God's After-Thought

Originally posted by funky monk

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.

Neither can I but to explain. I see the author of Gen2 to be different to Gen1 and the author of Gen2 used the text or oral history of Gen1 to write his view and subsequently made a few errors in his account.

G

reply to post by shihulud


Either you are ignorant on this aspect, or you are a bold-face liar:

C H A P T E R 7

S A T A N ' S C O U N T E R F E I T

T H E O R I G I N - E U S E B I U S B I B L E

( The Corrupted Minority Text In Greek )


To attack God's true Word, Satan had to come up with a corruption.
The history goes as follows:

Around the year 200 A.D. a man named Clement:

"... founded the 'Catechetical School' at Alexandria. He brought the
wisdom of the world into the teachings of the Christian faith and began
to collect a group of corrupt manuscripts" [S7P8]. "Clement expressly
tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and
unmixed, but rather clothed with precepts of pagan philosophy" [S2P191].

These 'historically early' changes to God's Word were also verified
by Colwell who found that: "... as early as A.D. 200 scribes were
altering manuscripts, changing them from a Majority-type text to a
minority type" [S3P484] ).

These changes to the Word of God took place at Alexandria, Egypt.

Reader note: "... it was Antioch that the Holy Spirit chose for the
base of Christian operations" [S1P51]. Thus, Antioch was good.

But, we must remember that Egypt was bad. In the Word, God says Egypt
is: "... the house of bondage" (Exodus 20:2). Egypt is: "... the iron
furnace" (Deuteronomy 4:20).

It was the Egyptians whom Abraham thought would kill him after seeing
he had a beautiful wife (Genesis 12:2). It was in Egypt that Joseph was
sold into slavery (Genesis 37:36). It was in Egypt that Israel had
taskmasters set over them to afflict them with burdens (Exodus 1:11). It
was about Egypt that God said to Israel: "Ye shall henceforth return no
more that way" (Deuteronomy 17:16). And, it was in Jeremiah 46:25 that
God promises to bring punishment onto Egypt.

Thus, Egypt is a type of this world, it is evil. And, as for
Alexandria, Egypt; it was a: "... pagan city known for its education and
philosophy ..." [S1P51].

Now, back to the story.

"... The best known graduate of this Alexandrian School was Origen
who followed Clement as the head of the school. He became the most
influential leader of his generation. He edited a six column Bible
called the 'Hexapla'. Each of the columns had a different version of the
Bible. He continually changed Bible verses that did not agree with his
liberal ideas. He spiritualized God's Word. He believed Christ to be a
created being just as Jehovah's Witnesses teach today" [S7P8].

Also:

"Origin did not believe that Jesus lived physically on earth!"
[S5P65]. We know: "Origin was the first person to teach purgatory"
[S1P75] and that Origin was quoted to say: "The laws of men appear more
excellent and reasonable than the laws of God" [S3P527]. And, we also
know that: "Origin was baptized as an infant, and he gave no indication
that he was spiritually saved" [S4P112].

In her book "New Age Bible Versions" [S3P529] G.A. Riplinger tells us
the church rejected Origin because of his heretical beliefs. For
example, Origin believed (against scripture) that:


1) The soul is preexistent; Jesus took on some preexistent human soul.

2) There was no physical resurrection of Christ nor will there be a
second coming. Man will not have a physical resurrection.

3) Hell is non existent; purgatory, of which Paul and Peter must
partake, does exist.

4) All, including the devil, will be reconciled to God.

5) The sun, moon, and stars are living creatures.

6) Emasculation, of which he partook, is called for, for males.


Origin was also the author of the 'Septuagint'.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Remember, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text which Jesus quoted
when he walked the earth. And, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text
that has been verified.

Yet, some 'modern textual critics' use the Greek Septuagint to
determine the wording of 'new versions'. Instead of using the proven
Hebrew Massoretic Old Testament Text, some translators admitted they
used Origin's Septuagint. For instance; the NIV translators said they
used the Old Testament Text that was: "standardized early in the third
century by Origin" [S3P537].

