Let's Read the Bible Once

I'm not sure I understand the debate about how God could have created Eve out of Adam's rib. If God could create out of Adam out of dust, why does it present a problem that we would create Eve out of a rib? :confused:

As to the question of where Cain's wife came from, she indeed would have been his sister. Incest wasn't prohibited by God's moral law until the Law was given to Moses, some 2500+ years later.

Genesis 23:15 ....Land worth 400 shekels of silver. What is that between you and me?

If my conversions are correct, the quantity is about 140 or 160 ounces, or about 3500 to 4000 USD. A show of hands who shrugs at $4000 like it is no big deal?

I don't thnk Abraham necessarily shrugged it off like it was nothing. He was buying a burial ground. I wouldn't think it would be totally unreasonable to spend $4k on a burial plot.

Genesis 24:22 After the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing half a shekel and two gold bracelets weighing ten shekels of gold.

That's about 4 ounces of gold? That's about 5600 USD. That is a big tip!

Well, it wasn't just a tip. It was part of a dowry. Not unreasonable when you think of it that way. And besides, gold/silver wasn't the only measure of wealth back in those days. They measured a lot in cattle and livestock, too, so the value of gold back then probably wasn't $1400/ounce like it is nowadays.
 
a better translation comes from Young's Literal...

In the beginning of God's preparation of Heaven(s) and Earth...

Heaven and Earth dont appear in the story until after the light etc, and when they do appear they are named by God as the firmament placed amidst the waters and the dry land that appears when revealed by the receding water. The water appears in the story before God.

Do you mean the translation that fits your view? Young takes the word 'ba-ra' Which means to 'shape', 'create' and gives it the meaning 'prepare'. The literal would probably be: The first act God did was to create heavens and earth. The act was not preparing, the act was a first time for the created heavens and earth. If God is just preparing as his first act why use heaven and earth at all? It could have easily just said: God's first step was preparation for creation. Not to mention the word 'prepare' something new would be 'va·'a·su'.

The words heavens (plural) and earth (singular) do appear in the first verse. The second verse says that the earth was without form, but there was water present. If the earth was without form, then it follows that the heavens in verse one, were also without form. Verses 3-5 explain how light works. Verses 6-8 is the separation of waters from waters. The expanse between them being the fixed space "sky". Verses 9and 10 are the separation of land and water on the surface of the earth. Verses 14-18 explain the stars, sun and moon. God again said "Let there be light". The light in verse 3 formed the earth that was there without form. Young uses the word luminaries, but puts it made luminaries. The actual would just be "let there be lights. It is the plural form of light. The light in verse 14 formed the heavens created in verse one that were there without form. The word made does not mean create. It means God made the light to interact with the created matter to form the stars and planets/moons in the rest of the universe.

I have no clue why the ancients viewed everything as a fixed firmament that could only be seen with the eye. We do know today that things were in a fixed location and have been expanding since the "big bang-inning" It was not an explosion. It would be like turning on billions of light bulbs, except God was the source of the first light. That the stars were already in fixed locations, means that we do not know how far apart they were. I don't hold that God deceived us by letting us see light from stars billions of light years away. I do believe it is an out for those who deny that he exist. What purpose is life if it is just misery? There are going to be people who know and/or believe that God does not exist, why force them to be miserable?
 
Do you mean the translation that fits your view?

Thats the translation consistent with the story, otherwise you get people claiming God created Heaven and Earth twice - "in the beginning" and later in the story when God actually creates Heaven and Earth. How do you explain that? Did God create Heaven and Earth in Gen 1:1 and again on the 2nd or 3rd days? I've seen people make that argument.

Young takes the word 'ba-ra' Which means to 'shape', 'create' and gives it the meaning 'prepare'. The literal would probably be: The first act God did was to create heavens and earth. The act was not preparing, the act was a first time for the created heavens and earth. If God is just preparing as his first act why use heaven and earth at all?

God didn't create anything in Gen 1:1 because we know from the very next verse (Gen 1:2) the Earth was void and formless (submerged by the deep, ie not dry land - you gotta look at how God defines these words, Earth is not this planet) and Heaven doesn't appear until after the 1st day. How do you get Heaven and Earth before the "Light" of creation and again after the Light?
 
