In the Beginning...

[Lexicus]

Last night I watched Noah, does that catch me up in this thread?

Not even close. The work Berzerker is proposing will revolutionize the field.

 

[timtofly]

I've gotten the impression the OP was merely intended to go off on various tangents. CFC has a specialized thread for theological questions. Clearly the OP poster wasn't interested in getting expert response.

I am no expert. If you responded does that mean you are not either? The OP has every right to cover all the aspects of the first few chapters of Genesis. There is a lot that is not covered obviously, and any attempt of reconciling all accounts seems to be a sin to you.

I see we like to go off on a tangent... I'm not sure what these 'others' are supposed to be you keep referring to. There's Adam, there's Eve... and nobody. And it's pretty clear you've not worked in agriculture either. I have. It's work.

I am not adding anything to the text, but you can all you want to. It seems to be the "act" that is important and not the thoughts.

God said that males and females were created in God's image on day 6. If you want to separate Adam into a completely different account, where are you going to put this account in relation to the first chapter? The Mesopotamian myths claim that the second generation gods made Adam as slaves, and they were naked workers for the gods. You seem to agree with this, as you claim there was only Adam and Eve, and they were the slaves of the gods.

Fashioning a being from dust hardly makes you a 'son of God'. It makes you a dustling though.

Where do you get this "knowledge"?

No, he said the thought was already sinful. Which is a bit ore radical than the act itself being sinful, but it doesn't contradict that sinning i an act. Not the act of thinking about sin, but still.

Why mix God with morality? I thought that you wanted to separate the two?

And you have this 'knowledge' from where?.

It is right there in the Bible. I just read, and post my thoughts.

He was at the corner shop? Doesn't really matter, because after the act (which according to you isn't the sin) God was still present wit sinful Adam. QED.

Normally people argue about this as God is not all knowing, because God asked Adam what happened. Time has nothing to do with God, and sin was already eradicated to God. To us humans though, we still have to live out our history which is still ongoing. I hardly think that the short amount of time that it took God to make a garment for Adam, and condemn his soul to death and kicked him out of the Garden is consolation that God can be present with a sinner for a short period of time. Besides, it seems the act is the final step, and seeing as how there was no time to become addicted to eating the fruit and doing it over and over again, your "act" a sinner did not make.

It seems not to matter to you that it is thoughts that God calls sin. By claiming that the act is the sin, then you have condemned Adam. God knew what Adam was thinking even if you don't, and could be present with Adam, because sin is in the thoughts and not the act.

I'm sure humans can justify sinning, but again that doesn't contradict it being an act. I can justify eating an apple, but it's still an act, whether I 'justify' it or not.

You took the time to justify a response, but it would have done no good, if you never posted it. Then for some reason, I have responded. I still claim I am not arguing with you, but you may feel differently. Seeing as how the passage we are referring to assumes that there is a God, then I assume we have to figure out what sin is to God, and not something we just "make up".

So now you're arguing humans have no control over their sinning. Brilliant.

I said that humans cannot control the input of thought. I never said they could not control what they do with those thoughts. Actually you make fun of those who try to control what they think about. You would refer to them as legalist and do-gooders. I would call them hypocrites. To control sin, just claim there is no God. It has worked for a lot of humans.

Once again, only Adam and Eve were in the garden. Cain and Abel only appear after they were expulsed. Stop making up your own bible.

I am not making up the Bible. It seems to me though that you are interpreting the Bible as you see fit, and I have no problem with that. Only you have to answer for your own thoughts.

I'm sure that's why the Hebrews were given a king. The Garden was not 'a test of obedience'. Man being created in God's image, God could (and should) easily have foreseen Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge.

'All the other beings... had the knowledge of good and evil... built into their natural innate reasoning': but reasoning is sin, you claimed earlier. And yet we 'have no control over our thoughts.'

You can separate truth and biology as different concepts, yet cannot separate reasoning from sin? I apologize for being so obtuse, but reasoning is reasoning and sin is sin. You claim that the act defines a person. God says that a human's thoughts defines a person.

As a human with morality of course an action defines a person, as we cannot read each others thoughts. God knows the thoughts, so therefore God is a step ahead of all humans when it comes to determining what sin is and what sin is not. God is concerned with sin. Humans are concerned with moral acts.

That is changing though, because we now legislate hate crimes and humans are attempting to control other human's thoughts, and one can now be imprisoned just by their thoughts, and not their actions.

I wouldn't know why. It certainly doesn't apply to me.

You do not choose morality over God?

No, it really really isn't. Truth and biology are two entirely different concepts.

Then you choose biology over truth?

If he lacked morality, how can he be blamed for sinning?

You are the one who claims God and morality have little in common.

So he's in a limbo now. Nice. FWIW, I've never heard 'these myths about Adam's offspring being slaves to the gods'. It certainly doesn't strike me as biblical.

Have you read the Bible?

Actually morality and God have very little in common.

That would explain how your definition of Sin is not biblical.

 

[Agent327]

I am no expert. If you responded does that mean you are not either? The OP has every right to cover all the aspects of the first few chapters of Genesis. There is a lot that is not covered obviously, and any attempt of reconciling all accounts seems to be a sin to you.

Again, this doesn't remotely follow. As to your question (which also doesn't quite follow), no, I'm not an expert. But I understand logic and logical argumentation.

I am not adding anything to the text, but you can all you want to. It seems to be the "act" that is important and not the thoughts.

I just pointed out how you actually did 'add' to the text - in a way that doesn't follow from any reading of the text. And FWIW, both act and thought seem to have importance in the Bible. (See the Commandments.)

