It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

God's After-Thought

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by funky monk
reply to post by shihulud
 


Hu? that post makes almost no sense and re-inforces his point.


1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


As you can see from this vs in Gen 1 it wasnt like God made man and then woman as an afterthought as claimed by the op.
Quite true from this verse although in Gen 2 it does seem that god DID create Eve as an afterthought however if you take the time to think, this is not possible



So why is Eve the originator or original sin if it was gods plan to create her to eat the fruit and make Adam eat it as well?


Ok..... this makes no sense to me at all, can you try explain a little better? Im curious to know what you mean lol.
What I mean is that if it was gods plan to create Eve, and god being an omniscient entity, then it would have been gods plan all along that Eve should eat of the fruit and persuade Adam to also eat. So why should Eve be the originator of original sin and why should god be annoyed with them and throw them out of Eden? Also if Eve was an afterthought then why create Adam with sexual organs and the ability to procreate and not create him a mate like god did with all the other animals?


Again for the second part of your post, how on earth does any of what you said relate for what NOTurTypical has said? All he has done is gone and pointed out what the bible says in relation to what the op has said.
The relation between gen 1 and 2 there is no "Fallacy of logic" - has it occoured to you that maybe the account of adam and eve in gen 2 is all about their creation in gen 1? There is nothing saying in gen 2 about the creation of eve happening after God made everything. Infact it is a more detailed account of what happend in gen 1:27.
Because the creation story in Gen2 occurs differently than the creation story in Gen1 and there is no mention of names in Gen1. In Gen2 Adam is specifically created to tend Eden while in Gen1 man and woman are created to replenish the Earth and have dominion over all living things so by that token it would seem that the creation stories in Gen1 and Gen2 are not one and the same.


G




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by shihulud
 


lol This is kinda frustrating me. ok.....
The relation to gen 2 with gen 1:27. You are talking of gen 1:27 and gen 2 of having different content. I cant seem to understand why you think this.

Gen 1:27 is a simple over view of that day, it isnt till gen 1:28 and 29 that you start seeing God give them more instructions.


28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.


What I am trying to get at here is that in gen 1:27 there is not really much need to go deeper then vs27 as we read on in chapter 2 a more detailed account of what happened:


27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.


So in chapter 2, if you have a read of it (its to long to post here) it starts off with a small account of God making everthing and then it goes into more detail of how he made man and then woman.

OK, now I have that out of my system, what are your thoughts on this?


Quite true from this verse although in Gen 2 it does seem that god DID create Eve as an afterthought however if you take the time to think, this is not possible



Also if Eve was an afterthought then why create Adam with sexual organs and the ability to procreate and not create him a mate like god did with all the other animals?


lol Are we on the same page here? Im all for the idea that Eve wasnt made as an after thought. It seems you are in that same boat as well.... just thought Id point that out.

Hrmmm,
-Funky



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I concur with funky monk's interpratation


I think it should be understood that the Holy Bible came about through the minds of men and here is what those minds DO state throughout the Bible:


34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34

1A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. I TIMOTHY 2:11-15

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Colossians 3:18

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. EPHESIANS 5:22-24

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Prejudiced much??

Thanks to LDragon Fire for that research


It's also imperative to mention that interpretation of sacred texts, which includes the Holy Bible, relies heavily on one's own personal perspective of such events, and in this case, the OP has expressed just that.
One might be of the opinion that "women" were indeed only an "after thought" of the Creator, where as others would prefer to think of God's master plans to be more, deliberate, meaningful and benevolent in nature.
But on the same hand there are those who believe even attempting to decipher such an evolved mind's intentions is utterly naive and completely beyond our capabilities of comprehension, because they recognise such views are purely human in theory and essence.

What was stated above from the external source, they are expressions of MENS opinions on what they believe God to be truly telling His people, and these men, in turn, try to pass off the text as evidence of what the Lord Almighty actually wishes of His people. (See in particular the Timothy verse - For Adam was formed first, then Eve)..

So dark the con of man...

[edit on 14/9/08 by pretty_vacant]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by pretty_vacant
 



A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5


lol well God must detest me lots, I wear chicks jeans all the time

I love



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by funky monk
 


loll fair enough with the ephesians verse

I wasn't aware.
Thanks for bringing that to light.

and regarding the whole womens/mens clothing thing, IMAGINE how angry God must be with everyone!!
what would be classed as mens clothing? Pants? That's probably half the entire female population who wear pants on any given day...


Hmmm that seems plausible when you say that some of these letters could have been sent for particular purposes to particlular people as that certainly counts for some people's own opinion on select subjects throughout the letters. Hence the emergence of some very prejudiced and somewhat traditional views...



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by funky monk
reply to post by shihulud
 


lol This is kinda frustrating me. ok.....
The relation to gen 2 with gen 1:27. You are talking of gen 1:27 and gen 2 of having different content. I cant seem to understand why you think this.

