Biblical Contradictions: Question #2

[garbonzo]

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.

Where did you even get fornicating with your mother from? They married their sisters.... Supposedly of course.

 

[birch]

adam and eve seems to be a metaphor for the consciousness of morality such as a recognition of sin as well as their 'nakedness' etc when cast out of the garden. they became aware of right and wrong so therefore learned to sin and deceive/lie.

but all species evolved from some level of incest literally. that's how species stay a certain species after all.

the bible can't be taken seriously as obviously it paints adam/eve as the first humans where incest was implied and then it states that incest is morally wrong. taken literally we know how species evolve and that at a certain point, incest is not biologically sound but neither is too much genetic disparity either. species are attracted to those who are similar to themselves too to further continue their genetics.

 

[Aqueous Id]

adam and eve seems to be a metaphor for the consciousness of morality such as a recognition of sin as well as their 'nakedness' etc when cast out of the garden. they became aware of right and wrong so therefore learned to sin and deceive/lie.

I would agree that in a modern light, we can reach this determination readily. I would just add that the ancient people probably were not thinking in the philosophical manner, anymore than a strict fundamentalist might engage in open philosophical inquiry today. But I certainly would agree that it survived the Enlightenment because so many people were able to subscribe to your definition, as they then had the freedom to do so.

but all species evolved from some level of incest literally. that's how species stay a certain species after all.

the bible can't be taken seriously as obviously it paints adam/eve as the first humans where incest was implied and then it states that incest is morally wrong. taken literally we know how species evolve and that at a certain point, incest is not biologically sound but neither is too much genetic disparity either. species are attracted to those who are similar to themselves too to further continue their genetics.

Amen to that.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Where did you even get fornicating with your mother from? They married their sisters.... Supposedly of course.

There are only three people known to exist before the creation of the first grandchild. That was all. I just wasn't presuming anything more than what is given. Obviously, we could presume a brother-sister incest occurred. It wasn't meant to be explained, so obviously this analysis is far too exhaustive for the myth spinners to handle.

But yes, you're absolutely right. Brother-sister incest would be just as valid an interpretation. It is also outlawed in Leviticus.

 

[garbonzo]

There are only three people known to exist before the creation of the first grandchild. That was all. I just wasn't presuming anything more than what is given. Obviously, we could presume a brother-sister incest occurred. It wasn't meant to be explained, so obviously this analysis is far too exhaustive for the myth spinners to handle.

But yes, you're absolutely right. Brother-sister incest would be just as valid an interpretation. It is also outlawed in Leviticus.

Gen 5: 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

This was after Seth was born. Also 4:17 states Cain had a wife. His mother couldn't have been his wife, of course. So then we know Adam had daughters before Seth was born also.

If you are going to argue against the Bible you should at least know it. =P

 

[garbonzo]

adam and eve seems to be a metaphor for the consciousness of morality such as a recognition of sin as well as their 'nakedness' etc when cast out of the garden. they became aware of right and wrong so therefore learned to sin and deceive/lie.

but all species evolved from some level of incest literally. that's how species stay a certain species after all.

the bible can't be taken seriously as obviously it paints adam/eve as the first humans where incest was implied and then it states that incest is morally wrong. taken literally we know how species evolve and that at a certain point, incest is not biologically sound but neither is too much genetic disparity either. species are attracted to those who are similar to themselves too to further continue their genetics.

That's funny. You state the Bible cant be taken seriously, as it states incest is morally wrong, even though it says A&E were the first humans, but then later on you agree that at a certain point incest is not biologically sound.... Well this is EXACTLY what theists assert! All life came from A&E, and incest was allowed to populate the Earth, but at a certain point incest became biologically unsound. God knew this and thus the Leviticus law....

This answers Aqueous Id also. This is just so simple and basic, it amazes me that smart people like yourself would believe it.

 

[garbonzo]

I see you cannot argue with this.... =P

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueos ID,

...apologies, this is the first time I've looked at this thread since my last
response to you.

I will respond to your reply soon.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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?

Where in the bible does it say that?

jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Gen 5: 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

This was after Seth was born. Also 4:17 states Cain had a wife. His mother couldn't have been his wife, of course. So then we know Adam had daughters before Seth was born also.

If you are going to argue against the Bible you should at least know it. =P

I think the correct statement is "Cain knew a woman", and if you assume that, at this point in the story, that this woman is his mother, you end up with the Oedipus Rex scenario. If you find that too appalling, you defer the identity of the woman until Gen 5 and try to get over the brother-sister incest. There's something wrong with this stylistically, that Cain's woman is set apart in a passage by itself...as if to create ambiguity? Who knows. But in either case, to say he "knew a woman" (or 'his woman') is in itself a contradiction, since the term should have been "his mother" or "his sister", for contextual correctness. Anyway, no matter. I wasn't arguing on how to interpret that anyway.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Where in the bible does it say that?

jan.

It doesn't - it suggests so - by its geneologies and histories, the earth [the obvious centre of the universe for desert nomads] was formed about 5,900 years ago. Somehow some people trust a massive telephone game across centuries - the appeal to authority is amazing, try and make up and urban myth, then just add I heard this from some people - and see how quickly it would take pace. When we add "trust me because your trust in me compels you to trust me" and then further add the carrot and stick [heaven and hell] or good cop, bad cop [God and jesus] and you can see why an ideology can have such a powerful influence on people and their lives. Religion is the greatest con those in power ever pulled - its bigger than election scams, bigger than overzealous wars or than financial conspiracies. Theology on the other hand is a philosophical enterprise and deserves respect, just like theism does but religiousity doesnt.

 

[garbonzo]

I think the correct statement is "Cain knew a woman", and if you assume that, at this point in the story, that this woman is his mother, you end up with the Oedipus Rex scenario. If you find that too appalling, you defer the identity of the woman until Gen 5 and try to get over the brother-sister incest. There's something wrong with this stylistically, that Cain's woman is set apart in a passage by itself...as if to create ambiguity? Who knows. But in either case, to say he "knew a woman" (or 'his woman') is in itself a contradiction, since the term should have been "his mother" or "his sister", for contextual correctness. Anyway, no matter. I wasn't arguing on how to interpret that anyway.

The literal interpretation is "know his wife". AND he moved after killing Abel, remember? So it could not have been Eve.

Boom chicka wow wow.