God said that males and females were created in God's image on day 6. If you want to separate Adam into a completely different account, where are you going to put this account in relation to the first chapter? The Mesopotamian myths claim that the second generation gods made Adam as slaves, and they were naked workers for the gods. You seem to agree with this, as you claim there was only Adam and Eve, and they were the slaves of the gods.

God didn't say anything. Our omniscient narrator tells us. But he doesn't tell us that 'males and females were created in God's image on day 6'. He tells us God created man (Adam) in his own image. That doesn't actually include Eve, who is shaped from a rib of Adam's. Secondly, the Mesopotamian myths do not 'claim that the second generation gods made Adam as slaves, and they were naked workers for the gods'. In fact, these myths know of no Adam.

Where do you get this "knowledge"?

It's not 'knowledge', it's logical reasoning. Which seems to be the opposite from what you're employing.

Why mix God with morality? I thought that you wanted to separate the two?

Again, this doesn't follow at all. What I want is immaterial. And I'm not mixing God with morality; you are. One really shouldn't confuse the two.

It is right there in the Bible. I just read, and post my thoughts.

If only that were true:

God said that the imaginations of a human's thoughts before the Flood became only evil continually.

This is most definitely not in the Bible. I dare you to quote chapter and verse.

Normally people argue about this as God is not all knowing, because God asked Adam what happened. Time has nothing to do with God, and sin was already eradicated to God.

This makes no sense: God can't eradicate something (assuming that's what you mean by 'eridated to God') that isn't there yet.

To us humans though, we still have to live out our history which is still ongoing. I hardly think that the short amount of time that it took God to make a garment for Adam, and condemn his soul to death and kicked him out of the Garden is consolation that God can be present with a sinner for a short period of time. Besides, it seems the act is the final step, and seeing as how there was no time to become addicted to eating the fruit and doing it over and over again, your "act" a sinner did not make.

While this may seem like a clever theological argument, it actually isn't. You claimed 'God can not present with sin'. We just established he very well can be.

Secondly, we should keep in mind that the theological notion of God being perfectly good can't really be inferred from the Bible at all. Meaning it's not even presumed there.

It seems not to matter to you that it is thoughts that God calls sin.

These are not words attributed to God, but to Jesus. Who was unaware of being God.

By claiming that the act is the sin, then you have condemned Adam. God knew what Adam was thinking even if you don't, and could be present with Adam, because sin is in the thoughts and not the act.

I don't claim anything at all. I merely point out that sinning is an act. It is Jesus who reportedly expands this to 'thinking is a sin'. (But he isn't original here, as it is already in the Commandments.)

You took the time to justify a response, but it would have done no good, if you never posted it. Then for some reason, I have responded. I still claim I am not arguing with you, but you may feel differently. Seeing as how the passage we are referring to assumes that there is a God, then I assume we have to figure out what sin is to God, and not something we just "make up".

A noble task. I'm not sure how you would go about establishing that, however.

I said that humans cannot control the input of thought. I never said they could not control what they do with those thoughts. Actually you make fun of those who try to control what they think about. You would refer to them as legalist and do-gooders. I would call them hypocrites. To control sin, just claim there is no God. It has worked for a lot of humans.

Claiming there is no god has nothing to do with sin. Plenty of people indeed have never believed in God and have perfectly normal lives. But, I don't claim there is no God.

I'm making fun of? Not at all. I'm taking quite seriously. And it wasn't me claiming 'we cannot control our thoughts'. Because we can, you see.

I am not making up the Bible. It seems to me though that you are interpreting the Bible as you see fit, and I have no problem with that. Only you have to answer for your own thoughts.

No need to twist my words. I pointed out you are making things up that aren't even remotely in the Bible. Secondly, I don't 'interpret' the Bible at all. But, that's exactly what you are doing - while claiming 'it's in the Bible'. If it is, quote chapter and verse. If you can't, you're making things up.

You can separate truth and biology as different concepts, yet cannot separate reasoning from sin? I apologize for being so obtuse, but reasoning is reasoning and sin is sin. You claim that the act defines a person. God says that a human's thoughts defines a person.

It is not I who 'can separate truth and biology as different concepts': they are. Secondly, I do not 'claim that the act defines a person.'Thirdly, Jesus nor God 'says that a human's thoughts defines a person.'

God says that a human's thoughts defines a person.As a human with morality of course an action defines a person, as we cannot read each others thoughts. God knows the thoughts, so therefore God is a step ahead of all humans when it comes to determining what sin is and what sin is not.

That doesn't follow at all. I don't need God's omniscience to know what's wrong and what's right.

That is changing though, because we now legislate hate crimes and humans are attempting to control other human's thoughts, and one can now be imprisoned just by their thoughts, and not their actions.

I would like you to cite some of that legislation. I don't believe it exists.

You do not choose morality over God?

I have no idea what that means.

Then you choose biology over truth?

How do you infer that from:

Truth and biology are two entirely different concepts.

You are the one who claims God and morality have little in common.

If you have the Bible as your guide, then most definitely. I could cite numerous examples of immorality from it.

"Thou shalt not kill". A bit further on the Hebrews happily slaughter inhabitants of Canaan. (Just one example.)

Have you read the Bible?

Not in its entirety, no. Some bits are decidedly tedious (genealogies, food prescriptions, etc). But this is an irrelevant question. You claim this form Mesopotamian myths, not the Bible. (See above, we just discussed it.)

That would explain how your definition of Sin is not biblical.

