because it seems too complicated. If I seem near the goalposts, it doesn't mean I moved them. Maybe I just moved the ball closer in.

I didn't say it was too complicated. I said you complicate it more than is necessary. For example, you don't seem to be aware of title of ''mother'' given to older, or married women, nor the reason for this. This is elementary, and practical, in alot of cultures. You will find that a queen is also regarded as mother. In India, the cow is revered as mother because she gives milk to mankind. Mother is a title given also to planet earth. Mother, is a title, not just a biological position.

Oh, sure, no doubt Mother can be used as a title. This opens up a whole new dimension to the Mother archetype, including the possible link to the mother creators, such as Tiamat. However, in this aspect of the creation myth, they are seeking to explain the phenomenon of populations, without any science. Everyone has a parent, so who were the first parents, and then where did they come from? So in this case the motherhood of Eve is pointedly constructed around answering that question. As for complicating things more than necessary, I would accept that from someone who agrees with a detail I am certain of. But for someone who refutes a detail I am certain of, I am inclined to bring the detail into the discussion to disabuse them of the error.

 

[Balerion]

Phenomenal post, Aqueous Id. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[garbonzo]

I didn't notice that you had showed me this. I will look again.

Please do.

I don't understand this sentence.

Santa Clause, sorry.

I don't understand this either.

I'm saying why do you keep insisting the OP is a contradiction when there are so many more solid ones to choose from?

 

[garbonzo]

By the breath of Elohim, ancient god (gods really) of Ugarit, known to work such wonders.

Is this why at Gen. 3:22 it says: And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

 

[garbonzo]

Why is no one acknowledging this scripture, which blows Jan's theory out of the water?

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And He is not served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 'For in Him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill.

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead."--Acts 17

 

[aaqucnaona]

Looking for contradictions in the bible is like looking for a needle....on a porcupine. Inspired word of God or Bronze age myths, either way, the current version of the bible is not and cannot be the pure, true and real word of God. Btw, why does God's word have to be inerrant?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Why is no one acknowledging this scripture, which blows Jan's theory out of the water?

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And He is not served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 'For in Him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill.

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead."--Acts 17

Was this what I failed to respond to? Well, it's definitely nailing that question to the wall. One guy, that's how the writer of Acts sees it. And for anyone who's a strict Biblical theist, I suppose that binds 'em to it.

Oh - quick comment about my referring to the OP. It's just a formality, to say the OP was answered, that's all.

After missing it, may I now incorporate your contribution into a syllogism that answers the OP? We can share the prize:

All nations of men descended from Adam (Act 17)
Eve is the mother of all the living (Gen 3:20)
Therefore the generation that followed Cain were the product of incest.

QED. :cheers: Drinks are on the house. (...now that's what I call a forum with "gusto":)

 

[garbonzo]

Was this what I failed to respond to? Well, it's definitely nailing that question to the wall. One guy, that's how the writer of Acts sees it. And for anyone who's a strict Biblical theist, I suppose that binds 'em to it.

Oh - quick comment about my referring to the OP. It's just a formality, to say the OP was answered, that's all.

After missing it, may I now incorporate your contribution into a syllogism that answers the OP? We can share the prize:

All nations of men descended from Adam (Act 17)
Eve is the mother of all the living (Gen 3:20)
Therefore the generation that followed Cain were the product of incest.

QED. :cheers: Drinks are on the house. (...now that's what I call a forum with "gusto":)

We can share the prize for busting Jan, but not for answering the OP for as I've said, what is it, 5 times now, that the ruling of incest came WAY AFTER A&E, Why? Because according to theists, they had descended further from perfection, goodness gracious me.

 

[Aqueous Id]

We can share the prize for busting Jan, but not for answering the OP for as I've said, what is it, 5 times now, that the ruling of incest came WAY AFTER A&E, Why? Because according to theists, they had descended further from perfection, goodness gracious me.

The ruling? You mean it wasn't off limits until (Leviticus 20:4), something like that?

Oh. I wasn't breaking time down like that. Let me get this straight: the theists say it's OK to fornicate with your mother , as long as you didn't get notified in advance that's it's taboo?

Or: there's no contradiction because in the Bible "there shall be no ex post facto laws"? (Like in the Constitution...you don't think the Framers were... never mind...)

Either of those are pretty damn lame. I mean, what God-fearing theist would want to run down to the courthouse to testify in favor of a sex offender? OH, I forgot, they're not in it to help the guy get a break, they just want to defend against the possibility that they might be proven wrong.

Am I getting warm yet? For some reason I haven't been triggering on your cues too well.

 

[wynn]

Why is no one acknowledging this scripture, which blows Jan's theory out of the water?

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And He is not served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 'For in Him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill.

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead."--Acts 17

And you presume to be sure that you know what
From one man He made every nation of men
was originally intended to mean?