The Vatican and washing machines

William:

No, You are pretty much correct about the comments about Women and the Washing Machine and the Vatican Remarks

~Dennis Junior~

How appropriate that we are about to discuss Genesis III, the third chapter of the first book where the bible villifies women and blames Eve, the mother of us all for the downfall of the human race. The Christian religion hates and fears women as much as any other.

well Will make up your mind.

was the story "damaging" or "inoffensive"?

You cant have it both ways.

Honestly (sigh) people in the media will do anything to generate controversy and a few extra hits on their website.

;-)

You've misread the post OT ... he's not really arguing that the story was a damaging one, he's saying the media have misrepresented the original article. Anti-vatican media are everywhere!

The media making mischief? I dont believe it.

Nelson Mandela and Mr Botha were out in a rowing boat on the sea. During a sudden swell, Botha's hat flew into the water. Mandela got out of the boat, walked across the water, picked up the hat and returned it to Mr Botha.

The next day the banner headline in the South African Press read-
MANDELA CANT SWIM.

Those magnificent women and their washing machines.

Pastorphillip, I know you are anxious for me to get to Genesis III but we really haven't finished with Genesis I and have not touched on Genesis II yet. So before we go on, I have one question about them I'd like you to answer. In Genesis I:20 it says;

TNIV version;

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.


KJ version;

20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


But in Genesis II:19 it says;

TNIV version;

"19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals."


KJ version;

19: And 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.

So in Genesis I god formed all the creatures including "fowl that fly" on the fifth day before he created man but in Genesis II, he created them after he created man. How do you explain this seeming contradiction? And why haven't all you "believers" ever brought it up before? I sometimes wonder if any of you out there ever actually read this book.

BTW, there will be lots more to come
:-)

One more I'm sure you'll find easy to answer Pastorphillip but out of curiousity it says in Genesis II:10;

TNIV version;

"10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates."


KJ version;

"10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11: The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12: And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13: And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14: And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."

My question Pastorphillip is how does a river link the Tigris and Euphrates which are in Asia minor with Ethopia which is in the Horn of Africa. (Feel free to consult a map of the world if you don't remember the geography.) I'm sure you have a perfectly plausible explanation. BTW, the TNIV version has a footnote about this that says that Cush may be in Southeast Mesopotamia. Do you think the KJ version got it wrong?

I know where you are going wrong MarcusAureliusII, you are giving to much credence to "T"he "N"ever "I"nspired "V"ersion.

Puritan, it was the King James version that said the river flowed to Ethiopa, not TNIV. At least TNIV gave a plausible explanation.

Well we didn't get past G1 let alone G2 but it's time to go on to G3 since Pastorphillip said this would help me understand god. Like all serials it helps to recap what has happened in recent episodes (we only have two here) before we start to get the context or flavor of the story about to unfold. (As a kid I watched the TV soap opera General Hospital after school every day. There was Dr. Brewer and his wife the nurse Jessie, Dr. Hardy, an Italian resteraunt owner whose name I can't remember and his daughter Angela. Although I haven't seen an episode in over 45 years, I'll bet if I tuned in today, I could pick up the story without missing a beat.

In episode 1, god created the heavens and the earth, the light and separated it from the dark, the sky separated from water, the dry ground, vegitation, trees, day, night, the sun, the moon, the stars, creatures in the water, in the sky, and on land, man, and woman to rule over it all, all in six days (what took him so long if he is god. Nobody's prefect, not even god :-)

Episode 2 is clearly a continuation of episode one and is NOT a separate narative because;

'1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." And then god rested. (why did he need to rest? How did he rest? Did he lie down? On what? It's left to your imagination." Pastorphillip, if you can't interpret that I won't hold it against you, it just doesn't say. So god needs to recharge his batteries too heh.

Continuing G2, god created a mist to water the plants, created man of the dust of the ground and breathed life into him, a living soul, created the garden of Eden including the tree of knowledge of good and evil, a river that branched into four heads one of which went to Ethopia, while the 2 others were the Tigris and Euphrates (neat trick, a river crossing the Red Sea) and god put the man in the garden of Eden. He warned him not to eat the fruit from that one tree or he should surely die. Then god wanted to create a "help meet" for the man so he created all the creatures of the earth and sky to see what the man would name them but none was a help meet (what is a help meet Pastorphillips? Is it a mate? Is it a servant? Is it a slave? Perhaps one day if I meet someone who speaks Hebrew and he (or she) can translate that word from the original text if I can find a bible written in Hebrew. Do you speak Hebrew Pastorphillip? Do you have a bible written in Hebrew? Surely you must so that you can explain it to me :-)

Then god plays a trick on the man. He created the entire universe and all the animals out of nothing and the man out of dust of the ground. But to create a woman, he anesthetises the man now he calls Adam (G2-19 is the first reference to "Adam" so I guess it was naming time) and performs a little medical hocus pocus on him. He removes one of Adam's ribs while Adam is unconscious and then creates a woman from it. I'll bet Adam didn't have a signed organ donor card. I'll bet he didn't even give informed consent. Today, a doctor would go to jail for such a crime. Adam must have known when he woke up because he said; "23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Woe unto man. You think he felt something was missing in his thorax that was there before? Hmmm, I feel a little strange today. Must have been some funny mushrooms I ate just before I dozed off. Anybody got any married friends? Divorced friends? There's always 2 sides to every divorce, yours and $**+****'$.

"24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

Wait a minute, wait just a darned minute. Who said anything about fathers and mothers or marriage. The guy just met her remember? She's only his meet, not his wife yet? They met on a date. At a nudist colony. Where did all this stuff come from. When does she take him home to meet her parents to see if they even like him? Ooops, I forgot, she doesn't have parents. He's dirt and she's got a bone to pick with him. Sort of sets the stage for the battle of the sexes and married life for the next 7000 years don't you think?

Now on to G3

New question, did Eve have a washing machine?

Now Marcus I know you don't like the Genesis account of 'how us all got here in da house, like', but my favourite of favourite-ist ever in all my whole life of universe explanations can be found on the British Humanist Website, I quote (it's from an education pack),

"A humanist perspective on...how the earth began

Scientists think the universe just happened."

Alternative explanations include,

Scientists just think the universe happened.

Scientists think the universe happened, just.

Just think, the universe happened - scientists.

The universe just happened think scientists.

Just the universe happened think scientists

Just the universe happened scientists think

Just scientists think the universe happened.

Marcus,

Sorry to have missed all this talk about washing machines and pills(!) - been busy at the day job. (Funny thing,,,you probably don't believe that either!)

I did respond (albeit briefly) about the alleged discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2. To those who believe the Bible from the first verse, there is no problem - for the reason I gave.

"God rested".....not because He was tired; He ceased from His activity of Creation. In doing so, He was establishing a pattern for the rhythm of human life - six days for work; one for rest and worship. (see Exodus 20v11)

By the way, when (or if!) you get to Genesis 3, you will begin to understand YOURSELF (which is what I said elsewhere) and you'll realise why each of us has a flawed human nature.....which obviously extends to thinking as well!

Thankfully God gave us the Bible to put our thinking straight!

We will get to G3 pastorphillip. I read your reply and as I posted, I didn't understand it. Rather than continue on with what seemed to me a futile effort for you to explain it to me, I decided to move ahead.

But since you have addressed the question of god resting on the seventh day, the question is why did he rest? You say he tried to establish a pattern for humans to follow. Humans were created according to the bible in god's image. In fact as we will see, when he sought Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden after they ate the forbidden fruit, he even walked which means he must have had legs. But humans rest when they get tired. I rest every day after work, I can't wait for 6 days. I even have to take breaks during the day. And after five days of work, I have two days in a row off from work. And periodically I take vacations that can last a week or more. I think much of the world including the Christian world follows that pattern. If I tried to work even for two days straight without resting, I think I'd keel over dead. So why does that pattern of one day off make sense? I think in ancient times meaning in some people's way of viewing it, 6 or 7 thousand years ago, people had to work every day just to survive. Don't you think so? Seeing to the necessities of life never got a holiday until more modern times, or so it seems to me.

