 sj |
||
|
||
Bible question
|
|
|
Subject: Bible question From: GUEST,Emily Harrison Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:30 PM I have a question for someone familar with the Book of Genessis from the Bible. According to the narrative, God created Adam and then created Eve as his wife. I know that they had sons, Cain and Abel. My question is, did Cain and Abel have wives? If so, where dod they find them? Who were their parents? If not, how does the bible explain the continuity of the human species? Thank you. Emily emilyharrison@hotmail.com |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Murrayb Macleod Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:36 PM What I would like to know is, when God created Adam in his own likeness, did he equip him with a belly-button? Murray |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jon Freeman Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:40 PM Emily, a good resource is the bible gateway As for Cain and Abel, poor old Abel was killed by Cain and I think that Cain was sent to the Land Of Nod. Adam and Eve did have a third child to replace Abel. He was called Seth. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jon Freeman Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:42 PM As for the whys and wherefores, the whole creation bit and early history is IMO very dubious... Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:55 PM "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." He just knew her, ok?
|
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Clinton Hammond2 Date: 29 Oct 00 - 02:35 PM I guess it's up to a pagan to answer your question... Gen 1 verse 27, God creats man, the species, in his own image, "male and female created he them"... Clear as mud? {~` |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: DougR Date: 29 Oct 00 - 02:36 PM You present a very good argument for not taking the Bible too literally, Emily. If one really took it literally, all men would be blind. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Gern Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:03 PM As to Cain's wife, Clarence Darrow quipped "I'll leave the agnostics to look for her." |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Gern Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:05 PM Sorry, that was William Jennings Bryant, responding to the question posed by Clarence Darrow ("Inherit the Wind.") |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Gary T Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:09 PM At the risk of lighting a fire under some fundamentalists, I will attempt to shed a bit of light here. The Bible is regarded as spiritual truth. It depicts and explains (to various degrees of success) God's relationship to Man, and teaches Man how to relate to God. It also teaches how to relate to the world and other humans. For those of faith who accept it as spiritual truth, there is really no argument to be made to the contraty. The Bible is not historical or scientific truth as we understand such things. It is not meant to be an absolutely accurate historical narrative, filled with incontrovertible facts. Those who try to see it as such are, I'm sorry to say, failing to understand what the Bible really means. In your specific example, the Bible is not intending to, nor should it be expected to, give us a complete accounting of the development of the human species. We can use our God-given brains to learn that (this is what scientists do). The Bible is telling us that mankind in toto (physical, mental, spiritual) is a creation of God, and that we have had an evolving relationship with God through the ages. It is not telling us, nor attempting to tell us, exactly how this creation was accomplished. Look to science for our best understanding of how humans physically came to be; look to the Bible for the meaning behind it all. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:09 PM There are actually two stories of creation in Genesis. I'll ask Hardiman to come online tonight to discuss this. After he watches the Simpsons and King of the Hill, unless football pre-empts. After all it is Sunday. Then later on when everyone [exaggeration for effect] is all pissed off about the Bible being discussed at the Mudcat, I'll write that nifty post I've been thinking about since early spring, to settle down the chaos. It's about how one lives the Bible without taking it literally while taking it literally. Oh yeah. Not kidding. Two Mudcatters made comments about this awhile back that got me started thinking how to say, here, what I already say about this with Christian and non-Christian 3D friends, so like it or not, it's coming, and a comment in this thread makes it topical as... heck! We'll also e-mail the lady in case she doesn't come back to post, and ask her to please do so. Can't wait to see everyone else's thoughts on this! Go for it! ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Liz the Squeak Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:12 PM Tradition has it that the land was peopled by a race of giants, and that Adam had a first wife, Lilith, by whom the human race was propagated, thus creating people for Cain to marry. Hence the name of Frasiers' monolithic wife...... LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: RWilhelm Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:12 PM The Bible, like the I Ching, has survived for centuries because it will tell you anything you want to hear. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:27 PM PS, to my Christian pals here at the Mudcat-- let's not get nuts over what people say about the Book, OK? Thread creep can be interesting, and I know that the topic will creep past the lady's question, but let's not add our own upset to any upset that starts, huh? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Hardiman the Fiddler Date: 29 Oct 00 - 06:15 PM Well, even though it is Sunday, Praise talked me into adding my two cents worth to this thread. Probably will pi** a lot of folks off, but here goes. Scholars all generally concede that the Book Genesis is prehistory, and they generally regard it using a ten-dollar theological term: Genesis is an etiological mythology. An example of this treatment of Genesis can be found by a foremost scholar in the field. Gerhardt von Rad wrote what many consider the definitive word in the study of Genesis. The gist of it, boiled down into layman's terms, is that there are powerful truths conveyed in the mythos of the stories of Genesis, but we would do well not to try to tax the thread of the storytellers by insisting on the total historical accuracy of their stories. And there are four definitive strains of storytellers to be found in Genesis: the Yahwistic, the Elohistic, the priestly, and the Deuteronomic. Sometimes their stories agree, and sometimes there are differences in their stories. It was the Deuteronomists who redacted (or edited) the stories into one seamless narrative. So we tend not to notice right off that there are two creation stories, Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis Chapter two. We tend to get confused because there are also two versions of the stories of Noah and the Ark, and we don't tend to know enough about the epic of Gilgamesh to fully appreciate them anyway. Instead, we go looking for some silly old ark remains somewhere! The gist of the idea is