The "Facts" of the bible and where we come from

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Were their multiple Gods at first?
No.

So, now we're ignoring the Bible?

Well you can see my forum name so I am not arguing with you but would like to point out the context of some multiple gods.

Say you build a rock figure and call it Sam, my god.

If I am GOD and I say I will destroy, prove false, your god, Sam, doesn’t mean that I believe in “Sam the god”. I would merely be using the label you have attached to said object so that you would understand the connotation.

god creating the universe

Google Video Link

The answer will soon be published. I am amazed how many of you people who do not know anything about these things. Do you not read or watch science\history shows??

Originally posted by undo
I'm gonna suggest that before you can tackle these questions and get even remotely viable answers, you must come to grips with the fact that mainstream translations and popular doctrinal stances do not equal what the original text says or even what it implies.

...

Therefore, you are arguing against already misleading doctrinal stances and incorrectly translated words. If you want to truly argue the points, you have to put the time in, otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind.

While I appreciate your thoughts on that as well as the time you took to show exactly what you were talking about, I have to point out that it does not apply here.

I never claimed to believe the bible in any form. I have questions however for the many that do. These people that are easily found on ATS believe in the words written as they are now. These people are happy to even argue in favor of the words in the current, heavily edited texts. So, my questions are directly to them. I am trying to understand what goes into believing the bible as we see it today, word for word.

I hope that clears that up. Thanks just the same.

Originally posted by Y2KJMan
I do acknowledge the fact that the Bible is vague in this regard, however, using reason... if the author believed (as do I) that Adam and Eve are the ultimate descendants of every human on the planet, then all of the marriages at that point in time would be incestual by the way we percieve things now. I do not see how it could be considered a fallacy to read between the lines in one part of the scriptures (here) and not another (the gods question later on).

It seems like a fallacy to read between the lines anywhere in the bible. Genesis 4

13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [e] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.

17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

If I were to read between the lines, I would conclude that Cain left Eden alone. So he found his wife in Nod or one of his sisters came after him but either way, I am left guessing. So reading between the lines leads you and me to different conclusions. This seems less than perfect somehow. Disagree?

This can be attributed to the limited details in Genesis Ch1, in Ch2 details are given as to the whys of God's decisions. Man could be been created alone, yet he would be lonely, that is the why of the creation of everything. In God's infinite wisdom, he foresaw this problem and corrected it before it happened. I believe this to be the reason to why this is worded in this way.

With all due respect, why should anyone put stock in what you believe it meant. I am all for it but you did not really put forth a convincing argument. Basically you just state how you see it and that is how it probably is. I am just looking for a little more certainty.

So I am lead to ask - do you believe the bible literally even with all the guessing you have to do in order to understand it?

I do not believe that this is relevant to the Biblical creation story, as he created all universe from will alone. That I believe is the big message there, he is above all physical laws.

You may not find it relevant but that is pretty convenient don't you think? What else can we dismiss in such a way? The resurrection seems crazy so how about we decide that is not relevant. Lot being seduced by his daughters seems pretty irrelevant since no one likes to acknowledge that story so let's toss that out. Given enough time, I could certainly make the case the the ten commandments were irrelevant as well.

The thing is, the author and editor thought it was relevant and if you believe one version, you have to believe the other. Simply dismissing the contradictions does not really convince me.

This I also see as a Microcosm of the Earth at the time, planting the Garden of Eden is a bit different than populating the rest of the world with plant life. The garden was created after Adam as a home, not the garden as the masterpiece with a human to live in its boundaries.

I am more than willing to give you that the plant thing is far too vague to make any real argument one way or the other. I will have to just leave it at the idea that it just does not say enough to contradict itself because it is so vague in the second version.

If I were to read between the lines, I would conclude that Cain left Eden alone. So he found his wife in Nod or one of his sisters came after him but either way, I am left guessing. So reading between the lines leads you and me to different conclusions. This seems less than perfect somehow. Disagree?

I agree that vagueness is a theme in some of the scriptural stories, I do not believe that the authors of the bible had the *wisdom* to interpret what they were shown and told by God to write it another way.

Cain was a wanderer in the land of Nod (the land of wandering) which would well describe a man without a home, whether it describes his gathering of possessions or not, it would seem a bit far fetched to think that he didnt gather any belongings for the "trip." Why would a wife not be included in this group of things to be gathered if at this point in the story it was not necessary to get the point across?

I do not understand (please forgive this) why every single detail about this event would have to be written down as record in order to make it believeable. There are many who believe aliens are real and abductions happen with little more than heresay.

Interpretation of evidence is quite astonishingly reliant in the persons preconcieved notions, think Evolution. Nothing I have ever read, researched, or saw has convinced me of it being true. Yet, there are many who dont see any flaws in the theory at all. Two interpretations arent that had to find in any case. OJ Simpson walked... should he have?

With all due respect, why should anyone put stock in what you believe it meant. I am all for it but you did not really put forth a convincing argument. Basically you just state how you see it and that is how it probably is. I am just looking for a little more certainty.