Yes I'll bet you work. You probably are very busy writing sermons, conducting services, visiting people who need counseling, and addressing groups who need guidance. I'm sure you are working much of the time. And you don't even get Sunday off...well not all of it anyway.

On to G3. I won't put all of it in one posting, I don't want anyone to say I've made any of my postings too long.

G3 opens with "the woman" in the garden of Eden (where else would she be?) with a creature called a serpent. He is the most subtil (KJ) or crafty (TNIV) of all creatures. Adam is presumably wandering around somewhere else in the garden (where else would he go?) while god is off somewhere not paying attention to what is going on (god apparently does not know all things happening at all times in all places.)

The serpent speaks to eve'

KJ

" 1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

TNIV;

" 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

So the serpent told the truth and did not deceive Eve. God lied. Eve will touch and eat the fruit and will live to have at least four sons and then some daughters since there are no other people god created. All humans according to the bible are descended from Adam and Eve. This means there must have been incest and that was god's plan to populate the world with people.

Zippity do da zippity ay...

Then the woman and Adam eat the forbidden fruit;

KJ;

"6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

TNIV:

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Now today we feel that if people want to better themselves through education, that is a positive asset. And certainly for women to be educated is something rational people who even pretend they don't want women to be lesser human beings than men agree that it is beneficial to women themselves and to society. That is one reason we dispise the Taleban so much. And we also feel it is important to teach children right from wrong, hence good from evil at an early age. Also daring possible death to achieve something of value is looked upon as heroism. The woman wanted knowledge to improve herself and took a grave risk to get it. And for that she is to be condemned and punished as having brought down the entire human race. As for Adam, did he know he was eating the fruit god forbade him to eat? I think so. Although he may not have eaten it before or touched it, he must have looked at it and known what it was. Pastorphillip, do you think Adam was duped by the woman? In court, if I was on a jury sitting in judgement of Adam being tried for knowing he was transgressing, I'd say guilty as charged, would you? And they got the knowledge of good and evil immediately but they did not die. Not for a long long time.

It's is time to start thinking about why god put the tree there in the first place if he didn't want them to eat it. Was it to test them to see if they would obey him? Is this what is meant by free moral will, the ability to disobey god? Well it seems that is instinctive since it was the first thing they did. He gave them one commandment and they broke it immediately at risk of dying. And for this the entire human race whether it is 7000, 700,000, or 7 million years old is condemned forever. Now who wants to talk about a loving merciful god?

Mr. Bluebird on my shoulder..

Dum dum, a dee da lee dum,
Dum dum, a dee da lee dum.

pete, you been into grandma's fermenting buttermilk again? Or maybe something a wee bit stronger? You been watching a video of Disney's Song of the South? Like Disney full length animated movies? I liked them too...as a 10 year old :-) The bible remind you of a Disney cartoon or Disneyland? Fantasyland maybe? Have you seen Fantasia 2000 where in the next to the last segment, Donald Duck and Daisy Duck play Noah and his wife?

Anyway, the show must go on.

The newly minted Adam and the woman have done the one thing god told them not to do as soon as he turned his back and now they're both in big trouble. They are naked and suddenly ashamed of it and the boss is coming.

KJ

"7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11: And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12: And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

TNIV:

"7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." "

So Adam knew all along he'd been eating the forbidden fruit and instead of stepping up and taking responsibility for what he'd done, he blamed the woman. And the woman? She blamed the serpent. He passed the buck and she lied. But then so did god. Yes, made in his own image, exactly. The sepent had not said one false thing, in fact so far the serpent is the only one who told the whole truth. And for this they and all their descendants throughout all time are all to be punished. The serpent for telling the truth, and Adam and the woman for learning it first hand from experience.

Pastorphillip, do you think it is evil or wrong to be naked in public? Are Playboy bunnies who are photographed in the nude and strip teasers who remove their clothing while dancing to sexually arouse men for money going to hell? How about women who wear scant bathing suits to the beach such as bikinis or thongs? How about belly dancers? Should women be forced to wear veils, hijabs, or burkahs? Is sexual arousal evil? Were it not for sexual arousal, the human race would have become extinct. So you would say only in marriage? Does that mean that anyone who commits adultery will go to hell? How about anyone who as President Carter once put it, has lust in his heart? How about President Clinton, will he also go to hell? What must you do to get a one way ticket to "the other place?" Have you ever had lust in your heart for a woman who was not your wife? Where does lust end and love begin?

You know Marcus, I just thought I'd sing a happy little tune while you whistled Dixie.

Now for god's punishment for disobeying him;

KJ;

14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

TNIV

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said,
"I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

So god believed the woman and cursed the serpent for having told her the truth. I don't know of any animal that crawls on its belly that could be a serpent that eats dust. All snakes and lizards eat animal flesh. And I've seen more than one woman with a pet boa constrictor or python snake as a pet. I think they're crazy but some women seem to have an affinity for snakes. Is god suggesting there will be no henpecked husbands? No wives who rule over their spouses? God tells Adam he will have to till the soil and eat bread and herbs. No fruit for you anymore. Does that mean none of us ever would get to eat fruit? Will there be no painless childbirths for women ever?

And now we come to the question of human mortality. In G3:19 god tells adam "for dust you are and to dust you will return." So god is telling Adam that for disobeying him he will eventually die. But he never had any intention of letting Adam have a limitless lifespan anyway because as we'll see in 22, god will ban Adam and the woman from Eden because had he continued to eat the forbidden fruit, he'd have become immortal like god. In fact having eaten the fruit got him part way there already.

KJ

"22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

So god lied again. Wasn't that the real reason he didn't want Adam and the woman to eat that fruit, because he didn't want him to become a god too?

"US!" What does that mean Pastorphillip? Is there more than one god? Is god more than one being? Is the Catholic explanation that god is the father, the son, and the holy ghost what this means? How do you see it?

So the god of your bible is a liar, vindictive, naive believing the woman's lie about the serpent "beguiling" her. I don't think I like your god of the bible very much already and we're just on the first book with about 66 more to go. I think it might get even worse from here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNtMpPFM7M0

And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass.

Hey pete, yesterday it was Song of the South, today it's Dixie. You got an old Confederate flag to hang out your window? You have some old Confederate money you've been saving all these years hoping it will buy something some day? You dreaming that "The South will rise again?" Yeah, the Republicans have that dream too. BTW, I'd lay off the mushrooms for awhile if I were you. There's got to be a funny one in there somewhere.

Time for the wrap-up of G3. Not much more to tell. God throws Adam and the woman out of Eden and puts up a flaming sword and cherubim to keep them from returning to eat more of the fruit of the tree of life and become immortal like god is.

TNIV;

20 Adam [c] named his wife Eve, [d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove them out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

G3:20, I said there would be incest. Lots of begetting ahead. So now the woman is Eve and they are married. Who performed the ceremony? Was there a ceremony? Did they take vows?

G3:21, What a taylor god must be. Wonder if he could get me something in a wool tweed, size 44 Regular.

G3:24, God wasn't taking any chances. One thing guarding Eden wasn't good enough to keep them out, he had both cheribum and a flaming sword. Belt and suspenders kinda god. It must still be around. Any idea where anyone? Don't all answer at once. I'll see if I can order some of that fruit from a Korean owned fruit and vegetable store near where I live. They seem to be able to get just about anything. They got that in NI?

Pastorphillip, is the tree of life the same as the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Are they one and the same? God only forbade them to eat from one tree. If that is a different tree...

So just 47 more chapters to go in Genesis. I can hardly wait to get to Noah. Wow do I have a lot of questions about that for you Pastorphillip.

Well Marcus, I did once think of buyin' me a Dodge, spraying it an orangey red, slapping a big ol' flag on the roof an' stickin' a zero one on the side, and then I just went right on ahead and remembered that it was you whistlin' and not me.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whistle_Dixie

So pete, you fancy you-sef a good ole boy from the South. I think if you went down there with that attitude, they'd eat you alive. BTW, did you know that Dixie was President Lincoln's favorite tune?

Marcus,

They probably would eat me alive, but according to friends who have visited both Pennsylvania and Texas, there's a helluva lot more manners north and south of the Mason-Dixon line than there is here in little ol' Ulster.

peter, I'm sure in Texas you'd be "et" with the most delicacy and politeness. Knife and fork in the right hands, clean linen napkins tucked under chins, faces wiped immediately if even a morsel were to get on one, fine china, and an "excuse me" at each belch.

As coincidence has it, I visited Pennsylvania on Friday. I work there just over the border from NJ not far from Washington's Crossing which I pass on my route :-) I can't say where people are more polite. So far I haven't heard any Pennsylvanians belch yet.

Well Marcus, at least you're reading Genesis 3, even if your conclusions are somewhat askew!

Satan - in the form of the serpent - did indeed lie to Eve (Someone has described what he said as 'the 3 old lies of the New Age Movement.) Adam and his wife DID die...their communion with God was broken, and their bodies began the slow process of physical deterioration. ie they experienced both spiritual and physical death.

Every human being has since inherited a sinful nature, leading to the mulitiplicity of problems in society.
(see Romans5v12)

Thankfully, God is not as you describe Him, but has made provision for forgiveness in Jesus Christ, and calls on people to turn from their wrongdoing and trust in Him. (Acts 17v30)
People do not need to suffer the consequences of Adam's sin.

When God asked, "Where are you?", He did not need the information: He was giving them the opportunity to own up. Sadly, many people today are still reluctant to do that, and so they miss out on the new life they could have in Christ.

pastorphillip, again your response only leave me with questions. Tell me how the serpent lied to the woman. Adam and Eve were going to die anyway. That is why god prevented them from returning to Eden because if they had, they might have eaten the fruit from the tree of life and lived forever. That is exactly what it says the way I read it. Show me the error of my....understanding.

So pastorphillip, between the time of Adam and Eve and Jesus Christ are you saying people who suffered spiritual and physical death as you put it might not have suffered spiritual death if they had led exactly the same lives if they had lived after Jesus Christ? What sense does that make and why is that fair or just?

pastorphillip, jumping ahead a little, it says in G5:3

TNIV;

"3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died."

Where does it say Adam died spiritually as you stated? How do I know from what the bible says that this is true? How do I know that he would not have died spiritually had he not eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Where does it tell me that?

Do you think you will live to be 930 years old? Wll you be spiritually saved when you die? How can you be sure? I know what you are going to say, it is that you will be saved by Jesus. Why didn't Adam have that chance? Why is that just that you have that chance and Adam didn't?

Marcus

Here's the bit which confuses me, sometimes I think your questions are genuine, and sometimes they seem otherwise.

Anyway, have a good day tomorrow :-)

Peter

And a good morrow to you too peter.

peter, peter, pumkin eater, had a wife and...

peter piper picked a peck of....

Keep 'em guessin' Peter, that's what I always say. Well not always. OK, never. But some people do :-)

Which of my questions do you think are NOT serious? People seem to state facts with nothing to back them up. Pastorphillip says the serpent lied to EVE because he told her she would not die. It's clear she was going to die even if she didn't eat the forbidden fruit, at least physically. But Pastorphillip says she and Adam died "spiritually" because they disobeyed god. I just want to know how he knows that? I couldn't find it anywhere, could you?

People say they believe the bible literally until you start quoting it to them. Suddenly they find hidden meanings and interpretations to reconcile what they believe but isn't really there and to deny those things that are which refute what they say. I give Pastorphillip credit for the courage to try to answer some of these seemingly unanswerable questions. All the other "cowards" out there who proclaim themselves believers, experts, literalists, creationists, intelligent designists haven't even tried. BTW, this is not about whether or not I believe what the bible says. You know from my other postings that I don't. I'm just giving Pastorphillip a chance to change my mind...if he can at least make sense of what it says. So far for me at least he hasn't. But he hasn't given up...yet.

M2, so you have discovered that you cant take all the bible literally.

Yes, your very same point has been made many times before on this blog. However it actually proves nothing.

I will take it that I am one of the cowards you refer to ou there who didnt try and answer your questions on Gen 3.

But seeing as you didnt make a serious response to my comments on G1&2 I dont see why we should waste the time.

You hit the nail on the head when you said you didnt believe the bible. Therefore your only interest is discrediting it.

Therefore by your own admission you are not receptive to credible answers to your questions.

OT

M2
If you feel I have misrepresented you on my last post I will gladly be corrected.

OT

Marcus

I am reminded of your namesake... "tell me again, why are we here?"

And so to thoughts of being disingenuous! It's not that I am accusing you or anything, it's just the thought of the serpent telling the truth that got my mind a racing...

Maybe you'd like to reason that one out in a bit more detail, mmm?

While you're at it we could review chapter 2 so you can explain why verse 19 demands a chronological reading You see to like quoting the good book but not dwelling on it too much! :-)

And seeing as I started with a movie quote, maybe I'll finish with one, see if you can guess the movie, the character and the actor.

necessary chronological reading?... "Do you have an answer to the question, Colonel?"

Marcus,

It seems fairly clear from the Biblical account that Adam and Eve would NOT have died, had they not sinned. But the consequences of their rebellion against God have impacted all of humanity.

(Paul explores this theme in eg Romans 5v12 and 1 Corinthians 15v21 & 22, if you'd like to check it out.)

Remarkably, it is in this very chapter of Genesis, which records the catastrophic event we call the Fall, that God makes the promise that He would one day send a Saviour (Gen. 3v15).

And the Gospels declare that God kept that promise, and that new life is offered as a gift through faith in Jesus Christ. (see Romans 6v23)

OT, this is not about credibility, we're not up to that yet, it's a long way off. It's about coherency. Even comprehensibility. I still don't understand how the light was created without being separated from the darkness. Can anyone explain it? What does that mean?

You and peter morrow keep asking why I think there is a chronology problem between G1 and G2. G1 is clearly a chronological account because tells you what day each event happened on. But G2 is also a chrnonlogical account of events not just because of the sequence in which events are reported but because G2 tells you specifically why they happened. Why did god create the birds, cattle and creatures that crawl? It says specifically so that he could learn what Adam would name them. It makes no sense read any other way with that explanation having been given.

I think people pass over a lot of things said in this book, ingore what doesn't make sense if they can, and rationalize away what they can't explain by saying it doesn't mean what it says. Testimony with so many self contradictions and ambiguities would not be given any credibility by a jury anywhere I've ever heard of.

The serpent was the devil? What devil? How do you know he was the devil? BTW, who created the serpent? God did. Before god created anything there was only the void, emptiness. Why did god create the seprent? To tempt Adam and Eve to see if they would disobey his commandment? And he did just that? Then why is he punished for what he did when it was what god wanted him to do all along? Why did god put the tree in Eden in the first place if he didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from it? To see if they would obey his commandment? Well he made them, why wouldn't he know in advance? Because he gave them free moral will, a soul? How can they have known right from wrong, good from evil had they not eaten from it. What is the good of free moral will if you have no morality to guide you?