Gen 1:27 is a simple over view of that day, it isnt till gen 1:28 and 29 that you start seeing God give them more instructions.
In Gen1 plants are created on the 3rd day, animals on the 5th and 6th day and humans after all these, again on the 6th day. In Gen2 however Adam is created before plants Gen2:5-7 and the animals Gen2:18-19. Therefor these are two different creation stories.



lol Are we on the same page here? Im all for the idea that Eve wasnt made as an after thought. It seems you are in that same boat as well.... just thought Id point that out.

Hrmmm,
-Funky
Well we would be in the same boat if I wasn't an atheist and didn't think the whole thing complete nonsense however using the information at hand e.g the bible and the nature of the OP my consensus is that it does seem in Gen2 that Eve was an afterthought due to the wording of the chapter. Although this cannot be so due to the anatomy of humans or did god expect Adam to have sex with the animals to procreate?


G



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pretty_vacant
 


Thanks for being understanding nods*, lol personaly I dont think God really cares about who wears what, Im sure he loves us just the same
.

reply to post by shihulud
 


This is the first part of Gen 2. I thought I might as well point it out to you:

Gen 2:4-7

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


This is the intro to the story of Adam and Eve. All it says from what I can see is that no plant had yet sprung up from the land. This doesnt mean that God had not yet created the plants. Out of curiosity, what translation are you using? Im using the New Internations Version.
Try and remember that only something like 2 days had passed since God made all the plants by ths time.

As for the animals


19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.


It doesnt say God created the animals here, all it says is that he had already formed out of the ground all the animals.



Ok lol, so it seems that we really arnt on the same page. Sok tho, you can think what you like.



[edit on 14-9-2008 by funky monk]

Anyway, Im off to bed, Ill talk tomorrow


[edit on 14-9-2008 by funky monk]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 



Oh, now you're trying to lie to us. I rebuke your lies in the name of Jesus Christ. You tried to pass of to us your idea that Adam couldn't find an animal that "pleased" him. In order for a person to be "pleased" it would mean for him to have pleasure. You're sick, and I rebuke the idea.

Here is what you SAID liar:

"so why did god only create women when the animals wouldn’t please Adam?"

That's disgusting dude, and a LIE. Nowhere in ANY scripture known to man does it say anything whatsoever about God bringing animals to see if Adam was "pleased" by them.

Secondly, you state woman was created by God "as an after-thought". That's asinine, God is omniscient. He doesn't have "after-thoughts". It was his plan from the start.

You've invented trash to help you feel better about your decision to reject God. Don't pass that off as FACT, and shame on those who gave you stars for your deliberate perversion of scripture, your lies, and the straw men arguments your presented in the OP.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by funky monk
reply to post by shihulud
 


This is the first part of Gen 2. I thought I might as well point it out to you:

This is the intro to the story of Adam and Eve. All it says from what I can see is that no plant had yet sprung up from the land. This doesnt mean that God had not yet created the plants. Out of curiosity, what translation are you using? Im using the New Internations Version.

Well see there is our problem, the NIV seems to put it across as these things having already happened while most (if not all) the other versions tend to describe things a little differently i.e "Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground." KJV. Notice how slight word changes can totally skew the meaning of an entire verse


As for the animals


19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.


It doesnt say God created the animals here, all it says is that he had already formed out of the ground all the animals.
Lets check another version "Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air." KJV;
"19 So the Lord God formed from the soil every kind of animal and bird." NLT; "19So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens" ESV etc etc.
Again slight changes in the NIV tend to skew the meaning of the verse so that it implies that the animals and birds were already on the scene while the other versions don't seem to have that implication.

It seems, from what I've read, that the NIV translation is not a word for word translation and therefore can't really be used in the context such as this i.e to debate specifics


G



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by shihulud
 



Umm, the problem is you are using the NIV, modern Bibles use the Greek manuscripts of Westcott and Hort. They were Satanists, heavily involved in the Theosophy Society. Westcott founded the Hermes Club.

The Bible forbids anyone to add to or to remove from His Word. The NIV removes 35,000 words, and alters numerous verses.

It's basically Satan's perversion of the scriptures. There is only 1 authorized English version of the scripture, the 1611 King James Version.

KJV VS. Modern Bibles



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by shihulud
 



Umm, the problem is you are using the NIV,
I think you will find that I am not using the NIV and am making the same assertion that it is not a good translation

There is only 1 authorized English version of the scripture, the 1611 King James Version.
Which is the version I use


G

KJV VS. Modern Bibles



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
sorry shihulud youll have to excuse NOTurTypical he gets a bit flustered and shoots himself in the foot regularily

sometimes i wonder if he is really an atheist disproving christianity from the inside out



Originally posted by funky monk


Thanks for being understanding nods*, lol personaly I dont think God really cares about who wears what, Im sure he loves us just the same
.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by funky monk]


"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." -- Deuteronomy 22:5

nope abomination and for title you gain as punishment Deu 28:14 - 68
yes 54 whole verses of damnation just for you ....id stop wearing womens clothes if i were you


Women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." -- 1 Timothy 2:9

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel." -- 1 Peter 3:3

no plated hair gold pearls or fancy expensive clothes for ladies its just not proper!!