How do you convince a duck that it is a dog? Or convince a math proffessor that 1+1=0? Or a physicist that there is no such things as atoms? I do not believe I will be able to convince you, however this is an intellectually stimulating conversation just because of the subject matter. I am having a blast honestly, and as long as it is respectful I would be happy to continue discussing this and whatever other questions. Though some subjects may take longer for replies than others for research time.

So I am lead to ask - do you believe the bible literally even with all the guessing you have to do in order to understand it?

I believe it literally, there is nothing to my knowledge that has ever been disproven in the good book. I know that many will jump in and say this or that, but truly, if looked at objectively... there is a true difference between no supporting evidence and shown to be false.

You may not find it relevant but that is pretty convenient don't you think? What else can we dismiss in such a way? The resurrection seems crazy so how about we decide that is not relevant. Lot being seduced by his daughters seems pretty irrelevant since no one likes to acknowledge that story so let's toss that out. Given enough time, I could certainly make the case the the ten commandments were irrelevant as well.

The thing is, the author and editor thought it was relevant and if you believe one version, you have to believe the other. Simply dismissing the contradictions does not really convince me.

This is a matter of opinion on my part on it not mattering on whether or not they were made from water or dirt. However, the resurrection is required for the message of salvation. Lot's daughters and their seduction is meant to show the influence of Sodom and Gomorrah even after their destruction. How do these examples have anything to do with the question at hand? Sorry, sometimes I am a bit slow.

the flood

a couple of geologists from oxford university discover that the flood of the epic of gilgamesh and biblical account happened and the mechanism that caused it

Now just hold on everyone.
Are you not forgetting that the bible is a collection of short stories made up in the forth century by some guy wanting a really good book to use to rule his people.
We all know what animals are made of i.e meat etc and his wife well probably a mail order bride from somewhere.

This has been a hilarious read, I do applaud the replies.

I respect all peoples views.

reply to post by F800GSRIDER


it was written in 4th century?
even the old testament?

you mean the new testament yes? his questions aren't about the new testament, if you'll note real quick, the opening post questions are old testament.

Originally posted by Y2KJMan
When talking to someone that believes that up is down and down is up, using their terminoligy is usually best. When pronouncing judgement on another cultures religion and therefore their gods, it would be assumed that God would tell them that their gods are going to be destroyed. If they believe that their gods are destroyed it would be a good way to convert peoples of those nations and faiths. Ex: If Jesus were to destroy Allah... there would be more converts than if a Christian killed a Muslim.

I understand what you are saying but I do not see how it applies to god referring to himself as plural. No matter what the context, if he wanted to be clear that he was just one god then surely they would have understood the difference between him and many? It is in God referring to himself as "us" that does little to convince me.

This is never explained quite so clearly, though I can say that I wish it were... one of the major facets of being a believer and studying scripture is not just the reading but also the praying and meditating for the answers given by God himself. I know this may sound cliche, but, in order to have the greatest understanding... it may require more effort in the search for wisdom. Wisdom > Knowledge in Christianity

I really hope you will understand how little that does for many people. Even among Christians, the number who will tell you that God gave them answers to anything is less than 100%. So you have to imagine the mind of someone reading the bible, getting confused, asking God for clarity, and getting no response. What will you tell these people? It would be nice if divine intervention would answer my questions for me as it has for you but I cannot seem to get that to happen. So, should I just believe things that make no sense anyway? It is hard to be sincere about that and I sure that God would know, right? So I am trying to find answers that do not require any god whispering to me because so far I am left wanting there as well.

In our quest for knowledge, we expect there to be answers for everything. I honestly believe that there is not always a way to find the answer... the quest for the knowledge or the journey is the point.

Well there is a reason I am confused about the trinity being the answer to a question about the bible. See, in Genesis we have a god referring to himself in the plural. You say it is the trinity. I do not see anything about the trinity. You tell me I might need to just believe it. But, who added in the trinity? Why do you believe in the trinity? How do you know the people pushing that idea were right? There have been times where general consensus was wrong by a long shot so why would you believe in this trinity not mentioned in the bible?

I guess that thing that strikes me is that part of that trinity is the son who does not show up for a while in the bible anyway so I have a hard time shoehorning him in to explain Genesis away.

I will never know with 100% certainty that Cains wife was his sister, though the quest for that knowledge opens up other avenues of study and prayer. This is what growing in faith is about.

Exactly. Look at what I am doing as trying to grow in faith. I am starting out at absolute zero. I need to grow in faith and so I am on a quest for knowledge, trying to open avenues of study. The answers I am getting so far end up being 'Well you gotta believe first to understand the stuff that we cannot explain or understand either.'

I hope you see how little help those kinds of answers are, although I do appreciate reading the thoughts and input just the same.

Faith is not easy, for whoever has faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains.

Originally posted by plube
well why just genesis....here is the second verse in the hymn to Osirus..

I was not aware that fundamental Christians subscribed to Egyptian god stories. Maybe you can elaborate as to how that fits?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Y2KJMan

 

the solution to cain's wife is obvious if you read it in the original language.
the first time man is created, it really doesn't say man in the original language, it says adam (but the translators decided to use the word man there because in the same verse it refers to adam as "them" (males and females created in the image of the atum, a plural word, since it coincides with the elohim, which is a plural word). the word god in the passage is plural not singular. and the adam was not just male but there were female adam as well. in effect, it was an entire race called adam because it was created in the image of the atum (moses wrote the pentateuch. he's telling the egyptian creation story, which is the same as the mesopotamian one just slight name variations).