Thus, we see that Origin was a key participant in the corruption of
God's Word.

"It is clear that Origin is not a safe guide in textual criticism any
more than in theology" [S7P8]. "Origin, though once exalted by modern
day Christianity as a trustworthy authority, has since been found to
have been a heretic who interpreted the Bible in the light of Greek
philosophy ..." [S1P74].

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

You "claim" you use the KJV, the translators of the KJV REJECTED the minority text. It was CORRUPTED at Alexandria Egypt. And NO, not 1,000 years before the Messoretic text...

Try the OTHER way around bro.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by shihulud

 

Either you are ignorant on this aspect, or you are a bold-face liar:

You "claim" you use the KJV, the translators of the KJV REJECTED the minority text. It was CORRUPTED at Alexandria Egypt. And NO, not 1,000 years before the Messoretic text...

Try the OTHER way around bro.

so he is ignorant and a liar becasue he looks at other versions of the bible

how very christian i bet your jesus's special one arnt you


shall we take a strole through the history of the new testament?

Mark - poorly written, contains several geographical errors showing the writter is unfamiliar with the area around Jerusalem. as he was not in the area chances are he didnt know Jesus. Also introduces older buddist scripture and attriubutes it to jesus. this text appears to be a compilation of stories that are jesus related or are changed to appear to be jesus. making this a wok of fiction and practically worthless for historical truth

Matthew - is a polished well written version of Mark with 600 of the 666*(672 in some versiosn) verses copied. if Mark is the rough script Matthew is the finished hollywood movie with extra action scene's (surmon on the mount) and a T-virus out break with his Resident evil jerusalem addition. a reworking of Mark same historical value

Luke - Luke still manages to copy 300 verses from Mark and the first 4 verses clearly state it is written by someone who has never met jesus or met someone who has met jesus.

several of the epistals attributed to paul have been shown as fakes, the undisputed ones tell very little of jesus and show very little of the magical abilities of jesus attributed else where in the bible

*could revalations be showing mark is the start of the devils tampering within the bible


to condem everything as evil except yourown copy of the bible is arrogant ignorant and most deffinatley extreme denial. every chance they had to be contaminated was also a chance your good book had too

after all clement was a saint for 1600 years, 1600 years of corrupting your founder church. he also didnt start the church of Alexander he was just thier first well known scolar

and how did origen write the Septuagint when it was translated around 200-300BC. was he 700 years old ? didnt god already ban living over 125?



[edit on 16/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 16/9/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by andre18
We see that women according to the bible are an after-thought from god….

so if women were an afterthought, why make adam with all the necessary bits for procreation?

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by andre18
We see that women according to the bible are an after-thought from god….

so if women were an afterthought, why make adam with all the necessary bits for procreation?

why was it not until after they understood shame did they understand what the parts were for and THEN covered them. there is no sex until after leaving the garden

god gave them the parts but no understanding of thier use unless he made them intending them to know shame and so know what sex was

and if eve alone was cursed to know pain in childbirth why do many animals, mammals especially exibit pain while giving birth? did he curse them indirectly by cursing her?

why must innocent animals suffer for her actions?
why did god punish almost all the animals in the flood for the sins of man when god has shown he can wipe out man alone as he did at sodom, or the many other cases where he kills individuals or small groups easily

should we report him to the rspca? needlesly casuing pain and killing animals is a ciminal act

Originally posted by noobfun

why was it not until after they understood shame did they understand what the parts were for and THEN covered them. there is no sex until after leaving the garden

god gave them the parts but no understanding of thier use unless he made them intending them to know shame and so know what sex was

and if eve alone was cursed to know pain in childbirth why do many animals, mammals especially exibit pain while giving birth? did he curse them indirectly by cursing her?

why must innocent animals suffer for her actions?
why did god punish almost all the animals in the flood for the sins of man when god has shown he can wipe out man alone as he did at sodom, or the many other cases where he kills individuals or small groups easily

should we report him to the rspca? needlesly casuing pain and killing animals is a ciminal act

nothing youve actually said has anything to do with my question.

if god made man without the thought of making woman, why would he give him a penis which is specifically designed for sex?

the OP´s arguement is flawed because there is evidence that women where thought of from the beginning

reply to post by noobfun

so he is ignorant and a liar becasue he looks at other versions of the bible

how very christian i bet your jesus's special one arnt you

I never said he was an ignorant person, I said either he was ignorant on this ASPECT, are he was LYING about it.