No, it would not. But see the immoral example cited above. You may note I have no trouble determining the yay or nay of its morality. Here's another: according to Christian doctrine God sent his only son to be murdered by us - so God could forgive us. This surely is one of the most twisted ideas of 'morality' I've ever come across. and it is from the Bible. As are the numerous slaughtering of firstborn approved by the Almighty. It seems to be a hobby of his. If we are to believe the Bible, that is. It is for such reasons that I don't equate morality or perfect goodness with the biblical God.

 

[timtofly]

Again, this doesn't remotely follow. As to your question (which also doesn't quite follow), no, I'm not an expert. But I understand logic and logical argumentation.

Is sin a transgression of human law?

I just pointed out how you actually did 'add' to the text - in a way that doesn't follow from any reading of the text. And FWIW, both act and thought seem to have importance in the Bible. (See the Commandments.)

I did not add. I was comparing the similarities in both accounts.

While being separate concepts, acting is dependent on thinking, unless one always acts, and never thinks first.

God didn't say anything. Our omniscient narrator tells us. But he doesn't tell us that 'males and females were created in God's image on day 6'. He tells us God created man (Adam) in his own image. That doesn't actually include Eve, who is shaped from a rib of Adam's. Secondly, the Mesopotamian myths do not 'claim that the second generation gods made Adam as slaves, and they were naked workers for the gods'. In fact, these myths know of no Adam.

There are some people who accept that God is the omniscient narrator.

There is the argument that the Hebrew scribes took their myths from the Mesopotamians. I don't accept that, but they do seem to be referring to the same event.

It's not 'knowledge', it's logical reasoning. Which seems to be the opposite from what you're employing.

I can only make an attempt.

Again, this doesn't follow at all. What I want is immaterial. And I'm not mixing God with morality; you are. One really shouldn't confuse the two.

I have been attempting to separate God and sin from morality. You keep calling them the same thing.

If only that were true:

It is, why would I lie?

This is most definitely not in the Bible. I dare you to quote chapter and verse.

Genesis 6:5

This makes no sense: God can't eradicate something (assuming that's what you mean by 'eridated to God') that isn't there yet.

You bring it up later as an immoral act, but God introduced sin with Adam, and eradicated it with Jesus on the cross.

While this may seem like a clever theological argument, it actually isn't. You claimed 'God can not present with sin'. We just established he very well can be.

Secondly, we should keep in mind that the theological notion of God being perfectly good can't really be inferred from the Bible at all. Meaning it's not even presumed there.

I normally do not use the terms holy and sacred, but that seems to be a theme when God interacts with humans through out the Bible.

These are not words attributed to God, but to Jesus. Who was unaware of being God.

You know what Jesus knew?

I don't claim anything at all. I merely point out that sinning is an act. It is Jesus who reportedly expands this to 'thinking is a sin'. (But he isn't original here, as it is already in the Commandments.)

You just claimed that Jesus was unaware of being God.

I think that the religious leaders of Jesus' day forgot, and he was reminding them. Besides the Law was a covenant between God and the Hebrews. Still has little to do with human morality. Humans may adopt it, but not for the same reasons.

A noble task. I'm not sure how you would go about establishing that, however.

For starters we can separate sin from morality.

Claiming there is no god has nothing to do with sin. Plenty of people indeed have never believed in God and have perfectly normal lives. But, I don't claim there is no God.

I already stated that.

I'm making fun of? Not at all. I'm taking quite seriously. And it wasn't me claiming 'we cannot control our thoughts'. Because we can, you see.

No need to insinuate then. You can stop thoughts before you can think them?

No need to twist my words. I pointed out you are making things up that aren't even remotely in the Bible. Secondly, I don't 'interpret' the Bible at all. But, that's exactly what you are doing - while claiming 'it's in the Bible'. If it is, quote chapter and verse. If you can't, you're making things up.

You have been arguing with me and have no thoughts on the topic?

It is not I who 'can separate truth and biology as different concepts': they are. Secondly, I do not 'claim that the act defines a person.'Thirdly, Jesus nor God 'says that a human's thoughts defines a person.'

You just reply to their thoughts?

Are you not defining me when you claim I am making things up?

That doesn't follow at all. I don't need God's omniscience to know what's wrong and what's right.

I never said that. We are talking about good and evil, not wrong and right.

I would like you to cite some of that legislation. I don't believe it exists.

How would you define hate, as an act? The term hate crime seems to be a contradiction of terms, because how would a person know if another person is thinking hate. Unless you are prescribing that humans should start controlling what other humans are thinking?

If you have the Bible as your guide, then most definitely. I could cite numerous examples of immorality from it.

"Thou shalt not kill". A bit further on the Hebrews happily slaughter inhabitants of Canaan. (Just one example.)

I never said the Bible is my guide. We are not addressing my judgment on the Bible. I am trying to figure out what you accept, or don't.

Not in its entirety, no. Some bits are decidedly tedious (genealogies, food prescriptions, etc). But this is an irrelevant question. You claim this form Mesopotamian myths, not the Bible. (See above, we just discussed it.)

You stated that Adam was made of clay, and that is Berzerker's claim about the Mesopotamians. If Adam was not created with the rest of humans on day 6, when did it happen? Either one has to state the verse in chapter 1 contradicts the Adam account, or it is the same event, and more humans were created along with Adam.

No, it would not. But see the immoral example cited above. You may note I have no trouble determining the yay or nay of its morality. Here's another: according to Christian doctrine God sent his only son to be murdered by us - so God could forgive us. This surely is one of the most twisted ideas of 'morality' I've ever come across. and it is from the Bible. As are the numerous slaughtering of firstborn approved by the Almighty. It seems to be a hobby of his. If we are to believe the Bible, that is. It is for such reasons that I don't equate morality or perfect goodness with the biblical God.

I agree. "Thou shalt be moral" is not a command in the Bible. Neither are we addressing your moral judgment on the Bible.

 

[Arakhor]

Genesis 7:5 says, "And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him."

That does not seem to help anyone's case at all there.

 

[timtofly]

Genesis 6:5.

It helped everyone who lived after Noah.

 

[Agent327]

Well, it didn't really. But we'll get to that.

Is sin a transgression of human law?

I'm not sure why you ask: sin is not a legal concept.

I did not add. I was comparing the similarities in both accounts.

Actually, it was the other way around. It was I who pointed out (and I'm doing it again here) that Jesus' reported word on the thought already being sinful is a reflection of Commandments. It was not you who pointed this out.

While being separate concepts, acting is dependent on thinking, unless one always acts, and never thinks first.

In which case I 'd say there is plenty of acting without thinking. Which would disprove acting being dependent on thinking.

There are some people who accept that God is the omniscient narrator.

You may have missed that the Bible represents everything about God in the third person. This is what we call in literature 'the omniscient narrator'. It's quite a common concept, but nobody deduces from it that the narrator is the author.

There is the argument that the Hebrew scribes took their myths from the Mesopotamians. I don't accept that, but they do seem to be referring to the same event.

No, they're not. I assume the 'event' you refer to is the Flood. The Mesopotamian concept of the flood is quit different from what you find in the Noah story. In Mesopotamia floods were frequent - and disastrous. (Unlike in Egypt.)

I have been attempting to separate God and sin from morality. You keep calling them the same thing.

I'm not doing that at all. But attempting to separate God and sin from morality is a noble enterprise.

Genesis 6:5

"When the Lord saw, that man's evil on Earth was great and all the products of his heart were always evil, the Lord was sorry that he had made man"

Again, this doesn't reveal omniscience, but acute amnesia. God had made man in his own image. But that was not what you were saying:

God said that the imaginations of a human's thoughts before the Flood became only evil continually.

That seems, not precisely, but almost correct. (Almost, because God is not musing about man's imagination.)

And God's solution for this is: kill them all. Which can't help make one wonder: why did he make them in the first place?

The problem with this is, that God seems to be a rather poor observer.

You bring it up later as an immoral act, but God introduced sin with Adam, and eradicated it with Jesus on the cross.

Ah, but he didn't. You're forgetting about Noah. It seems this sin is practically ineradicable. (Which, of course, shouldn't surprise anyone, as man is made in the image of God.)

So first God decides to eradicate all man (to get rid of sin), and when this doesn't work out, he decides to send his Son, so man can murder him. And then all is forgiven. This God seems to be completely lacking in foresight - not really a candidate for omniscience.

I normally do not use the terms holy and sacred, but that seems to be a theme when God interacts with humans through out the Bible.

I'm sure that's very Christian, but I don't consider demanding foreskins, firstborns, wholesale slaughter, and absolute obedience remotely holy or sacred.

You know what Jesus knew?

You just claimed that Jesus was unaware of being God.

Yes. I'll give just one example of Jesus not being aware: in the desert Jesus is tempted by Satan, Now, this would be impossible if

a) Jesus is God
b) Jesus is aware of being God.

There are, of course, other examples.

I think that the religious leaders of Jesus' day forgot, and he was reminding them.

I seriously doubt this. Jesus often refers to the Law - he just interprets it more radically than most.

For starters we can separate sin from morality.

An excellent idea. I'm afraid many Christians - and churches - would disagree, however.

No need to insinuate then. You can stop thoughts before you can think them?

A physical impossibility - which has little to do with controlling one's thoughts. Let's assume someone is thinking about how easy it would be to steal something from a supermarket. Now this is a thought easy to control, wouldn't you say?

You have been arguing with me and have no thoughts on the topic?

Again, I'm not following. My thoughts are right here for you to read.

You just reply to their thoughts?

Are you not defining me when you claim I am making things up?

I am not claiming, I am pointing out things you make up. You claim there are things in the Bible which aren't. It's not my purpose to 'define' you; I don't even know you.

(And I have no clue what you mean by 'You just reply to their thoughts?' I didn't mention anyone's thoughts but my own.)

I never said that. We are talking about good and evil, not wrong and right.

To you good and right, and evil and wrong are not the same?

How would you define hate, as an act? The term hate crime seems to be a contradiction of terms, because how would a person know if another person is thinking hate. Unless you are prescribing that humans should start controlling what other humans are thinking?

Hate crime is not about thought: it's about publicly advocating hate. You can hate all you want. It would be completely immaterial and ineffective to have a law against it.

I never said the Bible is my guide. We are not addressing my judgment on the Bible. I am trying to figure out what you accept, or don't.

I see. Well, I don't accept the Bible as God's word. It's way too primitive and barbaric to be the word of any God. It's clearly written by humans with rather twisted ideas on what's good and what's bad.

You stated that Adam was made of clay, and that is Berzerker's claim about the Mesopotamians. If Adam was not created with the rest of humans on day 6, when did it happen? Either one has to state the verse in chapter 1 contradicts the Adam account, or it is the same event, and more humans were created along with Adam.

According to the Bible there were no 'rest of the humans'. God created Adam, and Eve. The rest is procreation.

"Thou shalt be moral" is not a command in the Bible.