That makes perfect sense when you leave out about half of the Genesis story. What do you make of Eve and her creation story from this? How about the idea that this race of people did not exist elsewhere and Cain went off on his own?

when egyptology tells you that Atum self-created, it really means that the Atum cloned copies of themselves, known in biblical texts as the adam. it's all the same thing.

These answers about correct translations are very interesting. Let me ask you, do they lead you to the same conclusion as they would me? Fundamental Christians are all wrong because they subscribe to the more modern translations as they stand?

Originally posted by plube
I question why everyone seems to think on the large scale....

put adam and eve into genetic petri dishes .

you can create an entire race through cell division...

it is not all about sex...it is alot about imaculate conception ....that is the case with many god...in how it is stated as virgins.

you can put these genes into many and they al become a part of adam and eve.

i name this dish adam

i name this dish eve

just a thought so beat me up

I hope I do not come across as beating anyone up in this thread. That would be antithetical to any actual quest for knowledge. I appreciate all responses whether I bat them off or do not respond because there is nothing I can add to improve them.
That being said, the esoteric and metaphysical types of musing about what things should have meant, could have meant, or what we might hope they mean are all wonderful and interesting. The problem is that my questions are specific to fundamentalist Christians who take the bible at its word. I have no problem entertaining more interesting ideas about what things might mean but that does little to explain away the types of posters that I regularly see on ATS claiming that they have seen proof of giants, the deposits from Noah's Ark, found the Garden of Eden, know the world is 6000 years old, know for a fact dinosaurs either lived within that time or never at all, etc.

Originally posted by undo
lesson #4

Gen 1:27 So God 430 created 1254 man 120 in his [own] image 6754, in the image 6754 of God 430 created 1254 he him; male 2145 and female 5347 created 1254 he them.

ends up being:

Elohim created adam image
image Elohim created
male female created.

What I get from what you are saying is that anyone that believes the bible is a literal translation is way off. I also see that Christianity as a whole may be debunked by this? Originally it simply said 'gods made people.' That does seems a bit contradictory to any creation story I have ever heard.

What religion would you say you subscribe to?

Originally posted by Genesis322
As in my reply earlier one needs to know the true meaning of Adam

So as I was just saying, this only leads to more questions about the specificity of Eve's creation story.

Originally posted by Genesis322
Well you can see my forum name so I am not arguing with you but would like to point out the context of some multiple gods.

Say you build a rock figure and call it Sam, my god.

If I am GOD and I say I will destroy, prove false, your god, Sam, doesn’t mean that I believe in “Sam the god”. I would merely be using the label you have attached to said object so that you would understand the connotation.

That makes plenty of sense when discussing the others, not being self referential though.

Genesis 1:26
And God said, let us make man in our image.

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

Genesis 11:7
Let us go down, and there confound their language.

reply to post by evil incarnate


Which translations would you recommend?
I have a KJV,NKJV,Torah,Jewish NT...
I have the 1611 KJV on my old computer.

reply to post by evil incarnate


well jehovah is a triple deity. i'll explain:


jehovah is the sumerian EN.LIL, EN.KI and ANU.

EN.LIL is seen in the akkadian text, THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH (Tablet XI), tells the same flood story, in which we see EN.LIL pronouncing judgement on the earth with a flood. The story is 100% the same as the biblical flood. This absolutely cinches EN.LIL as Jehovah.

In the akkadian text, ENUMA ELISH, a section is seen in which a king named ENMERKAR (biblical nimrod) has a new temple built to reintroduce the worship of Inanna. EN.KI throws a wrench in the works by confusing the languages of the builders. This absolutely cinches EN.KI as Jehovah in the act of confusing the languages at the tower of babel construction.

So that's 2 gods that comprise many of the activities of Jehovah in the biblical texts, found in texts outside the bible.

And finally, is the sumerian story of Adapa (one of the first adam, apparently), who is summoned to the throne room of the great ANU, god of the heavens, and his council. He is told in advance by EN.KI, not to accept any of the food or water that will be offered to him. The food and water is apparently the food and water of the gods, and by eating and drinking it, he would become immortal, but alas, EN.KI tricks him into not drinking or eating this food. (see the passage about in genesis where the gods discuss the problem of the humans eating from the tree of life and living forever and how this cannot be allowed to happen). Anu summarily offers Adapa this food and water as a reward for good behavior or what not, and Adapa refuses per EN.KI's warning. This is a twisted up version of the events in the Garden, that transpire between Elohim, Adam, Eve and the Serpent.

reply to post by evil incarnate


Hi,

Anybody interested to know what Quran and Prophet Muhammed(PBUH) narrations says about Adam son Cain and Noah arch story.

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
*a woman had left on the bar a few days earlier

Was this a bar, as in "Beer"?

Most of us have heard wierd stuff after being in bars for a while