Adam lived "physically" about 7 or 8 times longer than the oldest person alive today or on record. There is still no answer to the question of how we know Adam's spirit died. How do we even know he had a spirit? What is that spirit? If a spirit dies, does that mean there is no hell, it just ceases to exist? Was hell just invented by theologians to frighten people into being believers? Is that the same kind of deceit the serpent practiced?

Why Pastorphillip did god wait 5000 years to send his savior for mankind? What about all the people who lived and died between Adam and Even eating the forbidden fruit and Jesus Christ, were they just written off? Did their spirits die too? I still don't see the justice in that.

peter morrow, why are we here? Why must there be a reason?

Pastorphillip

R5:12

"12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— "

Guilt by association. Adam was disobedient and so we are all defective, guilty because Adam was. Do you beat a dog because he doesn't obey your commands? If he doesn't come when you call, if he doesn't stay when you tell him to, do you withhold his food? Do you kill him? In many civilized countries, you can go to jail for such cruelty. And would you beat his puppies too because he didn't come? Want to defend "honor killings" among some Moslems too? Your brother killed my brother so in return I should kill your children? What horrible god thinks this way?

C15:21

21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a human being. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Salvation through Christ. I'll have to think about that. I still have no answer about what happend to all the people between Adam and Christ, why it took 5000 years for christ to appear and why it is just that all those souls had no chance to live at all.

It seems to me that god was disgusted that his creation was so imperfect as to disobey him that he condemned all their offspring for 5000 years. He was really angry at himself for not having done a better job. Now we know how long he holds a grudge and how he shifts blame from himself to the imperfect objects he created. He passed the buck just like Adam passed it to Eve and Eve to the serpent. Yes, man and woman were created in god's image.

G3:15

15 And I will put enmity
between you (the serpent) and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

I don't know how you get out of this that one day god will send a savior. What am I missing here?

It still doesn't answer the basic question raised by G3:22

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

It seems salvation was available within arms reach all along. How do you explain that god offered salvation 5000 years later through Christ but denied it for all that time when all that would have been necessary was to allow people to eat the fruit off that tree?

What is meant bu "US?" Is god more than one being? Are there more than one god?

Lots of questions, so far no satisfactory answers. And here I thought this had all be studied carefully and all of the seeming contradictions, inconsistancies, and incomprehensibility explained. Very disappointing. Some people reject the bible. Some try to twist its meaning to fit their preconceptions because it fills an emotional need. Here I am doing neither, I'm just taking it at is own word to see if it makes sense, if it is consistent, if it is comprehensible. And only three books into it (we never really finished G1 or G2) there seems a lot left unexplained, it is already failing badly.

Genesis 3 is a key chapter in the Bible, telling us how sin came into the world and also that God planned to send a Saviour (the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent- which happened at the Cross.)

When Christ died there, He was paying for the sin of the world - past, present and future. (see 1 John 2v2) It is an interesting question as to how people were saved before Calvary (Abraham's experience is a clue - see Genesis 15v6....I know, I know - we're still in chapter 3! But you did ask, and while you will find every answer you need in the Bible, they aren't all on the first few pages!!)

My observation is that when a person comes to know Christ, he may not get the answer to every question, but answers to the ones that matter begin to fall into place. And the question of getting right with God by repentance and personal trust in Christ is the most vital one of all.

(If that sounds like a preacher talking...please don't be offended - it's what I do!!)

J2:2

1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

G15:6

6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Pastorphillip, I am just reading this book trying to understand what it says and make some sense out of it. I am clearly having a great deal of difficulty. In the translation I prefer, TNIV, it seems to be written in plain contemporary English but there are things I have pointed out that contradict other things it says and things I've pointed out which I cannot understand at all. I know you know this book backwards, forwards, and inside out but it isn't getting any clearer for me. We've jumped around from book to book all over the place. You also say things I don't understand. How did you get from the seed of the woman bruising the head of the serpent to Christs blood on the cross? Was Christ born not of mortal man or woman? Is Christ Mary's seed?

Mathew 1:18

"18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about [d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly."

Luke 1:26

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called [b] the Son of God. 36

So Pastorphillip, is Jesus the son of a mortal woman who was united with the holy spirit or was she merely the vehicle through which Jesus came into the world?

The answer is a dilemma. If Jesus is not the son of a mortal woman, then his blood on the cross is not of the seed of the woman and woman cannot have bruised the head of the seprent as you said. If Jesus is the son and the seed of a mortal woman, how can he also be god who is immortal?

All accounts say Jesus died on the cross but he didn't really die. He was resurrected after three days and was seen and many claim he still lives. Mortal or immortal? Of the woman's seed or not of her seed? I am getting more confused with each posting.

Interestingly though, Marcus, it's just those questions that perturbed Christian thinkers about 1700 years ago.

It caused quite a controversy...perhaps you should read up on that controversy a bit, and you mean understand the questions better, and the settled answers that were agreed.

BI

Why should I accept to what was agreed to by others 17 centuries ago? I can also read and think and draw my own conclusions. Your statement is the epitomy of what I find wrong here, people letting other people think for them. I accept nothing until it at least makes sense. As I said in a previous posting, I not nearly up to the question of credibility yet, I'm still stuck on coherence and comprehensibility. So far between accounts that seem to directly contradict each other and statements that have no logical meaning, I'm stumped for answers. I will not slogh off these inconsistencies for the sake of any emotional need to believe at any cost what so far makes no sense.

Flip me Marcus, this is the most unwarranted outburst yet. You really aren't reading any of these replies, are you?


"Why should I accept to what was agreed to by others 17 centuries ago"

I'm not asking you to. i'm asking you to read the arguments.

" can also read and think and draw my own conclusions"

That's what I'm asking you to do! Any good history of the early church should give you a good account of Arianism or Montanism, heresies which took a view on precisely those questions that you've asked.


I was merely giving you advice. If you are genuinely wondering about the questions you raise, shouldn't you at least look into the writings of others who have wondered about them, and the disparate views taken...

instead of just crying that it doesn't make sense, then accusing anybody who attempts to explain of telling you what to think!

Talk about impetuousness,...but you're not a young man Marcus, surely.

For someone who can also "read, and think, and draw my own conclusions", you seem remarkably reluctant to do so.

:)

M2


ref post 34

sorry but you dont give a credible explanation as to why G2 must be read as a chronology.

Perhaps it would be more helpful for us all, perhaps yourself most of all, if you laid out the non-negotiable assumptions you brought to the text.

Is there a God?
Is he an almighty God?
What does this mean?
Could the bible be divinely inspired by him? Is it? How sure am I?

This not to place a value judgement on your assumptions but rather to clarify the reason why there is such a divergence of understanding of this text.

Hypothetically, it makes sense to me that a diehard sceptic will never make sense of the text. How could their mind go in one direction while their heart goes in another?

At some point you will have to finally chose or reject faith.

Perhaps only you can decide when that will be.


sincerely
OT

Marcus,

You are right to identify Jesus' death and resurrection as central to the issue of Who He was and why He came.

The eyewitness accounts affirm that Jesus DID die, and also that His tomb was empty on the third day. When you consider the evidence, I believe you will conclude, as others have, that the only logical explanation for the empty tomb is the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.

True, this is some considerable distance from the Garden of Eden as far as time is concerned, but it is right next door in terms of God's answer to what happened back then.

(We also seem to have strayed some way from the Vatican and washing machines (!) - but hopefully your mind will soon cease spinning, and the door will open to a whole new understanding of the important teachings of the Bible!)

Marcus

When I quoted Gladiator about us being here I was only thinking about this blog, but since you mention it, the reason we need purpose is easy, without it we have no need of any kind of accountability and the consequences of that are too terrible to contemplate.

On chronology.

"But G2 is also a chronological account of events not just because of the sequence in which events are reported but because G2 tells you specifically why they happened."

So that Adam could give them a name isn't even the reason they were created it was the reason they were brought to him. Come on... quit twisting things.

I think you know exactly the various ways in which language can be used :-)

Pastorphillip, I hoped that this subject could have been approached far more cautiously. It has increased the complexity and perplexity at least for me far more than it had been up to now.

You said that Adam and Eve's sprits died when they died physically if I understood you correctly. You also said;

"When Christ died there, He was paying for the sin of the world - past, present and future"

This is what you say john 2v2 means. Were the souls that were dead before Jesus was born saved or will they be? Were Adam and Eve's souls saved or will they be? Did their spirit return to life? Will it ever? What does dead mean if it isn't final? Did all of the people whose souls died come back to life? They didn't know Christ. They couldn't have, he wasn't born yet. If not all of them came back to life, how did god decide which ones did and which didn't? What about the ones who lived before Moses?

John 1:17

17: For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Before god handed the ten commandments to Moses, nobody even knew the laws so how could they have known if they were breaking them?

Romans 5:13 (TNIV)

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Can you explain what that means?

Being saved got harder and harder.

Romans 5:20

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.

In Adam and Eve's time you just had to not eat the forbidden fruit. Once they were thrown out of Eden, god barred re-entry to man. Then after Moses you couldn't break any of the Commandments or you would die. After Jesus, that wasn't good enough, you also had to live according to the teachings of Christ. So what does that say, heaven is getting filled up and they have to find a way to have fewer qualified applicants?

So does the following passage from 1 Corinthians:20 mean that all who died will come back to life one day, sinners and non sinners alike?

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a human being. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But in this order: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." [c] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

So does that mean Christ was a man and not god. It seems to say that again and again. So you can see now why I'm really confused.

Petermorrow, you and some others like OT seem to be fighting an inevitably hopeless cause. It is not my fault if you cannot or will not read because you don't like what it says.

KJ G:2

18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19: And 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.

So the reason he made the animals was to make Adam a "meet" whatever that means. But it didn't work. That's why god had to create Eve.

What exactly about that is unclear to you? It not only tells you the sequence, it tells you why. The meaning could hardly be clearer.

BI; I'm not interested in researching the ancient rumminations of primitives about this. If you want to cite both sides of their argument, the gist of it, fine. But don't expect me to go wandering all over the internet through arcane texts written in lost languages and likely as not poorly translated to hear what some ancient had to say. I don't have the time or interest for a wild goose chase.

OT;

"Perhaps it would be more helpful for us all, perhaps yourself most of all, if you laid out the non-negotiable assumptions you brought to the text.

Is there a God?
Is he an almighty God?
What does this mean?
Could the bible be divinely inspired by him? Is it? How sure am I?"

Is there god? I don't know. They say it is impossible to prove a negative. I only believe what I have evidence for. So far I haven't seen one shred of evidence in this world to suggest that such a thing exists. Every argument I've ever heard has not only left me unconvinced, it leaves me wondering how other people can be. I've asked a friend who was educated in a convent but never took her vows what the Catholic church's best explanation for the existance of god is and she told me that it is a spiritual feeling. I have had no such feelings. We've discussed the topic of neurochemistry and the workings of the human brain to suggest that certain chemical reactions in the brain or structures might account for this in many people but nobody knows AFAIAC. I have never believed in god even one minute of one day in my life. I make no apologies for it, that is simply the way it is.

Is it an almighty god? I don't know. How could I if I don't even know if god exists. What does this mean? By your definition and that of others, I'd guess that it is a god who created everything that exists and can do anything he wants at any time for any reason.

Luke 1:37

37: For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Could the bible be divinely inspired by him? Is it? How sure am I?"

If god exists, I certainly hope not. Considering how chaotic and incoherent it seems in just the first three chapters of the first book, what would that suggest about the rest of his work if it is? If the world is that chaotic, it could lead to wars, famines, economic and environmental catastrophes, nuclear weapons, mass murder and all sorts of other horrible things. No too terrible to contemplate.

Marcus

Now you are just contradicting yourself.

First you say you prefer TNIV then quote the KJV when you think it helps your cause. Of course there isn't any contradiction in the accounts, as I already pointed out neither demand chronology which is what you still insist on but can't explain why.

Then back in 39 you said, "Why did god create the birds, cattle and creatures that crawl? It says specifically so that he (God) could learn what Adam would name them." indeed you said, "It makes no sense read any other way with that explanation having been given." Now though in post 51 you say, "So the reason he made the animals was to make Adam a "meet" whatever that means." Actually the KJV says help meet, and you know exactly what that means. But either way you've changed your reason.

So which of your own readings are you going with here Marcus?

Or maybe Marcus you want to tell us that both readings are true!

"What exactly about that is unclear to you?" Emmm, one might call that irony.

This is becoming the silliest argument I've read on here in a long time.

Even though Marcus brings up questions that have been pondered for two millenia, he refuses to even contemplate that anyone else has ever thought so thoroughly, and as if he, Marcus, is the first person in history to have wondered.

Even after pointing out to him the massive historical precedent of a few of the particular questions he asks, he refuses even to read about those questions.

I'm not asking him to accept the answers, but perhaps he could read up on the questions a bit.

pm

"Now you are just contradicting yourself.

First you say you prefer TNIV then quote the KJV when you think it helps your cause. Of course there isn't any contradiction in the accounts, as I already pointed out neither demand chronology which is what you still insist on but can't explain why."

What a weak posting. Pastorphillip said it didn't matter which version. There may be minor differences in inflection of some words, slight shades of meaning but the gist of all of them is pretty much the same. When they are not interchangeable we'll discuss that if it's brought up. Sometimes I used one, sometimes the other, sometimes both. Whichever I found something I was looking for in that I'd read was easier to cut and paste than to go back and find it in another. There are still others I might quote in the future. For instance, when I read the book of John many years ago, it was in a version called "Good News for Modern Man." So what?

"Then back in 39 you said, "Why did god create the birds, cattle and creatures that crawl? It says specifically so that he (God) could learn what Adam would name them." indeed you said, "It makes no sense read any other way with that explanation having been given." Now though in post 51 you say, "So the reason he made the animals was to make Adam a "meet" whatever that means." Actually the KJV says help meet, and you know exactly what that means. But either way you've changed your reason."

If you knew the bible, you'd have pointed it out before. As usual, you are flailing around for excuses to rationalize what on the face of it is an obvious contradiction. We are going to see countless others. You know damned well that my point was that the animals were created in G2 because of a reason that had to do with Adam whose existance was the clearly stated predicate for that event. Let's not obfuscate the basic fact by arguing over details, I don't accept that. Now do you have an explanation that makes sense of it and resolves it or don't you?

BI

"Even though Marcus brings up questions that have been pondered for two millenia, he refuses to even contemplate that anyone else has ever thought so thoroughly, and as if he, Marcus, is the first person in history to have wondered."

You want to do the legwork, fine. You read it, distill it, cite it, and then we will discuss it if I find it interesting. So far all you've had to say is go look it up or since you aren't a believer, you cannot argue about something you don't believe in. So far that's all anyone has had to say. Wouldn't it be easier if I just said Amen like everyone else does and went away? That seems to be what most people do. But I'm not an intellectual couch potato and I won't. I am not afraid to put 2 and 2 together and argue when someone tells me the answer is 17.

Marcus let's clear some things up. I don't care which version you use, I never stated a preference, it was you who did that, remember?

"You know damned well that my point was that the animals were created in G2 because of a reason that had to do with Adam whose existance was the clearly stated predicate for that event."