There would be no need. The Bible drips with moral arrogance.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

According to the Bible there were no 'rest of the humans'. God created Adam, and Eve. The rest is procreation.

How come there were all those other people knocking around when Cain (or Abel, or whichever was the "bad" one) got kicked out of Eden then?

Given that there are two creation stories in Genesis you can certainly read it that Adam and Eve in Eden were a separate creation to the other humans in the other account. The fact that there are then load of other people around who aren't descended from them ties into that too.

 

[timtofly]

Well, it didn't really. But we'll get to that.



I'm not sure why you ask: sin is not a legal concept.



Actually, it was the other way around. It was I who pointed out (and I'm doing it again here) that Jesus' reported word on the thought already being sinful is a reflection of Commandments. It was not you who pointed this out.



In which case I 'd say there is plenty of acting without thinking. Which would disprove acting being dependent on thinking.



You may have missed that the Bible represents everything about God in the third person. This is what we call in literature 'the omniscient narrator'. It's quite a common concept, but nobody deduces from it that the narrator is the author.



No, they're not. I assume the 'event' you refer to is the Flood. The Mesopotamian concept of the flood is quit different from what you find in the Noah story. In Mesopotamia floods were frequent - and disastrous. (Unlike in Egypt.)



I'm not doing that at all. But attempting to separate God and sin from morality is a noble enterprise.



"When the Lord saw, that man's evil on Earth was great and all the products of his heart were always evil, the Lord was sorry that he had made man"

Again, this doesn't reveal omniscience, but acute amnesia. God had made man in his own image. But that was not what you were saying:



That seems, not precisely, but almost correct. (Almost, because God is not musing about man's imagination.)

And God's solution for this is: kill them all. Which can't help make one wonder: why did he make them in the first place?

The problem with this is, that God seems to be a rather poor observer.



Ah, but he didn't. You're forgetting about Noah. It seems this sin is practically ineradicable. (Which, of course, shouldn't surprise anyone, as man is made in the image of God.)

So first God decides to eradicate all man (to get rid of sin), and when this doesn't work out, he decides to send his Son, so man can murder him. And then all is forgiven. This God seems to be completely lacking in foresight - not really a candidate for omniscience.



I'm sure that's very Christian, but I don't consider demanding foreskins, firstborns, wholesale slaughter, and absolute obedience remotely holy or sacred.



Yes. I'll give just one example of Jesus not being aware: in the desert Jesus is tempted by Satan, Now, this would be impossible if

a) Jesus is God
b) Jesus is aware of being God.

There are, of course, other examples.



I seriously doubt this. Jesus often refers to the Law - he just interprets it more radically than most.



An excellent idea. I'm afraid many Christians - and churches - would disagree, however.



A physical impossibility - which has little to do with controlling one's thoughts. Let's assume someone is thinking about how easy it would be to steal something from a supermarket. Now this is a thought easy to control, wouldn't you say?



Again, I'm not following. My thoughts are right here for you to read.



I am not claiming, I am pointing out things you make up. You claim there are things in the Bible which aren't. It's not my purpose to 'define' you; I don't even know you.

(And I have no clue what you mean by 'You just reply to their thoughts?' I didn't mention anyone's thoughts but my own.)



To you good and right, and evil and wrong are not the same?



Hate crime is not about thought: it's about publicly advocating hate. You can hate all you want. It would be completely immaterial and ineffective to have a law against it.



I see. Well, I don't accept the Bible as God's word. It's way too primitive and barbaric to be the word of any God. It's clearly written by humans with rather twisted ideas on what's good and what's bad.



According to the Bible there were no 'rest of the humans'. God created Adam, and Eve. The rest is procreation.



There would be no need. The Bible drips with moral arrogance.

Now it seems we are not even discussing the topic, nor the morality tangent on the same terms. You are using a translation that obscures the account as much as your thoughts on the topic do. You claim I add to the text. I have to because it seems the translation you are using has stripped a lot of it away. You point out third person narrative and then call it barbaric. You claim there is a God, but not the God of your translation of the Bible which was done by modern humans who think they are smarter than God. Jesus said, "Get behind me Satan, because God cannot be tempted." Or is that part left out in your translation? You left that part out. You pointed out that God cannot be tempted. Jesus was not tempted. Satan clearly failed. Jesus quoted the Tanakh in such a way to claim to be God, and Satan could not tempt him, and that Satan should worship him. Satan had no argument and left Jesus alone.

You say the Bible is not the Word of God, yet you seem to use it a lot to base your argument about this God. If the primatives who wrote it are not good enough for you, and you take their words for your argument what does that make your argument? I realize that you are using some modern interpretation, but that seems to be a little dishonest as the Hebrew and Greek we do have copies of, clearly do not say the same thing you are try to argue.

I get the point where modern thinking humans tend to claim they know more, and are better at figuring God out. This thread is about the ancients though. If the Bible is not true to you, because it is true that it is in the third person narrative, you clearly do not trust their thoughts, but rely only on your own.

Therefore I see you are making up the point that God tried to eradicate sin with the Flood. That is not what I said, but if that is what you think, that is fine by me. It is clear we do not agree about what God is. I would assume that you think God failed anyway, because the Hebrews were wrong about their version of the Flood. You based your point on something you do not even accept. What good is trying to even claim it then?

Genesis in chapter one clearly states the God created plural males and females on day 6. Using what modern scholars have claimed as a totally separate account, you claim one of them is wrong. What is the basis of your claim? They do not seem to contradict each other, and at the least, Adam came later than the first creation.