If the earth was smaller at the time, about the size where the oceans would be seas, the pangaea shape would be were humans dwelt.
Earth wasn't that small 6000 years ago. And according to Wikipedia's article on Pangaea,
Pangaea, Pangæa, or Pangea (/pænˈdʒiːə/ pan-JEE-ə;[1]) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras, forming about 300 million years ago.[2] It began to break apart around 200 million years ago.
Since humans were not around 200 million years ago, they couldn't have lived when "the pangaea shape" existed.

Eve was not the mother of all humans, just the offspring recorded in the genealogy. The other perfectly created humans not involved in a fallen state were drowned in the Flood. Noah's three daughters could have had DNA from the perfect humans who lived before the Flood. Their offspring could have still produced the so-called giants even after the Flood.
Are you saying there were perfect humans who were not "fallen" (ie. had not sinned, which is my understanding of this; enlighten me if I've misunderstood the term), and those are the ones God allowed to drown? If God drowns perfect people, what incentive would anyone else have to improve themselves?

It was during the Flood about the time one or more huge meteors added their mass to the earth and the oceans seams were opened and the water from the canopy above the earth collapsed that the earth was flooded and covered all the mountains that were smaller. Over the next 1000 earth rotations the continents continued to spread further out the oldest seams are wider than the newest ones. The ice caps started to grow rapidly and later melted back as the oceans expanded to take in more of the melted icecaps.
So all this took just 1000 days, or just under 3 years?


A smaller faster spinning earth would allow humans to live longer and reptiles to grow larger.
I'd love to see the links to reputable sources for this - peer-reviewed by paleontologists, geologists, physical anthropologists, etc.

Global warming is a sure thing, since it is said the earth is going to end in a ball of fire.
Since the Sun is going to expand into a red giant some day and swallow up the inner Solar System (likely including Earth, if we're not vaporized first), I have to agree with this.

Is everything infranatural magic too?
I tried looking up that word on dictionary.com. The site never heard of it.

I don't disagree. But how do we know this is true?
Evidence? Observation? Little things like that.

Maybe God created it once and then created it again and there exists a parallel universe as a result.
Sorta like me starting a game of Test of Time, not liking my starting position, and instead of playing it through, just rebooting and starting over... :hmm:
 
I'm not sure I understand the debate about how God could have created Eve out of Adam's rib. If God could create out of Adam out of dust, why does it present a problem that we would create Eve out of a rib? :confused:
The only problem I see is why would you create a woman out of a rib when you can create out of dust?

Why do you even need dust when you can create a universe out of nothing?

I'll tell you why. It makes for a better story.
 
The only problem I see is why would you create a woman out of a rib when you can create out of dust?

Why do you even need dust when you can create a universe out of nothing?

I'll tell you why. It makes for a better story.

He certainly could have used dust to make woman, but I would suspect that at least some of the reason he used a rib was (as is the case with much of the Old Testament) symbolic. It cemented in Adam's mind the fact that Eve was created for him - she wasn't just some other creation like the animals.
 
The only problem I see is why would you create a woman out of a rib when you can create out of dust?

Why do you even need dust when you can create a universe out of nothing?

I'll tell you why. It makes for a better story.

The bible (the old testament even more so) is filled with stories that make little sense in any literary way. Job is a good example of those (for many reasons, ranging from the needless death of his children, to the outburst of Job against God that went unpunished for some strange reason- iirc some angel told him off a bit, but then gave him back his health and new children etc).

Regarding the Eve creation, there is a nice joke i heard once:

God: Adam, i decided to make a wife for you. She will be good and smart, love you honestly and care for you, never try to harm you and always be well-mannered.

Adam: Great, how will that happen?

God: I will make her by cutting off one of your arms and one of your legs.

Adam: (after thinking for a while) What can you make with just one rib?
 
About 5 to 6 billion years ago. One of these stars began to run out of Hydrogen fuel. It expanded to a red giant and then collapsed on itself and exploded in a supernova. In this supernova, like billions that have occurred elsewhere in our Universe, all of the other elements were created.