So now it just a reason rather than a "specific" one and it's my fault for not pointing it out before you raised it, OK, whatever. If you can't keep track of your own reading of Genesis 2 that's not my problem. But you know that my point is that there is no indication that Adam's existence was the predicate for the creation of the animals. I've said this over and over, we obviously disagree, but that would make this whole stupid argument a disagreement and not a contradiction, which is my basic point. There is NO contradiction. There is NOTHING to resolve. In fact I'll say this, frankly the idea that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory is as pitiful as complaints that the resurrection accounts are contradictory. :-)

Maybe Helio would like to help you out on this latter one, I believe he has placed the 4 gospel accounts of the resurrection side by side and read them 'horizontally' not just 'vertically' and found that when you do it's clear the writers are just telling 'porkies'.

And now the only connection I can see with this thread is that like a washing machine we keep going through the same cycle time and time again.

In the mean time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNtMpPFM7M0

My my Marcus, you're quite the inconsistent chap, aren't you...and all in one relatively short post.

All I have done is point out other works and arguments dealing with precisely the questions you have asked. Surely, anyone with a genuine interest in understanding something would read as much as they can about other peoples views on the issue?

That's all I'm suggesting.

In one sentence you say that you would rather think for yourself, yet in this case you want me to "read it, distill it, cite it," for you!

"So far all you've had to say is go look it up or since you aren't a believer, you cannot argue about something you don't believe in."

NO! I'm informong you that there is an extensive body of work on the issue, far more than i am competent to explain to you, and that, if you really wish to understand the questions you are asking a start would be to read some of the arguments.

You can refuse to accept them, but first you must know what they are.

Yet, having told me that you have no interest in reading the literature which deals with the precise questions you are asking, and after, LITERALLY asking me to read it for you and give you the gist...

you then have the gall to say

"I'm not an intellectual couch potato"

Yes, Marcus. That is precisely what you are.

I'm not asking you to simply ACCEPT what ANYBODY has said. But if you want to understand the arguments that people are making, you first have to read them.

The fact that, having refused to read, or even look into, ANY explanations that have been offered of the problems you pose, you continue to cry that "you don't understand it" is so genuinely ridiculious I honestly have no real response.

Thanks Marcus

you give some very direct answers;-

-You have never believed in God for a minute of your life

-You hope the bible is not divinely inspired [ie true].


Can I suggest that you might want to consider giving up this whole debate, as it would seem to be clearly a waste of your time.

If you dont believe in God and hope the bible is not true then the bible is and clearly will always be ridiculous from the very first 4 words;-

"In the beginning God..."

Your problem is not with contrasts between G1,2&3, it is with the very first statement in the bible and every subsequent statement that builds on it afterwards.

How can anyone here ever expect you to see the harmony of a Christian worldview on the matter when you appear to be saying that you are willfully refusing to look at it?

You have every right to hold your position but lets all be honest here, by your own lips you dont want to know the answers to the questions you are asking.


sincerely
OT

What's his question?

Well, it keeps changing.

I think the most recent is; "Why won't someone read two-millenia worth of speculative literature for me, and give me the gist so that I can disagree...because I'm no intellectual couch potato"

Although actually, marcus, in all seriousness, what is your question?

I don't want to do the "legwork", so can you "distill" it for me, into one sentence, with a question mark at the end?

Many thanks!

OT, you're just mad that I'm demonstrating that this book doesn't always make any sense. You expect everyone to just say Amen and walk away. You are afraid to find out there are contradictions and incoherencies that I want to explore. If you and BI don't have anything more to offer than "if you don't believe in the bible or god, just go away" or "there were people who mused over this 1700 years ago, research what they said and agree with it because they are the wise guys, forget it. I took on the modern philosophers here a few months ago and made mincemeat out of both the theists and the atheists. What makes you think it wouldn't be just as easy if I bothered with these bronze age primitives?

Well BI, apparantly you can't think for yourself. Neither you nor OT have had even one concrete argument to contribute on your side. The only reason you post is to defend the emotional fortress your belief in god and the bible gives you in protecting you from the real world, one without purpose or meaning or salvation from endless death. I understand your desperation to keep the walls of it from being blown away but kaboom, kaboom. The whole story of genesis so far sounds like it was reverse engineered starting with the fall of man into sin which only god's disciples in the form of priests can rescue him from and working backwards justifying why. And not engineered by a single individual but apparently by a committee whose stories don't even jive with each other. They were depending on people not being any to critical of what they wrote and evidently, most people who give it credibility aren't. They expected people to take it as true because they would want it to be true. Don't confuse them with the facts their minds are made up.

BTW, so far my examination of Genesis 1,2,3 has been very superficial. We haven't even begun to discuss the mind of god yet and why he created a man in his image who had to be subservient to him, and what his real motives were for this. He appears to be a tyrant who wanted someone to lord it over for eternity. He was angry at Adam, not for having caused him physical injury which is impossible, but for bruising his ego for not being his obedient slave and wanting more knowledge and hence more power so he would be more god's equal. That's the trouble with making someone in your own image, they become just like you are. That is why god handed down more laws and punished everyone for sins he hadn't even defined yet before Moses came along. His imperfect clumsy creation did not live up to his expectations and he was like a spoiled child wanting to break all his toys that didn't please him. That's how I read it so far.

Marcus;

What is your question? Please.

BI I have lots of questions but here is something for you to think about today. How do you reconcile the bible's assertion that woman is inferior to man as clearly asserted in Genesis? Man was created in god's image, but woman was created only as his "help meet," his washing machine. It was woman according to the interpretation of so many Christians including pastorphillip who brought down the human race by inventing sin when she ate the forbidden fruit and gave some to Adam. How do you reconcile this with the view today that men and women although biologically different are equal? Or don't you share that view?

There have been no satisfactory answers AFAIAC to any of my questions so far. Most attempts such as yours have not even been direct.

How do you account for theological assertion that a perfect god made imperfect man? And how do you account for the fact that god's anger is directed at the fact that through curiousity and the desire to gain knowledge even at the risk of death, man angered god by trying to acquire it. We still do that, for example every time someone sits on top of thousands of tons of rocket propellant waiting to be launched into space. Does that anger god too? Why is god angry that man wants more knowlegde of himself and the universe and is not content to sit around in the garden of Eden eating only the friut he has been told he is allowed to eat? Why does man's desire to acquire power to understand and control his environment, his life, to recreate Eden anger god?

Marcus, thanks for your questions, the first concise questions I've found you asking.

"How do you reconcile the bible's assertion that woman is inferior to man as clearly asserted in Genesis"

I don't accept that that is the bible's assertion....

you see now, simple question, simple answer.

"Man was created in god's image, but woman was created only as his "help meet"

I don't think this implies inferiority in any way whatsoever. why do you think that it does?

"How do you account for theological assertion that a perfect god made imperfect man"

I'm not sure what you mean "account for"...is that supposed to be a contradiction?

Yes, a perfect God made imperfect man. Were man not imperfect then he would be God.

Obviously, anything that God produces is not God himself...now that would be contradictory!

"Why does man's desire to acquire power to understand and control his environment, his life, to recreate Eden anger god"

I am glad you have read Genesis, but I simply do not accept your interpretation of it.

The fall seems to me more about the folly of trying to "become" God, despite all of our imperfections...or rather, the folly of setting ourselves up as "like to God", when we are so obviously imperfect.

I don't think it in any way suggests that man's attempt to learn and "better himself" angers God. Rather, what angers God is when man claims to be God himself, or to have overthrown the need for God's divine direction through our imperfection-ridden lives.

Does that constitute an answer? If not, I don't know what else I can do for you.

Why is it Marcus, that you are so opposed to a God who 'doesn't exist'?

You really are rather fixated on him.

The thing is though, Marcus, although you claim to be pointing out "contradictions", what you're actually pointing out are instances of what, in your opinion, is dubious morality.