The "aspect" was him claiming that the Septuagint was 1,000 years older than the Messoretic Text.

You do realize when someone is ignorant to something, that simply means they don't know it, not that they are incapable of understanding it right?

He can look at rejected versions if he wants to, that's his call, however he cannot claim the Septuagint is "1,000 years older than the Messoretic Text", that is false.

He is entitled to his own opinion, he is NOT entitled to his own personal facts.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by NOTurTypical]

reply to post by NOTurTypical



my appologise i missread it

but he is neither ignorant of the subject or a liar

one was written in 2-300BC and the other somewhere between 700-1000AD


thats 9-13 hundred years isnt it, makes it close enough to 1000+ for me

[edit on 16/9/08 by noobfun]

" why did God punish almost all the animals "

God couldn't make a boat large enough to fit them into so he needed to start over and re populate equal to the humans.



" Why did they cover up after the sin "

This is something you will realize after death. You don't know what grace is and it's almost impossible to explain in here but it has to do with being in a state of grace like after confession and communion. I can't explain it.


" Did God curse the animals "

I don't know for sure, but I never heard that animals experience pain at birth? proof? If so then I guess he did because the whole of creation suffers from her sin. I don't know the answer to that.


peace.

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

my appologise i missread it

but he is neither ignorant of the subject or a liar

one was written in 2-300BC and the other somewhere between 700-1000AD


thats 9-13 hundred years isnt it, makes it close enough to 1000+ for me

He's talking about the LAST EDITION of the Messoretic Text, not when these scribes began to do this, they began to do this in 600 BC.

These men were so meticulous that they had to have a special ink, special paper, they had to announce each word aloud they were going to copy, and their copies had to be perfect or they were rejected.

Understanding the Origins of the Masoretic Text
What we call the Hebrew Bible came to us through amazingly meticulous work by ancient
scribes who copied out the original text for successive generations. These scribes were a class of
workers called soferim. After the time of the Patriarchs who were the original keepers of the sacred
writings, the soferim became responsible for what was by then an increasingly difficult task. By the
sixth century BC, a highly skilled group of soferim called the Masoretes emerged as caretakers of the
process. Beginning during the Babylonian Captivity, they carried the responsibility of precise
reproduction of the sacred Scriptures for another five hundred years. The particular form of text they
produced came to be called the Masoretic Text.

www.beulah.edu...

Now, they began to add vowels to the early manuscripts, just to make them readable for the common man. But the scribes began their work in 600 BC, he might be right when they released their final text, but it doesn't matter, it hadn't changed a single punctuation mark since they began their work.

Here is what these men did:

"1. The parchment must be made from the skin of a clean animal (clean meaning ceremonially clean according to the Old Testament sanitary laws); must be prepared by a Jew only, and the skins must be fastened together by strings taken from clean animals.
2. Each column must have no less than forty-eight, nor more than sixty lines. The entire copy must be first lined.
3. The ink must be of no other color than black, and it must be prepared according to a special recipe.
4. No word nor letter could be written from memory; the scribe must have an authentic copy before him, and he must read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it.
5. He must reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for "God" (Elohim), and he must wash his whole body before writing the name "Jehovah" (LORD in our King James Bibles), lest the Holy Name be contaminated.
6. Strict rules were given concerning forms of the letters, spaces between letters, words and sections, the use of the pen, the color of the parchment, etc.
7. The revision (to correct any errors) of a roll must be made within thirty days after the work was finished; otherwise it was worthless. One mistake on a sheet condemned the entire sheet. If three mistakes were found on any page, the entire manuscript was condemned.
8. Every word and every letter was counted, and if a letter was omitted, or if an extra letter was inserted, or if two letters touched one another, the manuscript was condemned and destroyed at once."

www.angelfire.com...