II. The mass of new matter again collapsed into a disk shape mass of dust and gas (a). The center became superheated and formed a new star, our sun (b). From this disk of matter the planets began to condense (c), according to the widely supported nebular hypothesis of Immanuel Kant and Pierre-Simon Laplace. The two strongest points in favor of this idea are: 1) that the disk began by rotating in one direction and the rotation of all of the planets around the sun follows the original disk; and 2) that because the disk flattened out as time progresses, all of the orbits of the planets (except Pluto) lie more or less in the same plane (d). Pluto is possibly a captured giant asteroid.

III. The earth condensed in four basic steps. 1) It began to accrete from the nebular cloud as particles smashed into each other forming so-called planetesimals. These in turn collided with each other and as their mass grew began to gather material from the nebular disk. 2) As the mass of the Earth grew so did it's gravitational force and the Earth began to compress itself into a smaller and denser body. This happened about 4.5 billion years ago. 3) In the third step the compression itself began to heat the interior of the Earth; also there was heat generated by radioactive decay. The interior of the earth began to melt. Because iron is the heaviest of the common elements that make up the Earth, as the Earth began to melt droplets of melted iron began to sink towards the center of the earth, where they condensed. 4) Proceeding slowly at first it sped up to catastrophic proportions - hence it is called the iron catastrophe. Note that 3 and 4 in the figures to the right are cross sections.


It was the iron catastrophe that set up the overall structure of the Earth.

All during this time the earth was still being bombarded by asteroids and comets, a process that still occurs but at a much lower (although still significant!) rate.

At some point however, the Moon formed. Exactly how that happened is a major subject of debate. One theory claims that the Moon is a tiny planet captured by the Earth's gravity. The other is that the moon was literally splashed out of the Earth by the impact of a Mars-sized planet. The latter theory is favored now because it explains some odd but important features of the Earth's and Moon's chemical composition.

The Earth was reborn during the iron catastrophe and maybe again by the formation of the Moon. Any trace of surface structure was wiped out by the melting.

IV. However, the crust finally solidified by about 3.7 billion years ago. Gasses pouring out of volcanoes and fissures, along with lava, began to accumulate, perhaps added to by the impact of a few giant comets (which are mostly gas).

The gases that accumulated were those we still find coming out of volcanoes:

Water vapor (H2O)
Hydrogen chloride (HCl)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Nitrogen (N2)

These gases combined to form:

Methane (CH4)
Ammonia (NH4)
Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN)

This atmosphere would be quickly fatal to us.

V. As the crust cooled water would condense and accumulate as oceans. This happened very soon after the crust solidified.

Or the alternative

God did it. No really he did. The evidence is right there in the Bible
 
He certainly could have used dust to make woman, but I would suspect that at least some of the reason he used a rib was (as is the case with much of the Old Testament) symbolic. It cemented in Adam's mind the fact that Eve was created for him - she wasn't just some other creation like the animals.

I always thought that the "Eve was created using Adam's ribs" thing was because people seem to think that men have fewer ribs than women (which is not true).

But what do I know
 
Well it hardly is the worst that happens in the bible. For example in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul (or Peter, don't recall now) asks some financial help from a wealthy couple for his attempt to establish christianity in their region. The couple accept to give him the help, and say that they gave a significant part of their fortune.
It turns out though that they only gave a smaller part of their fortune, so they instantly fall dead, iirc with the apostle scolding them just before they die.
 
I always thought that the "Eve was created using Adam's ribs" thing was because people seem to think that men have fewer ribs than women (which is not true).

There are probably some misguided Christians who think this. Of course it's not true. And it's one of those things that non-Christians seem to like to hold over Christians' heads as just another silly thing they believe, when in reality most don't.
 
Well it hardly is the worst that happens in the bible. For example in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul (or Peter, don't recall now) asks some financial help from a wealthy couple for his attempt to establish christianity in their region. The couple accept to give him the help, and say that they gave a significant part of their fortune.
It turns out though that they only gave a smaller part of their fortune, so they instantly fall dead, iirc with the apostle scolding them just before they die.

They sold land and claimed to be giving Peter all of the profits when in fact, they only gave portion of the profits. The reason they were struck dead was not because they didn't give everything, but because they lied about it.

