OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Just because Genesis 5 comes after Genesis 4 in the book does not mean those events had to happen in the same order. Genesis 4 is Cain & Abel's story, while Genesis 5 is sort of a recap for the purpose of establishing the lineage of the Adam-Noah line (which then continues into Noah's story). For as long as these lives are supposed to have lasted, it's not unreasonable to think that Cain had his own children well into his 100's (his age is not specified), and it's actually not hard to imagine that he could have "married" even a later descendant from Adam's "other sons and daughters", so not actually his "sister" but potentially a niece etc. For as long as these lives in Genesis lasted, there could be dozens or hundreds of people (and overlapping generations) in just a few centuries.

It is pretty clear that the early chapters of Genesis reset the time frame. I'm OK with that, though it sounds a lot like the work of two different authors (particularly with the 2 different creation tales), but.. that's fine. I'm generally OK with a "previously on earth" if you will...

Still, I think we are agreed that it is less than clear what's going on and how this is all supposed to make a lick of sense. Consequently, we are forced to make assumptions and conclusions.

 

[jwinslow]

So, you agree with me then that one MUST read into the Bible that which is not there. OK.

I agree that we have no idea who he slept with, and frankly I don't really care because either way, he had to sleep with a family member.

So basically you don't actually care who did who, you just want to mock the weirdness, right?

 

[jwinslow]

It is pretty clear that the early chapters of Genesis reset the time frame. I'm OK with that, though it sounds a lot like the work of two different authors (particularly with the 2 different creation tales), but.. that's fine. I'm generally OK with a "previously on earth" if you will...

Still, I think we are agreed that it is less than clear what's going on and how this is all supposed to make a lick of sense. Consequently, we are forced to make assumptions and conclusions.

How would you like God to have started the human race? Is there an option that isn't a bit weird socially? And how much time would you have devoted to identifying the child bearers in scripture?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'm going to skim over the fruit part a bit, because we've got a lot to cover
Can man be aware of evil and not indulge in it? Absolutely not, in my experience as a Christian and someone familiar with traffic, relationships & politics.

I realize you're making a distinction between Man and God, but does not God know the difference between Good and Evil too? He did say, afterall, that in so knowing now WE were like him too... made in his image, as well, I might add. Does it follow that God must also do evil?

Yes you're being very snarky about a very pagan concept of being caretakers of the earth. That said, there was no chance of Adam lasting in his gardening role.

No chance? Says which verse? Are you suggesting God set out to create a perfect thing but failed?

You're approaching this asking why such harsh punishment was handed down at all. I'd ask why such creatures are given so many second chances when He (and we) know what the end result will be.

It was also done to set an example and withhold that level of comeuppance.

Also, regarding innocent creatures, I'd like to play my quibble card and substitute the term "unaware." Since we're going way off the posting trail, I would argue that mother nature has proven to be a pretty harsh and cruel realm of beings.

Mother nature has no conscious.

I think the entire relationship is "silly" because mankind isn't worthy in my experience. I struggle a lot with the concept of humanity. He could have created us as robots who would have done as we were told but that relationship would have largely been devoid of love on both sides.

A robot would have no problem gardening, naming goats and sleeping with creatures spawned from his body parts.)

Kinda sounds like what he set out to do, but we ate that damn fruit.

He could have created us free from Him entirely and left us to chase whatever fleeting happiness we could find in less than a century.

There is certainly a major irony in the creation of mankind and ensuing relationship. Can mankind exist without the option of sin and suffering? The agents in the Matrix could not make it work :p Obviously that's a mildly relevant joke but I've found that humans analyze and experience life by contrast.

I don't know, but it sure seems like man cannot exist without sin and suffering (save for the fact that, if the Bible is to be believed, Adam and Eve were able to do so for a least a little while before eating the forbidden fruit.)[/quote]

 

[BayBuck]

Still, I think we are agreed that it is less than clear what's going on and how this is all supposed to make a lick of sense. Consequently, we are forced to make assumptions and conclusions.

True, but I think one can make a reading more or less difficult depending on the methods they choose to apply. I personally have never found the internal logic of the Bible to be that hard to maintain from an intellectual perspective.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I agree that we have no idea who he slept with, and frankly I don't really care because either way, he had to sleep with a family member.

So basically you don't actually care who did who, you just want to mock the weirdness, right?

No, I'm not mocking the weirdness. I want to know why anyone believes this nonsense in a literal sense, and why my assumptions are forbidden but yours are perfectly dandy?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

How would you like God to have started the human race? Is there an option that isn't a bit weird socially? And how much time would you have devoted to identifying the child bearers in scripture?

Yes. I think God started the human race precisely the way evolution works. Not the least bit socially weird, either. I can't say regarding the time, but I mean... Darwin was able to articulate the concept in a book, so.. I don't think it's quite as impossible as you make it sound.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

True, but I think one can make a reading more or less difficult depending on the methods they choose to apply. I personally have never found the internal logic of the Bible to be that hard to maintain from an intellectual perspective.

Fair enough

 

[jwinslow]

No, I'm not mocking the weirdness. I want to know why anyone believes this nonsense in a literal sense, and why my assumptions are forbidden but yours are perfectly dandy?

a) Because deep down, we're both snarky Enochian-esque jerks who enjoy deriding the other at the expense of the conversation and the strength of our arguments

b) Ok, back to the actual answer:

So you're mocking the nonsense instead of the weirdness, and thus the depth of the analysis is only enough to suggest that premise?

I'm not sure when I joined the literal party, either, though it certainly shifts the debate.

I don't know what happened in the bedroom BKB. Your obsession with that unmentioned activity has led us way down the road on a topic I'm not interested in at all. Not because it threatens anything but because it doesn't freaking matter. Seth had sex with a family member because there was no alternative.

There are a ton of complex and odd topics in the bible that are stated specifically yet we've spent a few days hyperanalyzing hypotheticals about non-scripture that you wish was written there.

 

[matcar]

True, but I think one can make a reading more or less difficult depending on the methods they choose to apply. I personally have never found the internal logic of the Bible to be that hard to maintain from an intellectual perspective.

From a high level and overall purpose, yes. When details are scrutinized, it's seems to require some real work-BKB has thrown out a mere few examples.

 

[jwinslow]

Yes. I think God started the human race precisely the way evolution works. Not the least bit socially weird, either. I can't say regarding the time, but I mean... Darwin was able to articulate the concept in a book, so.. I don't think it's quite as impossible as you make it sound.

You didn't answer my question. Fine, let's use evolution. We get to Adam and Eve, now what?

Would you have the siblings sleep with each other, then detail those physical unions to avoid confusing future BKBs?

p.s. I don't find evolution to be impossible nor incompatible. I do find it to be a bit incomplete.

 

[jwinslow]

I realize you're making a distinction between Man and God, but does not God know the difference between Good and Evil too? He did say, afterall, that in so knowing now WE were like him too... made in his image, as well, I might add. Does it follow that God must also do evil?

Obviously I was describing Man's inability to do evil. No, I do not believe that a supernatural God is bound by the same shortcomings as his creation. Apparently his angels are, though.

No chance? Says which verse? Are you suggesting God set out to create a perfect thing but failed?

He gave them a choice, but one mankind can't resist. They had endless other trees to eat from but they had to have that one (thanks in part to the biscuit preserving snake).

I'm saying he orchestrated the entire thing and that I struggle with the ethics of such a scenario.

I'm also saying that while flawed, I can't picture a different version of humanity that would create the same opportunity for love, grace, devotion and fellowship.

Mother nature has no conscious.

Agreed. The elephants knew what they did.

I don't know, but it sure seems like man cannot exist without sin and suffering (save for the fact that, if the Bible is to be believed, Adam and Eve were able to do so for a least a little while before eating the forbidden fruit.

As simple minded beasts who were unaware of that other path.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You didn't answer my question. Fine, let's use evolution. We get to Adam and Eve, now what?

Would you have the siblings sleep with each other, then detail those physical unions to avoid confusing future BKBs?

p.s. I don't find evolution to be impossible nor incompatible. I do find it to be a bit incomplete.

Adam and Eve are irrelevant to evolution.

 

[jwinslow]

Adam and Eve are irrelevant to evolution.

I'm asking you what biblical procreation setup hierarchy would have met your approval. I suspect that even if we found one, the end result would be the same: it doesn't change anything and thus it's a pretty trivial thing overall.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

a) Because deep down, we're both snarky Enochian-esque jerks who enjoy deriding the other at the expense of the conversation and the strength of our arguments

b) Ok, back to the actual answer:

So you're mocking the nonsense instead of the weirdness, and thus the depth of the analysis is only enough to suggest that premise?

I'm not sure when I joined the literal party, either, though it certainly shifts the debate.

I don't know what happened in the bedroom BKB. Your obsession with that unmentioned activity has led us way down the road on a topic I'm not interested in at all. Not because it threatens anything but because it doesn't freaking matter. Seth had sex with a family member because there was no alternative.

There are a ton of complex and odd topics in the bible that are stated specifically yet we've spent a few days hyperanalyzing hypotheticals about non-scripture that you wish was written there.

Actually, I've mentioned quite a number of things other than Cain's bedroom. And I've also quoted the scripture and talked about what IS written there.

You don't seem to be responding to those, and that's fine, you did say you don't have much time and skimmed...

In any case, if you're not defending literalism, then I'll abandon that for now.