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I am neither ignorant of the fact nor a liar my friend - 1000 years, 800 years, whats the difference?(200 years LOL) The Setuagint is still an older translation then the masoretic which puts it closer in time to the origins. Plus I use the KJV just because its the most widely used version in my neck of the woods not because I hold it with some high esteem as the be all and end all of biblical source.

It doesn't really matter to me as I find them all nonsensical even more so when you start bringing satan/devil into the equation. All bibles have some form of fallibility in them from the earliest to the most modern.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Here is what these men did:

"1. The parchment must be made from the skin of a clean animal (clean meaning ceremonially clean according to the Old Testament sanitary laws); must be prepared by a Jew only, and the skins must be fastened together by strings taken from clean animals.

I thought jesus new covenant did away with OT laws ( at least thats what some folk say)

2. Each column must have no less than forty-eight, nor more than sixty lines. The entire copy must be first lined.
3. The ink must be of no other color than black, and it must be prepared according to a special recipe.
4. No word nor letter could be written from memory; the scribe must have an authentic copy before him, and he must read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it.

WOW it must be the truthful record then - just out of curiosity which versions were they copying, I bet it wasn't the originals

5. He must reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for "God" (Elohim), and he must wash his whole body before writing the name "Jehovah" (LORD in our King James Bibles), lest the Holy Name be contaminated.
6. Strict rules were given concerning forms of the letters, spaces between letters, words and sections, the use of the pen, the color of the parchment, etc.

Thats taking it a bit too far, quite fanatical if you ask me

7. The revision (to correct any errors) of a roll must be made within thirty days after the work was finished; otherwise it was worthless. One mistake on a sheet condemned the entire sheet. If three mistakes were found on any page, the entire manuscript was condemned.
8. Every word and every letter was counted, and if a letter was omitted, or if an extra letter was inserted, or if two letters touched one another, the manuscript was condemned and destroyed at once."

www.angelfire.com...

These people must have been crazy - why 30 days, whats the significance? Also if 3 mistakes were found it was destroyed but if 1 letter was added or omitted it was destroyed - please explain how this makes any sense? wouldn't 1 letter added/omitted be a mistake?
G



[edit on 16-9-2008 by shihulud]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by shihulud]

if god made man without the thought of making woman, why would he give him a penis which is specifically designed for sex?
the OP´s arguement is flawed because there is evidence that women where thought of from the beginning

so if women were an afterthought, why make adam with all the necessary bits for procreation?

The problem with this is god would have also known in advance that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit. God would have put the tree there intentionally knowing what Adam and Eve were going to do but put the tree there anyway. – meaning if god gave Adam a penis for procreation with Eve before he created her, then god would have also known as soon as Adam was created, he was going to be banished from Eden.

“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

No where before this verse does it say if Adam was naked or even had a penis before Eve was created. If Adam was naked when god first created him, this verse should said say -

“Then 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.” (and he was naked and was not ashamed)

But it doesn’t say so which means Adam only became naked or had a penis when Eve was created. When Adam was created there was no intention of him procreating. As I explained, Adam was lonely so god created animals for him as companions

““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 only when Eve was created was Adam intended for procreation – otherwise verse 7 should say (and he was naked and was not ashamed)

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

Originally posted by andre18
The problem with this is god would have also known in advance that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit. God would have put the tree there intentionally knowing what Adam and Eve were going to do but put the tree there anyway. – meaning if god gave Adam a penis for procreation with Eve before he created her, then god would have also known as soon as Adam was created, he was going to be banished from Eden.

......

But it doesn’t say so which means Adam only became naked or had a penis when Eve was created. When Adam was created there was no intention of him procreating. As I explained, Adam was lonely so god created animals for him as companions

.......