An extreme reaction from God, I suppose you could say, however, he knew their hearts and just decided to make an example out of them for his fledgling church. If they were believers, they just ended up going to heaven sonner than they would have otherwise. If they weren't, then they got to go the hell sooner.

We often fail to see a bigger picture when talking about things God does that we consider "petty."
 
They sold land and claimed to be giving Peter all of the profits when in fact, they only gave portion of the profits. The reason they were struck dead was not because they didn't give everything, but because they lied about it.

An extreme reaction from God, I suppose you could say, however, he knew their hearts and just decided to make an example out of them for his fledgling church. If they were believers, they just ended up going to heaven sonner than they would have otherwise. If they weren't, then they got to go the hell sooner.

We often fail to see a bigger picture when talking about things God does that we consider "petty."

I don't recall any part of that story where it is alluded to that the couple killed instantly in that manner by god might go to heaven. It was quite clear they were just killed for trying to fool the apostle.
A bit like Lycaon, who got his sons killed and himself transformed into a wolf (lycos) due to trying to fool Zeus. ;)
 
An extreme reaction from God, I suppose you could say, however, he knew their hearts and just decided to make an example out of them for his fledgling church. If they were believers, they just ended up going to heaven sonner than they would have otherwise. If they weren't, then they got to go the hell sooner.

We often fail to see a bigger picture when talking about things God does that we consider "petty."

So if killing a person will just send them to heaven or hell sooner than otherwise, you must have a pretty lax view of murder. Or is it different if God murders a person than when a human murders another person?
 
I'd hazard a guess it's the whole "gathering up of two of each of the hundreds of millions of animal species to repopulate the earth" thing that people question.

I've never heard anyone say "That whole Noah's ark thing is ridiculous. I just can't accept that an ark would be his choice as a seaworthy vessel"

I'm pretty sure there weren't that many species back then, or Noah at least missed a bunch. Then the probably "evolved" into more types later. Like all the cats (housecats, tigers, leopards) came from one cat like creature. Or maybe it's just an allegory and never really happened in that way at all, maybe there was just a huge regional flood that wiped out one city and Noah saved the local zoo. The bible doesn't make a lot of sense if you interpret it literally, especially in regards to timelines. For example, the unit of time that has been translated as day in the story of creation doesn't mean a literal day. From what I've read the original word was an arbitrary unit of time. So who is to say those 7 days weren't really 700 million years or whatever? God said let there be light sounds a lot like the big bang to me. I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong, I'm saying interpretation plays a huge part in how you view it.
 
There are probably some misguided Christians who think this. Of course it's not true. And it's one of those things that non-Christians seem to like to hold over Christians' heads as just another silly thing they believe, when in reality most don't.

I wonder though if this false belief was held by the people who were around when the story of Ewe was first passed around orally, before things were written down and compiled into the bible?

Pure conjecture by me, I admit
 
From what I've been told, Muslims think Christians worship 3 Gods in violation of the 1st Commandment. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. They worship just God. It's all just a misunderstanding about the Holy Trinity since God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one being so we still are just worshiping one God.

I'm not sure if that's why Muslims disagree with Christians (I thought it was more because they fought over the holy cities) but that is the thing that separates Christians from other religions that also believe in what is essentially the same God. Christians believe Jesus Christ was the literal son of god, an incarnation of god into a man, and that his death is the only way to salvation. Hence the name Christians since they are followers of Christ. Muslims think Jesus was merely a prophet. Same with Mormons and why they are not Christians though many think they are. Same with Judaism, which believes in the same god as Christianity but rejects Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.
 
Don't ask me exactly what the Holy Spirit is. ^.^
I'd have to phone a friend. Spirit of God is close as I can get.
Separate, but the Same.

When you get to acts it's all explained. According to the gospel's and acts, after Jesus rose from the dead and before he ascended into heaven he promised the 12 apostles that God would send a helper to them called the spirit. Then later in acts during the feast of Pentecost this spirit descended and caused them all to proclaim Jesus in a whole bunch of languages, which is where speaking in tongues comes from. The holy spirit didn't exist before then, just like Christ didn't exist in the old testament except as a prophesy. The holy spirit then is basically a spiritual extension of God and Christ that comes to earth to give spiritual guidance to the followers.
 
Back
Top Bottom