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." -- 1 Corinthians 11:14-15

even god hates long haired hippies get a real mans haircut!!! wait male lions have longer hair then the females apart from that its pretty much all even so how does nature show us that?

"I will punish ... all such as are clothed with strange apparel. -- Zephaniah 1:8 guess that means womens jeans as well as anything spandex or in dayglow colouring, did you look up you 54 verses of damnation?



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by shihulud
 


Well even in the KJV it says the following:


5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.


This is before the creation of man in Gen 2, so I dont know what the fuss is about here. Its clear even from this that God made all the plants and the like before he made man, he just hadnt made them yet grow out of the ground as there had been nothing to care for them or make them grow.


19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


Possibly God had alredy made the creatures and he was yet to place them into the earth. This is what he did with adam; he made him from the ground and then he placed him into the garden.


7And 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.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


God may have formed the animals out of the earth at this point but I think that they had all already been created as told in Gen 1, also it may have been more feasible for God to form a collection of the animals near where adam was for him to name etc.. rather then have all the animals travel half way around the world and then back again.

Im sorry noobfun, I love wearing my emo jeans too much.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

You tried to pass of to us your idea that Adam couldn't find an animal that "pleased" him. In order for a person to be "pleased" it would mean for him to have pleasure. You're sick, and I rebuke the idea.
"so why did god only create women when the animals wouldn’t please Adam?"


What the hell are you talking about........???????????????

To please someone is to make them pleased with you – to make them happy for bloody sake.

“…And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Adam is alone – so god made animals as companions) as I said – “I mean you can’t be a gardener all by yourself, there’s no one to talk to but the trees” (The animals are to please Adam – to make him happy – he is lonely………….DO U GET IT?????

NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX!!!!!!!!!

“And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”

The animals didn’t please Adam, they weren’t good enough companions. Eg a dog is not a good enough companion to a man. So god created Eve, a female equivalent to Adam. Humans are better suited to each other obviously then dogs or cattle.

So back to the topic - Why did god try to make man choose an animal companion before he decided to create a woman?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

........



So back to the topic - Why did god try to make man choose an animal companion before he decided to create a woman?


Like I said before, so Adam could see the worth in having Eve as his companion over all the other living creatures on earth.... well thats what I think any how.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by shihulud
 



Umm, the problem is you are using the NIV,
I think you will find that I am not using the NIV and am making the same assertion that it is not a good translation

There is only 1 authorized English version of the scripture, the 1611 King James Version.
Which is the version I use


G

KJV VS. Modern Bibles


Oh sweet, my bad.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by funky monk
reply to post by shihulud
 


Well even in the KJV it says the following:


5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.


This is before the creation of man in Gen 2, so I dont know what the fuss is about here. Its clear even from this that God made all the plants and the like before he made man, he just hadnt made them yet grow out of the ground as there had been nothing to care for them or make them grow.
No its not clear, mainly due to Gen 1 - the author of Gen2 had access to Gen1 so therefore would have incorporated this into the account.



19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


Possibly God had alredy made the creatures and he was yet to place them into the earth. This is what he did with adam; he made him from the ground and then he placed him into the garden.
And possibly not - from using both creation accounts its is not possible to determine exactly the process of creation due to the interpretation



7And 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.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


God may have formed the animals out of the earth at this point but I think that they had all already been created as told in Gen 1, also it may have been more feasible for God to form a collection of the animals near where adam was for him to name etc.. rather then have all the animals travel half way around the world and then back again.
Just as it may have been more feasible that the author of Gen2 utilised Gen1 to elaborate on their version of the creation account but just got is slightly wrong.

Check out also the Septuagints version of Genesis - it seems that Methuselah was still alive during the flood.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by shihulud
 


The Septuagint has been rejected by fundamental Christianity as being corrupt. In fact, when satan was "quoting" scripture to Jesus Christ after he fasted for 40 days he quoted from HIS version, the Septuagint, NOT the Massoretic OT Text.

www.jesus-is-lord.com...

The best read ever to understand the HUGE difference between the authorized text of scripture and the many perversions that are out there.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud

No its not clear, mainly due to Gen 1 - the author of Gen2 had access to Gen1 so therefore would have incorporated this into the account.



Can you explain what you mean by this a little better?

Anyway, Im exiting from this thread, this debate is going round in circles and I cant see this making any diffenece to either of our views.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by shihulud
 


The Septuagint has been rejected by fundamental Christianity as being corrupt. In fact, when satan was "quoting" scripture to Jesus Christ after he fasted for 40 days he quoted from HIS version, the Septuagint, NOT the Massoretic OT Text.

www.jesus-is-lord.com...

The best read ever to understand the HUGE difference between the authorized text of scripture and the many perversions that are out there.
LOL the septuagint is the oldest translation of the OT there is, I think it would be a better translation than the 1000+ year later effort of the Masoretic text. Plus no wonder it has been rejected due to the glaring errors it contains, the Masoretic just cleans up some of those errors to make the bible seem more believable (although it doesn't do that much of a good job).


G



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join