Are you saying that hate is both a thought and an action? It is now wrong to say I hate you? Is it wrong to be emotional and passionate, as they also can incite violence? Hate is a feeling and product of the heart. If hate is wrong and evil, then even the verse you quoted, says that is what humans were only thinking on, and doing. If we are even discussing the possibility of the fact, is it happening again? I separate good and evil from wrong and right, because good and evil are the words that indicate an action. Right and wrong are the moral attributes we place on those actions. That is a totally different topic that needs it's own thread to properly discuss. The only reason they come up, is because Adam seemed unaware of morality, but that was not a sin. Sin as you put it, is not a legal concept. Why does it matter that after Adam ate, he was confined to morality? It seems like a curse to Adam. Why even hold God to a moral standard? Can you place the same curse on God? Being without morals was "good" for Adam, but it seems perhaps, it is better to have morals than to have good? Good seems to demand a lot of control. Evil seems to happen naturally.

 

[Berzerker]

How come there were all those other people knocking around when Cain (or Abel, or whichever was the "bad" one) got kicked out of Eden then?

Given that there are two creation stories in Genesis you can certainly read it that Adam and Eve in Eden were a separate creation to the other humans in the other account. The fact that there are then load of other people around who aren't descended from them ties into that too.

Thats how I read it... male and female (how many of each is unclear) are told to be fruitful and (re)plenish the Earth. But Adam is whisked away to the Garden to work instead of being fruitful and filling the Earth and his mate is made after the fact. What happened to the women made on the 6th day? Thats why Cain was scared and how he found a wife.

Genesis in chapter one clearly states the God created plural males and females on day 6.

Let us make male and female in our image

In Mesopotamian myth it was Enki and his (half?) sister Ninhursag who fashioned male and female. She was the lady of life or mother of the living - the mother goddess - and lady of the rib. Eve acquired both attributes...

 

[timtofly]

Thats how I read it... male and female (how many of each is unclear) is told to be fruitful and (re)plenish the Earth. But Adam is whisked away to the Garden to work instead of being fruitful and filling the Earth and his mate is made after the fact. What happened to the women made on the 6th day? Thats why Cain was scared and how he found a wife.



Let us make male and female in our image

In Mesopotamian myth it was Enki and his (half?) sister Ninhursag who fashioned male and female. She was the lady of life or mother of the living - the mother goddess - and lady of the rib. Eve acquired both attributes...

I am sticking with the thought that the "lesser" gods were actually the created humans. Having the ability to procreate is also an attribute of the gods. It would seem to me that the Mesopotamians were just giving an account of their genealogy. They were considered gods, because they were all in God's image. That they became legends is just a byproduct of remembering back to stories told about them.

This happened in Egypt, Africa, Europe, and parts of Asia as well. They would have to have offspring from their siblings for a while. Then cousins, by that time only a few leaders would be recognized and the populace would just be that. The different people groups may have even married into each others families to form alliances. I doubt there was much difference between all the races, unless they were actually created as different races to begin with. The fact they were actually descendant of gods, was probably lost after the flood.

I am not sure how one can reconcile that these humanoid gods could clone humanoid beings. I still agree with the Hebrew account and that God singled out one of the original humans and placed him in a separate area, while the originals remained moral beings with the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Berzerker]

No, we already know none of this is true. (Oh, and water doesn't 'form' at the asteroid belt. It's either there or it isn't.) That's not a dogma - it's called scientific fact.

How does water get there (or anywhere) without forming?

There is no mention of God taking "the earthling/man to the Garden to work". Instead there is mention of creating a companion to man 'to assist him'. In fact, work is only mentioned in connection with man's expulsion from the garden. So that's the exact opposite of what you are saying.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it - Gen 2:15

Not at all. The tree is the tree of knowledge. It says so quite explicitly in Genesis. (How that translates to 'being ashamed of being naked in the presence of your Creator' is beyond logic.

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 - Gen 3:7

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

The reality - which you're not acknowledging - is that pointing out that what you think is 'Sitchin's theory' is scientifically nonsense, is not 'taking a side'. It's called pointing out a fact.

Fact - arguing a theory is nonsense takes the side of those who think the theory is nonsense.

Pointing out what is science and what is not is dogma? This is getting quite delusional.

"We know these things."

You dont know these things, there's yer dogma

Since you're not even remotely qualified to 'question science', that leaves delusion as an explanation. You can't question science with millennia old myths or half-baked 'theories'. That simply doesn't qualify. In order to 'question science' you need actual science. Sorry.

I dont question science, I question an interpretation of the evidence. So did you. Earlier in the thread you didn't think Jupiter migrated in and out of the asteroid belt. That migration is called the grand tack theory and you questioned that interpretation of the evidence. So do I.

So, 'people' (Adam and Eve) had an original homeland 'westward of the Garden' - even though they were created in the Garden.

Adam wasn't created in the Garden, he was taken there. The Garden was eastward of the land from which he was taken. Sail westward down the Arabian peninsula and cross the Red Sea and we find evidence for the earliest anatomically modern humans ~200 kya.

Cain is conceived 'upon expulsion' (from the Garden), but by that time 'other people had already migrated away from our ancestral homeland'. I'm not quite sure what people that would be, seeing as there were only Adam, Eve and Cain around (which is three people in all).

Which leads us to the following conclusion:

This thread is evidence I have plenty to say... If I had nothing to say we wouldn't still be here. What did she have to say? Insults. Lotsa words and nothing to say. I was being kind, I dont even try to compete with her nastiness.