““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?

strawman strawman strawman.

first, you assuming that it is a problem god to know that adam and eve would partake of the fruit. it isnt. this subject was hashed to death in another thread

second, you are assuming because adam´s nakedness wasnt mentioned that he did have genitals? that makes no sense whatsoever.

and third, how does adam naming animals = god presenting them to adam as companions?

first, you assuming that it is a problem god to know that adam and eve would partake of the fruit. it isnt. this subject was hashed to death in another thread.

Can you please provide the link to that thread?

second, you are assuming because adam´s nakedness wasnt mentioned that he did have genitals? that makes no sense whatsoever.

How so? When Adam was created he didn’t know what good or bad were because he hadn’t eaten the forbidden fruit, he didn’t think to be embarrassed about being naked because he didn’t know any better. Later in verse 25 it says “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

This verse clearly states how even when Adam and Eve were both naked they still weren’t embarrassed because of course they hadn’t eaten the forbidden fruit. So why does it say in verse 25 how unashamed they were of their nakedness but says nothing about him being unashamed when he was naked by himself?

Unless of course he wasn’t naked until Eve was created. Why does the bible fail to mention that Adam was unashamed when he was naked in front of Eve but not when he was by himself? He even named the animals so he was apparently naked in front of them but it still fails to say that he was not embarrassed in front of them.

It is only when Eve is created that we truly know Adam is not unashamed, because the bible fails to mention whether or not Adam is not unashamed at any point prior to this event it can only be concluded that Adam was not naked until Eve was created.

So the simple answer to your question is that Adam was given the ability to procreate only after Eve was created. So there is no evidence that women where thought of from the beginning but only as an after thought…………..

and third, how does adam naming animals = god presenting them to adam as companions?

I don’t know how many more times I’m going to have to go over this –
Because Adam was created all by himself god said “It is not good that the man should be alone” so god creates the animals to keep Adam company – as companions. “but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” Adam couldn’t find an animal worthy of companionship. Like I said, if dogs were man’s best friend god wouldn’t have bothered to create women. So god created Eve - a female equivalent to Adam. Humans are better suited to each other obviously then dogs or cattle.

Apparently god didn’t have the foresight (even though he’s all knowing) to predict that it would take more then one try to make Adam not lonely. So if god knew that Adam was lonely and needed to find a companion, why didn’t he just create women to begin with?

Originally posted by JesusisTruth

God couldn't make a boat large enough to fit them into so he needed to start over and re populate equal to the humans.

god didnt make the boat Noah did but that semantics, why would he need to repopulate the same, the animals would still do what they did if there were 5 people or 50,000,000 wondering around

also he took either 2 of each animal or 7 pairs of each clean and 2 of unclean depending which bit of the story you read

so with noah wife sons and daughter inlaws the people outnumber the animals in one version but are outnumbered in the other .... if bieng outnumbered was fine then why kill all the others

and WHY use a flood, as already mentioned god has killed large groups of people in other ways without destroying all the local wildlife

and he is all powerful so could hav just clicked his fingers and all mankind except noah and co suddenly burst into flames

I don't know for sure, but I never heard that animals experience pain at birth? proof? If so then I guess he did because the whole of creation suffers from her sin. I don't know the answer to that.

peace.

many mammals show signs of pain during birth, admittedly not the whole hand crushing screaming of some humans but pain is pain. know any farmers or people who breed dogs/cats/horses ? go ask the guy at the local pet shop if your really short of people to ask he may have breed some animals

Originally posted by andre18

......

Why does the bible fail to mention that Adam was unashamed when he was naked in front of Eve but not when he was by himself?

It is only when Eve is created that we truly know Adam is not unashamed.......

Are you ashamed to see yourself naked? I wonder how many people question that. What makes you think that Adam might have been ashamed to be naked on his own?

Sorry for entering this thread, but I just cant get my head around Andre's logic here.

You know that’s a good point – I just didn’t think about it like that .In that case I’ll admit this to be my first flawed/ failed thread :w: