It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


10 questions about the Bible#1

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 07:27 PM
If Adam and Eve (who I believe were tribes) were the first , why is Adam told to replenish the earth. Why replenish if it was never there before. Shouldnt God have just said " Be fruitful and multiply" and leave out the replenish.

posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 07:32 PM
Well he did tell them to be fruitful and multiply.

But why did he say replenish?

because they (were) in the kingdom of paradise, they sinned and they were
not in paradise no more, so they had to (replenish) the earth from their sins which
cost them paradise.


posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 07:38 PM
That cant be true "Truth" because even if they were in paradise before, it doesn't explain why they had to replenish if there was nothing there to begin with.. unless you are admitting there were people living before then?

[Edited on 21-12-2002 by common]

posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 08:03 PM
You got this from apologetics?

basically only the misinterpreted protestant bibles says replenish, ihave two
catholic bibles that say fill the earth.

The protestant bibles are mistranslated to a massive degree.

Get a black book copyof the D.R. bible

I assure you there were no humans before adam and eve. alot of the attacks on god come from
these new misinterpreted protestant bibles.


posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 08:07 PM
my mistake for saying god said replenish when only the protestant bible says this and
post vatican ll bibles say this.

it actually says (fill the earth)

every catholic bible it says fill the earth.

this is a mistranslated protestant scripture.


posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 08:08 PM
If you don't know it by know common Truth is a religious fanatic. And I thought I was one. He is a bit deeply more involved in religion then I am.

posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 11:29 PM
Deeply is not the word for it, "truth' accuses people who disagree with him here as related to the Devil.

If a Bible states replenish the implications are that mankind once existed on earth in substantial numbers, but were wiped out by some event.

Please continue with your other questions common?

[Edited on 21-12-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 09:34 AM

Deeply is not the word for it, "truth' accuses people who disagree with him here as related to the Devil.


but then again, all christians will tell you if your not with christianity your with the devil.

posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 12:25 PM
No, not alll thaat are not christinas are devils.

many ae moral people like muslims but they just have not been told about christ
and his miracles.

many will be converted.

also jedi.

jesus was a (fanatic)


posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 12:34 PM
Misinterpreted new protestant versions?
How old is new? Are you considering the KJV 1611 a misinterpretation?

posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 02:04 PM
Also, truth has god talking to him. And he sees miracles everyday. And earth 6,000 years old to him and dinosaurs either all fake or all aged wrong. The Shroud of Turin real and anyone who says different evil. If you disagree you will face the wrath of his god.(aka go to hell if you can't interpret the meaning of facing wrath of god)

posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 02:46 PM
1. Where the hell does one sock from every pair go in the washing machine?
2. How about all those sets of car keys that went missing?
3. Were we really "alone" in the universe?
4. Did you mean "replinsh" or "fill?"

It is now on my list of things I suppose I will find out when I get there. But then again, the day I find myself standing at "the Gates" awaiting judgment, semantics will probably be the very last thing on my mind.

posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 02:50 PM
I'll have what he's having :-)

posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 09:41 PM
I'm not a world authority on any of this, but wasn't the Bible translated from latin or hebrew or some kind of language other than English? When passages of text are translated they are never translated correctly, there are always differences depending on the translators interpretation of the meaning. Therefore, the whole 'fill or replenish' argument should basically be considered void, in my opinion.

posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 09:57 PM
HEy we need truth at least he knows what he is talkin about. I mean id rather have him then a ton of christians here only half konwing what ther talkin about i with i was a freak like truth eveen tho i dissagree with him on some things. Like the shroud of Torha or whateva

posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 12:34 AM
Jesus was not a fanatic, he simply felt that what he did was the right thing to do. While this made him opinionated he was far from being an extremist.

Personally, I feel that truth can be a real pain the arse. But despite this steadfast opinion my impression is that his intent is not to do harm. This implying he is an asset and worth the time he spends getting on some of our nerves.

posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 02:34 AM
As long as one sticks to the text and the ways of scholarship, this is a fascinating question: though not, perhaps, while it focuses exclusively on the issue of translation.
We may be straining at gnats, so to speak, if we worry excessively about "replenish" as opposed to "fill".
It is a fact that the KJV does use "replenish" for the Hebrew "male'" here, and at the parallel passage a few chapters later, where the same is said to Noah and his sons. (and if one is going to be very literal-minded, I guess much the same "question" arises here as with Cain's offspring: who were Noah's sons, or grandchildren, or great-grandchildren etc. going to be replenishing with, if everyone else had drowned?).
On the other hand, one can see how Noah's offspring would be "replenishing" as well as "filling": given the flood.
It is equally true that elsewhere the KJV translates precisely the same Hebrew or Greek words as "fill".
On the other hand: the Latin Vulgate -source of Catholic translations uses two different Latin words:"replete" for Adam; "implete" for Noah where the KJV has "replenish" in both cases.
In short: this may be no more than an almost inevitable discrepancy between one translator's choice of words and another. I don't believbe it is, as a matter of fact. I think some special point is being made with regard to Adam and Noah -hence the fact that the KJV only uses "replenish" in these two places.
However, what that point is is -necessarily- a matter of debate, if not of conjecture.
What may be of interest however is the centrality of this passage to the growth of Christian and particularly Catholic thought with regard to sin and sexuality.
In "The City Of God" (many decent English translations) Book XIV, Augustine takes this command from God as key evidence in his doctrine of sin.
Essentially, he observes that God must have meant "reproduce", and - that as God had made Adam and Eve male and female - this must have meant reproduce just as we do now. Hence "sin" is not a feature of the flesh, but rather of the soul: sexual reproduction becomes "sinful" precisely because of Adam's disobedience and the Fall of Man.
In a sense then, the unfallen Adam -being like God - is doing for a second time what God did the first time (i.e. re-plenishing), though with many more "humans".
One can hardly comment upon whether or not this is correct; but it does at least suggest why the KJV translators may have felt that just "fill" was not enough for Adam and Noah, and why the Vulgate translators chose two different Latin words: Adam would be populating the Earth from a state of grace, whereas Noah's offspring would breed according to the punishments placed upon Eve when she and Adam were expelled from Eden.
No place here to go into this in depth: I do recommend even a cursory glance at St Augustine, however.

posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 12:00 PM
Truths rabid fanaticism does get a little tiresome sometimes.
Truth is there anyone now on the entire board you have not insulted with your extremist viewpoints? It seems like the only person who is going to heaven is YOU, and that, my freind, is a good sign that you are screwed up theologiclly,as I am sure God does not just want you in heaven... (even though some of us wish you were there forthwith)

Gen 1:28 KJV

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


04390 male' [maw-lay'] or mala' (Esth. 7:5) [maw-law']

There are 249 instances of verses containing Strong's number 04390 (replenish)

fill 107,
full 48,
fulfil 28,
consecrate 15,
accomplish 7,
replenish 7,
wholly 6,
set 6,
expired 3,
fully 2,
gather 2,
overflow 2,
satisfy 2,
1) to fill, be full
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to be full
1a1a) fulness, abundance (participle)
1a1b) to be full, be accomplished, be ended
1a2) to consecrate, fill the hand
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be filled, be armed, be satisfied
1b2) to be accomplished, be ended
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to fill
1c2) to satisfy
1c3) to fulfil, accomplish, complete
1c4) to confirm
1d) (Pual) to be filled
1e) (Hithpael) to mass themselves against

So I would say that the word fill and replenish in hebrew are the same word, they use a word that has more than one meaning. All those words above have the same word as replenish

[Edited on 23-12-2002 by Netchicken]

posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 01:12 PM
netchicken when god wants me off of the internet ill be off, but, i do NOT think iim
the only one going to heaven, thats insane.

i might wind up in hell if i fall, and you al could make it and me in hell.

I want ALL you in heaven so you can all enjoy eternal salvation.

read my post, i think no such thing.

My salvation is not a definite thing. Im a big sinner against god who is trying to be perfected through christ, im still
working on it.

i also tell god in my prayers for you guys that ill (suffer) for (your) conversion.


posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 08:18 PM
Truth you only talk about one topic and you present that topic time and time again in essentially the same way. There is really nothing that you have said in recent months that you did not say when you first came here.

Now I can understand that you feel the end of the world is coming and that you think (for whatever reasons) that its important for us to understand this.

But your point having been made why are you so preoccupied with repeating it. WE are all intelligent people truth, if you respect us enough to want the best for us. Then realize that we deserve to be treated
As adults.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in