The people were made on the 6th day, male and female, in the image of the gods. These people were told to have kids and fill the Earth. Then God planted his Garden and took one of the men to work in it.

That would indeed sum up your 'position' clear as day. Sadly, it doesn't reflect well on your ability to comprehend and digest other peoples' words. Which goes a long way to explain why you keep repeating the same nonsense pretending nobody told you it is, indeed, utter and complete nonsense. It seems that, besides not grasping logic, you have a fundamental disability to process other peoples' words. Including Mr Sitchin's.

You have a very limited understanding of both science and the Bible. I suggest you do some serious reading up on both before further commenting. On the second we have an excellent Ask A Theologian thread to assist. The first takes a bit more work, I'm afraid.

I'm pretending nobody told me the theory is nonsense? Then why are you complaining because I mentioned the side who says its nonsense?

 

[Berzerker]

I wouldn't expect it to, but you're the one who keeps saying that "most" world mythologies support this bizarre story, so short of merely febrile imagination on Sitchen's part, I'm still wanting to know where all that Star Trek stuff comes from.

I never said the Hopi ant people proves the Enuma Elish (whatever that means). So what "Star Trek" stuff are you talking about? Sitchin provides his analysis of Genesis in light of the Enuma Elish.

Right, but that's not proof of anything, particularly not something as off-the-wall as "humans were created by ancient aliens and the Fall is a description of humanity somehow gaining the biological ability to procreate". (I should hardly need add that all natural living things have the ability to procreate as one of their fundamental properties.)

Some hybrids cant procreate

The Garden was God's presence on earth. Cain had to leave God's presence. Later Adam and Eve had to leave.

Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden before Cain was conceived. None of them were allowed in the Garden. The whole point of expelling them was to block access to the tree of life. Cain and Abel worked the land east of the Garden and they brought the fruits of the labor to God. They were not invited in to live...

A day is an evening and a morning, according to the account. A day ended at dusk.

Why 6 days with a 7th for rest?

You've just described your own posts perfectly.

I have plenty to say

Honestly, what a load of utter nonsense, for which you haven't provided a shred of evidence other than von Daniken/Velikovsky-style ramblings.

Sitchin

Your irrational claims about Lot's wife... first of all, there's no evidence that there ever was such a person. Secondly, there's no evidence for the advanced weaponry you claim zapped her.

Genesis is evidence

No offense to Berzerker, but what is happening in those posts is an attempt to mould the available evidence to fit already decided upon conclusions, as opposed to trying to mould a conclusion out of the available evidence.

That's why it comes off so Daniken/ancient aliens like - because that's exactly what they do.

Sitchin... If the science can fit the theory then the theory isn't nonsense.

Stitchin in wrong.

Where does your link prove Sitchin's wrong about our age?

 

[Arakhor]

Some hybrids cant procreate

Hybrids don't suddenly gain the ability to procreate if they couldn't before.

Genesis is evidence

Which is purely circumstantial, to say the least.

Where does your link prove Sitchin's wrong about our age?

You do like asking 'gotcha' questions, don't you?

 

[warpus]

48 pages and "Genesis is evidence" vs "Genesis is circumstantial" still hasn't been resolved

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This thread is evidence I have plenty to say... If I had nothing to say we wouldn't still be here. What did she have to say? Insults. Lotsa words and nothing to say. I was being kind, I dont even try to compete with her nastiness.

Oh, you've said plenty for the last several dozen pages, but not a shred of it was what I'd consider as having provided evidence to back up your claims.

"She" has a name, by the way. Please use it.

Sitchin

You evidently missed the word "style" in my post.

Genesis is evidence

No, it's not. If it were evidence, it would be supported by real scientists, ie. geologists, chemists, physicists, nuclear weapons experts, anyone who could test that region for evidence of the nuclear weapons you're insisting were used.

Sitchin... If the science can fit the theory then the theory isn't nonsense.

Except Sitchin isn't a scientist. He peddles nonsense that has absolutely zero scientific credibility.

48 pages and "Genesis is evidence" vs "Genesis is circumstantial" still hasn't been resolved

Change your settings to 40 posts/page. That way it's only 24 pages.

 

[Agent327]

How does water get there (or anywhere) without forming?

Water is H20. It can exist in various forms. It consists of hydrogen and oxygen, which are elements. Elements are formed. Basic chemistry.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it - Gen 2:15

Fine. At any rate, we can conclude that Adam did horticulture.

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 - Gen 3:7

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

Yes, and?

Fact - arguing a theory is nonsense takes the side of those who think the theory is nonsense.

Creationism is nonsense, because it has no basis in scientific fact. According to you, I am now taking a side. Which I am not. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.

"We know these things."

You dont know these things, there's yer dogma

So you keep repeating. That's seems to be your mantra. But - and there's the difference - you have nothing to back your mantra up with. I do. It's called scientific scholarship. which, apparently, you reject based onone source.

I dont question science, I question an interpretation of the evidence. So did you. Earlier in the thread you didn't think Jupiter migrated in and out of the asteroid belt. That migration is called the grand tack theory and you questioned that interpretation of the evidence. So do I.

Shifting goalposts. You did literally say 'I question science'. The reason the grand tack theory isn't accepted is a general lack of evidence and probability for it.

Adam wasn't created in the Garden, he was taken there. The Garden was eastward of the land from which he was taken. Sail westward down the Arabian peninsula and cross the Red Sea and we find evidence for the earliest anatomically modern humans ~200 kya.

Actually, modern humans are a bit older and not found there at all. Unless they migrated there from Africa.

This thread is evidence I have plenty to say... If I had nothing to say we wouldn't still be here. What did she have to say? Insults. Lotsa words and nothing to say. I was being kind, I dont even try to compete with her nastiness.

Actually, you're the one insulting and insinuating. Which in my book doesn't count as having something to say - and certainly not as polite.

The people were made on the 6th day, male and female, in the image of the gods. These people were told to have kids and fill the Earth. Then God planted his Garden and took one of the men to work in it.

Interesting theory. It's not what Genesis says, however.

I'm pretending nobody told me the theory is nonsense? Then why are you complaining because I mentioned the side who says its nonsense?

I'm not. Further proof of your unwillingness or inability to process what people tell you, I reckon.

You are using a translation that obscures the account as much as your thoughts on the topic do. You claim I add to the text. I have to because it seems the translation you are using has stripped a lot of it away.

Again, this makes no sense. You have no clue what translation I am using, nor does that have any bearing on what you stated, since that can't possibly have been based on what translation I am using.

You point out third person narrative and then call it barbaric.

No, I do not. You are conflating two entirely different things.

You claim there is a God, but not the God of your translation of the Bible which was done by modern humans who think they are smarter than God.

This is not even remotely what I said.

Jesus said, "Get behind me Satan, because God cannot be tempted." Or is that part left out in your translation? You left that part out.

No, I did not. We have no clue what Jesus said. Secondly, it's beside the point: God cannot be tempted by Satan, so why would he even try? He was trying to seduce Jesus.

You say the Bible is not the Word of God, yet you seem to use it a lot to base your argument about this God. If the primatives who wrote it are not good enough for you, and you take their words for your argument what does that make your argument?

This is seriously misleading. I only use the Bible to show that some interpretations (such as yours) are incorrect. That doesn't remotely relate to whether the Bible is the literal word of God.

Therefore I see you are making up the point that God tried to eradicate sin with the Flood. That is not what I said, but if that is what you think, that is fine by me.

It is quite literally what you said. You can scroll down to your own text.

It is clear we do not agree about what God is. I would assume that you think God failed anyway, because the Hebrews were wrong about their version of the Flood. You based your point on something you do not even accept. What good is trying to even claim it then?

Strawman. See above.

Genesis in chapter one clearly states the God created plural males and females on day 6.

It really, really doesn't. Not literally. Figuratively, maybe. But that's immaterial, since you take it literally.

Are you saying that hate is both a thought and an action?

I am saying neither. You seem to assume a lot though about what I am saying.

 

[timtofly]

Again, this makes no sense. You have no clue what translation I am using, nor does that have any bearing on what you stated, since that can't possibly have been based on what translation I am using.

It does not seem to matter to you which translation then? Quite a few use the word imagination.

No, I do not. You are conflating two entirely different things.

This is not even remotely what I said.

They both are your judgment on the text.

No, I did not. We have no clue what Jesus said. Secondly, it's beside the point: God cannot be tempted by Satan, so why would he even try? He was trying to seduce Jesus.

You want to argue with me, and I plainly don't. Why would you even try?

This is seriously misleading. I only use the Bible to show that some interpretations (such as yours) are incorrect. That doesn't remotely relate to whether the Bible is the literal word of God.
It is quite literally what you said. You can scroll down to your own text.
Strawman. See above.

Because only modern humans can be correct?

It really, really doesn't. Not literally. Figuratively, maybe. But that's immaterial, since you take it literally.

I am saying neither. You seem to assume a lot though about what I am saying.

Eve was not created on the 6th day. Who is the female and the "them"?

 

[Agent327]

It does not seem to matter to you which translation then? Quite a few use the word imagination.

Again, this is quite immaterial: what translation I am using doesn't relate in the slightest to what you claimed - to which my translated version was a response. Usually the response follows the statement, not the other way around.

They both are your judgment on the text.

Possibly - and that would be the only connection.

You want to argue with me, and I plainly don't. Why would you even try?

I have no clue what you are trying to argue here, but I'm guessing it's another tangent.

Because only modern humans can be correct?

Nobody even said that - but you.

Eve was not created on the 6th day. Who is the female and the "them"?

It think this was already discussed.

Why are you putting quotes from my post above what you're saying? What you're stating doesn't seem to be related to those quotes at all.

 

[timtofly]

Again, this is quite immaterial: what translation I am using doesn't relate in the slightest to what you claimed - to which my translated version was a response. Usually the response follows the statement, not the other way around.

You claimed to use that translation to show that the others were wrong, yet there was no explanation why they were wrong.

Possibly - and that would be the only connection.

I thought that your examples were supposed to clearly show your objection to the proposed argument that we were not having?

I have no clue what you are trying to argue here, but I'm guessing it's another tangent.

I am not arguing. You claim Jesus is not a Son of God. I assume you do not even think that Satan is a Son of God. You more than likely classify humans into the animal world and not as a separate creation. It would seem that Genesis 1 makes that distinction. The fact that it says anything about man in God's image goes against the view that humans are just another evolved animal. Therefore you must think that Adam was the one and only created being separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. Even that goes against the accepted evolution of humans from animals.

Nobody even said that - but you.

Why would I claim that the accepted theory of evolution is correct? If it was incorrect, then why would people claim that the Bible and the way God created everything is wrong?

It think this was already discussed.

If claiming that Genesis is wrong is a discussion, ok.

Why are you putting quotes from my post above what you're saying? What you're stating doesn't seem to be related to those quotes at all.

I was discussing. My response was related to the discussion we were having.