Not only do I not accept your interpretations, but you actually cannot question those motivations, given that you don't believe the subject of the motivations even exists.

If someone told me there was a Wizard living on cavehill casting magic spells I would certainly argue about it; where does he live? Has anyone ever encountered him?

I wouldn't argue that "he casts evil spells, therefore you're a fool for believing in him".

That doesn't make sense

And that's leaving aside the fact that, if we accept your interpretation of the Genesis accounts of God alongside your professed views on morality, a self-centred wrathful God creating man for his own whims actually sounds like a reasonable enough fellow...by your account of morality.

So I really can't grasp what problem you're supposed to be highlighting here

BI;

"Why is it Marcus, that you are so opposed to a God who 'doesn't exist'?"

That is not what this this discussion was about. The usual debate is whether or not god exists. Since it was asked, I said I didn't beleive in god but that is not the focus of this discussion.

I have taken the bible at face value and pointed out in example after example in just the first three chapters of the first book where it is at times self contradictory, at times incomprehensible, and flies in the face of what people who call themselves Jews and Chistians assert is the morality of god. As an example of the first, there are two accounts of the sequence in which man and animals were created and they are explicit and in direct opposition to each other. Of the second, I've cited the incomprehensible assertion that there was a time before light and dark were separated. And of the third, the fact that the human race after Adam and Eve was created through incest. I've also started to examine the mind of god and what kind of personality the story told in the bible paints of him. It is not a pretty picture. As I posted pervioiusly, I have not examined the question of whether or not god exists here, that is an entirely separate discussion for a different thread which revolves around comparing the stories and conclusions of the bible with contemporary knowledge we believe is true through experience in the world. (That BTW is the crux of the story of Eve, the human thirst for knowledge and unwillngness to accept what is told by those in authority. That is why the Catholic Church condemned Galileo. They knew he'd opened a Pandora's box they could never close.) Instead, I've suspended disbelief and taken it as a given here that god does exist. I've tried to make sense of this book which Jews and Christians assert is the devinely inspired word of god and shown for lack of convincing counterarguments to my assertions and examples that it is badly flawed.

It is you and others who have a problem with this, not me. The discussion of this topic rarely if ever seems to come up, probably because non believers don't read the bible with a critical eye but just dismiss it. I'm not in the least surprised you don't like it. It flies in the face of what "believers" have taken as truth much if not all of their lives. It contradicts the truths they have been taught and accepted. Worst of all, it might make them think for themselves, think thoughts that are heretical. The need to defend "the honor of god" seems compelling to people like you and OT because your religion is your "security blanket" against the alternative of a purposeless finite life and endless death. It isn't enough for you to be satisfied in your own smug faith (they don't call it blind faith for nothing.) Christians especially have to prostylitize their religion. Now the shoe is on the other foot. It is I who sow the seeds of doubt, not by preaching but by showing the flaws in the arguments of those who do.

I'm not sure I have a "morality." Not in the sense you do. I don't sit in arbitrary judgment of other people for the things they do that harm no one but themselves if that. I don't hold them up to a supposed standard written down in this book. If I have a morality or ethics at all, it is based elsewhere. But if you've read my other postings, you know that even this is probably a false morality because morality is based on free will, free moral choice as theists call it. And I 've made it clear that in a rational universe where all events are the result of inevitable cause and effect, a free will is an illusion. If the universe is rational as I have defined it, all events are predetermined no matter how badly we'd like to think otherwise.

Marcus;

First, I'm afraid I did'nt actually say the quotation you've atributed to me. So let's clear that up.

Second;

"I have taken the bible at face value"

What do you mean "face value". Do you mean "temporally and chronologically factual? Because I can only suggest, sir, that to take an account of the origins of the universe as "temporally and chronologically literal", given that it relates to the BEGINNING of temporality and chronology themselves, is an absolutely ridiculous thing to do.

As such, you are disputing a strawman that only you have invented

"pointed out in example after example in just the first three chapters of the first book where it is at times self contradictory"

Sorry, I'm afaid you haven't.
I recently asked you for a simple question about one of these apparent "contradictions", and it turned out not to be a contradiction at all. Gender equality in the bible compared to prevalent political thought about equality today? Now Marcus, there's hardly a contradiction there, even if there is a difference.

"As an example of the first, there are two accounts of the sequence in which man and animals were created and they are explicit and in direct opposition to each other"

Do yo mean "different"? Yes, there are two different accounts. That doesn't constitute contradiction, it constitutes to differing expressions of the same story.

"I've cited the incomprehensible assertion that there was a time before light and dark were separated."

Why is that incomprehensible? What was there, then, before light and dark? What is your understanding of "time", and its beginnings?

I can perfectly understand the notion and assertion that before time, before light and dark, there was BEING. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm sorry that you don't understand it, but ignorance is no argument for anthing. Your lack of understanding doesn't make a thing "incomprehensible".

"And of the third, the fact that the human race after Adam and Eve was created through incest."

Yes, well? What's "contradictory" about that?

"I've also started to examine the mind of god and what kind of personality the story told in the bible paints of him. It is not a pretty picture."

Well, I like it. I think it's a very pretty picture indeed. That "you don't like it", doesn't make it a "contradiction", or even an "incomprehensibility".



Hmmmmm, I've read through the remainder of your post, but it seems to be a diatribe...I'm not sure there's anything else that warrants reply.

Now, what's your question again?

Based on your last post it seems to be "why don't I like God as portrayed in the bible?"

And the answer really is quite simple. Because you're a notorious contrarian, that's why.

:)

Would you like to try again?

Remember Marcus, simple questions elicit simple answers. How about one sentence with a question mark at the end; I'll very happly answer it, and promptly

Marcus
I’m about to give up on this thread, sorry.
If you want me to hang in here you will have to accept my word for it;

Q1)but I am not as you claim, “mad” that the bible doesnt always make sense.

Q2) Neither do I expect you to say Amen and walk away.

Q3) You claim there are contradictions an incoherencies I am “afraid” to find out about.

Q4) You accuse me of not having offered one concrete argument to contribute to my side.


NEWSFLASH

Marcus.

All these assumptions are utter bunkum, I assure you. You are really absolutely certain what the state of my emotions are and my thoughts as I read your posts???? Really?? 100%?

Not only am I not “mad” that the bible doesnt always “make sense”. Marcus, please friend, you seem to have decided how you win all your arguments before you have started to examine the facts.

A1) Just ask any Christian on this post if they understand everything in the bible and I think they will all tell you straight that they dont. Again, this does not prove God or the bible to be his word.

Marcus, it is just a matter of coming down to earth a bit and actually making the effort to listen to the people you are challenging.There is nothing mystical about it.

A2) I never suggested you should walk away from this debate. What I said was that if you couldnt OR WORULDNT understand how the assumptions you bring to the text cause the gap between you are others here, THEN you should walk away, because you are not being honest with yourself.

A3)I can assure you, I could write a long list of what seem to me apparent contradictions in the bible which you may never have thought of.

Q4)You are right that I havent offered a concrete argument to contribute to “my” side, because you have made it plain that you dont want to hear.

Christ once said:
If I have told you people about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?

I make exactly the same point to you Marcus, if you wont understand the simple point about assumptions brought to a text, which is not in principle an issue of debate between theists and athiests, what is the point of assisting you with supernatural matters?

You are trying to kid yourself that you are being clever here but that isnt the case.

You ARE a funny and intelligent guy, but you are not really interested in answers to the questions you pretend to pose.

OT

"As such, you are disputing a strawman that only you have invented"

Strawman I invented? I didn't write it. I just tried to make sense of what it said. So far, the superficial exceptions I've taken to the apparent lack of cohesiveness of it hasn't had any satisfactory answers. I'm not interested in "interpretations" of what it says any more than I am in the absurd interpretations of the mathematical equation that is the second law of thermodynamics when fools like McIntosh and Wilder-Smith make assertions that the assembly of DNA in nature without devine intervention is impossible. That kind of argument may work on less critical minds but it won't get off the ground let alone fly with me. It says what it says. That is its first problem.

"Do yo mean "different"? Yes, there are two different accounts. That doesn't constitute contradiction, it constitutes to differing expressions of the same story."

Winston Churchill said never argue with a monkey when an organ grinder is in the room. You don't even know what the definition of the word contradiction means.

"I've cited the incomprehensible assertion that there was a time before light and dark were separated."

Why is that incomprehensible? What was there, then, before light and dark? What is your understanding of "time", and its beginnings?"

If you'd read the book, you'd know that before the light, there was the void. God created the light. Then he separated the light from the dark. What is your problem with that BI. It says what it says. Now what does it mean. How was it possible for the light not to have been separated from the dark. And you grew up in the land of Shakespeare, Britain? The account means the same in any language....and is just as incomprehensible.

""And of the third, the fact that the human race after Adam and Eve was created through incest."

Yes, well? What's "contradictory" about that?"

It's not contradictory, but it violates the virtually universal morality of Jews and Christians which is embodied in law practically everywhere. So much so that we find revulsion in it when it happens. Just pointing out a contradiction between what the bible says and the morality of those who preach it.

"Now, what's your question again?"

They are listed quite clearly and specifically in this and other threads above. You don't have to go hunting for them in ancient runes, the musings of primitives. Just read my postings. They are also in English...of a fashion.

"Based on your last post it seems to be "why don't I like God as portrayed in the bible?""

I've quoted you chapter and verse where the bible admits that people broke the law and died even before they law was given to them by Moses. To even the simplest of minds, one must conclude this as unjust. I also quoted you chapter and verse where the bible says specifically that the law was given to "increase trespass" meaning to keep people from eternal life. So much for the myth of your Christian god as a loving father. And I also quoted you where it says everyone will eventually come back to life, only the order they come back in will be different. Who cares. When you're dead, you have no sense of time and when you come back you will live eternally as death will be conquered. At least that is what Jesus Christ said.


OT

"Just ask any Christian on this post if they understand everything in the bible and I think they will all tell you straight that they dont. Again, this does not prove God or the bible to be his word."

We're not talking about some arcane obscure point. This is the story of how the universe was created, hoq life was created, how man and woman were created, and how sin came into the world. It is written in three short pages of clear language. If this is not understood, what is the point of going on to read the rest of it. If the first three pages can't be relied on, what good are the remaining thousand pages since they depend on these first three?

"I?m about to give up on this thread, "

You'll have no choice. One or two more postings by Mr. Crawley and it will disappear off the computer screens...unless you want to bring it back from the dead too.

"You don't even know what the definition of the word contradiction means."

Contradiction - "direct opposition between things compared" (dictionary.com)

'a contradiction in terms' - "a combination of words which is nonsense because some of the words suggest the opposite of some of the others" (Cambridge dictionaries online)

Maybe you were thinking of some other kind of contradiction, Marcus.

What I said in post 55, I'll say again, "There is NO contradiction. There is NOTHING to resolve. In fact I'll say this, frankly the idea that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory is as pitiful as complaints that the resurrection accounts are contradictory."

I'm not smiling this time tho' cos it's getting tiresome.

Zippity do da zippity ay...

What's the matter peter, cat got your tongue?

The washing machine didn't work the way it usually does. That's because I re-wired it. I removed the spin cycle. Without the spin cycle, the bible doesn't seem to wash anymore.

Hi Marcus

Ah, role reversal, is that what it was?

No, (!) the cat hasn't got my tongue :-) I just didn't think that copy-cat-calls merited a response; Zippity do da, mmm, and you from the Union. I'm reminded of Debbie Harry and her blue city. But I suppose dictionary definitions are pretty hard to contradict and left you with little to say, so as Deborah might have said, oh, oh what are we gonna do?

I told you, Lincoln's favorite tune was Dixie. Believe it or not, the Union now comprises all 50 states. This isn't like Ireland and NI, it's one country. That 4 year "incident" ended over 140 years ago. It's the stuff history books are written about, not of multi-century fueds. We don't have that kind of thing here.

I visited the south and considered living there at one time. Some of it is very pleasant.

If you can reconcile in your own mind, the irreconcilable, good for you. Geroge Orwell would feel vindicated. 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. The Ministry of Love has done its work well.

50 states?

Didn't you forget about Mexico and Canada?

BTW it's one nation under God isn't it?

I'll assume you've said it!

Anyway, you say inconsistent, I say consistent, let's call the whole thing off.

It's not the EUSSR. Nobody had to call when 9-11 happened. People flocked from all over the nation to help out all by themselves at their own cost and their own initiative. Same with fires in the west, floods like Katrina, and other disasters. Farmers ran from everywhere to one region to help local farmers get a harvest in quickly one year recently because there was some pending disaster if they didn't and it worked. Look at the monumental effort to dam up the Red River with sandbag levees in the last few weeks. Where have you ever seen anything like that in Europe?

Mexico and Canada are America's neighbors and the US has good relations with both. The US border with Canada is the longest unguarded border in the world. But we are not the same country and when you visit either of the other two as a citizen of one of them as I have done many times, you are aware that you are in a foreign country.

"One nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." That's what we say in the pledge of allegience to the flag. The phrase under god was inserted I think during the Eisenhower administration. Some people believe it. To some like me it's just a thing we say. To some atheists it matters and they've fought legal battles to get it removed. Don't read more into it than isn't there. However, given the enormous obstacles the United States had to overcome just to be created and then to survive, the old expression "god looks out for drunks, fools, and the United States of America" makes you wonder. A lot of its remarkable accomplishments seem to be taken for granted, even by its own people.

If you find two entirely different accounts of the same story consistent, that is your business. But you'd be the only one on any jury I ever heard of to buy it.

Marcus

Lest there be any misunderstanding, before I say anything else, I shall say that I have a high regard for the US, and I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a Europhile. I'm not particularly enamored with nationalism of any kind at all, I've seen the ugly side of it up close and, 'vowing to thee my country' as the song goes doesn't 'do it' for me.

It's good to see a bit of passion from you though. Good to see that my comments about the neighbouring states of Texas and Canada have got the 'blood up', as we say here. Reminds me of the spirit of the blitz, that was a British phenomenon once.

I'm a bit worried though that you don't take the pledge at face value; are you not sort of contradicting yourself when you say the words 'under God', I would have thought that they were words in direct opposition to atheism. (Direct opposition, that was a definition of contradiction, wasn't it?)

But sure, if you find you can live with these 'differing accounts', that's your business. Do you think it would hold up in court?

It's a bit like Genesis 1 and 2 isn't it, no need to read into it something which isn't there.

Funny, a few words said facing a piece of cloth as a kind of mindless ritual doesn't seem to rank in my mind in the same vein as two differing accounts of an explanation of how the universe was created in the same book on adjacent pages that you are supposed to believe is the way things happened. To each his own.

When you in a foreign country say "the state" you are referring to a nation. When we say the state in the US, we are almost always referring to a particular state that is one of fifty which comprise our nation, just like for example a Department is in France. Texas is one of those fifty states. Canada is not, it is a separate nation. Please consult a good atlas if you need further clarification.

I've lived in Europe. I've breathed it. I've seen it up close for nearly two years. I found it quite ugly. In recent years as seen on American television, it got even uglier from my point of view. I can't think of another part of the world I know of that compares in that regard.

I think people and nations almost always get what they deserve. They sow the seeds of their own troubles. Then they blame someone else.