that the story of Cain and Abel is meant to answer the question about hatred for one's brother and murder. It addresses the issue about the quality of the sacrifice that each brother offered to God. It does not address the issue of their wives. (Sorry, ladies, the wives are not mentioned because they are unimportant to the story.) There is finally the idea that God does punish sin and murder, and so the story is an etiological mythology explaining that: 1. hatred between siblings exists in the world, 2. even if you hate your brother, murdering him is not a good idea, 3. there is an element of retributive justice before God who expects that we answer before him for what we have done, and 4. that we are indeed our brother's keeper---in that we do not live in splendid isolation, but we are intimately connected with one another in the family of man. (Kind of akin to John Donne's famous meditation, number 10 I think it was, "ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." So in summary, there is much of value in Genesis, even if it is not generally regarded as history, as we regard history these days. And I don't mean to dismiss it as "well it is only a myth," unless of course you mean myth as Gerhardt von Rad defines myth, or Joseph Campbell does. Cheerio, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jim Dixon Date: 29 Oct 00 - 06:29 PM A reply to Murray Macleod: As an interesting footnote to the history of creationism vs. evolution, there was a book called "Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot," written by Philip Henry Gosse (1810-1888) in 1857. Omphalos is the Greek word for navel. Gosse was both a serious biologist and a conservative Christian who took the Bible literally, a member of the Plymouth Brethren. His book was meant to reconcile evolution theory and creationism. He believed in both, in a manner of speaking. He believed that God created the earth roughly 6,000 years ago, and that God also intended evolution to proceed from that point. Furthermore, God deliberately designed the earth to look exactly AS IF it were millions of years old, and designed living organisms to look AS IF they had arisen by evolution. He did this because He wanted people to study fossils, rocks, and living organisms, and thereby come to understand how evolution works, so that we can use that knowledge to our advantage in the future. Therefore, according to this theory, Adam and Eve DID have navels, the trees in the Garden of Eden had growth rings, rocks had strata, and fossils already existed. I haven't read "Omphalos" but I have read "Father and Son: A Study of Two Temperaments," a very interesting memoir by Edmund Gosse (1849-1928), his son, written in 1907. It was recently reprinted as a Penguin paperback. According to Edmund Gosse, his father seriously hoped both evolutionists and creationists would accept his theory, and that it would put an end to all disputation between them. He was shocked and devastated by the fact those critics on both sides rejected his ideas and even ridiculed them. Scientists didn't like his theory because it was untestable; religious people didn't like it because (in their eyes) it made God appear to be a liar. Here is an article called The Rejection of Omphalos: A Note on Shifts in the Intellectual Hierarchy of Mid-Nineteenth Century Britain. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Zebedee Date: 29 Oct 00 - 06:46 PM Greg, Interesting stuff. In a way I hate getting drawn into this because it is a recipe for endless sqabbles. But a couple of points. Jesus, (if the gospels are to be believed) took Genesis in the literal sense. Are we therefore not to take them literally? Would you honestly be saying this if a huge amount of evidennce didn't force you to? - ie if evidence that further parts of the bible were historically incorrectcame to light, would you stop believing them? Sure, there may be 'much of value' in Genesis. There's also much of value in Shakespeare. Is it the 'word of God' or not? Finally, could you please define the way your using the word 'etiological' I'm not familiar with the term and the definitions in my dictionary don't really fit with what you are saying. I'd be grateful if you could explain what you mean. Many thanks Zeb |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Thyme2dream Date: 29 Oct 00 - 07:21 PM Praise, I haven't really mentioned this before, but as a general rule, something you post here blesses me almost daily, from the practical to the downright deep and spiritual. thanks:-)! Hardiman, thanks for adding your scholarly insight as well. Zeb, JimD, Liz, Clinton, Gary and all, everyone's thoughtful and interesting comments have made what could have turned quicky into a melee quite a cool thread!! Even tho I have seen a few squabbles here an there when the religion question pops up , overall Mudcatters seem to be fair and respectful about things---I like being able to read all sides of the issues without strife! It makes sense to me that these things should be discussed here, people who love folk music are by nature spiritual folks of some sort and are certainly not the type of people to avoid issues! Thanks all for your input,what a wonderful place:-)! Karla |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Guest still Date: 29 Oct 00 - 08:28 PM For those of us who believe in reincarnation, there are 3 booklets by Eula Allen, based on the readings of Edgar Cayce, titled, "Before the Beginning", "River of Time", and "You Are Forever". They will knock your socks off with what is revealed about who we are, where we came from, and where we're going. I will not comment any more on the subject as I think every person has the right to their own beliefs. (I bought my copies about 25 years ago at the A.R.E. in Virginia Beach.) Regards, Guest still |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Oct 00 - 08:45 PM Zeb, Hardi will have to wrestle me away from the cookie to get back into this one. Your question also goes to the piece I am working on. Please be patient. We aren't ducking. Jim Dixon, I love the idea you advance in that book's description, and I am going to look into it further. I always seem to head for the middle to help two warring sides see each other's essential humanness. This could be a great help to me in that, thank very much. T2D-- thanks! I used to be quite a bull in the china shop! G-g-s, I found it really interesting that you chose to post that in a thread that didn't really have to do with reincarnation. I'm not complaining or taking you to task. But if I did that in a thread about reincarnation or pagan holidays-- used it as an opportunity to promote my faith-- I think I'd be sorry I'd done it in short order, and not just because I don't like flames any more than the next person. I do post openly as a Christian whenever I do post, in whateever way seems to be on the topic at hand, but I would not head into a thread on others' beliefs to do it. Should I? Do you think maybe I have been too timid in the name of restraint, respect, and reality? Just curious what you think, and since you wrote in such a reasoned tone I think we could talk about it effectively. Maybe this is not the place. But as a guest, you can't PM. Feel free to say more to me though in e-mail, OK? I'd welcome hearing from you. ~Susan motormice@hotmail.com |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Charcloth Date: 29 Oct 00 - 08:55 PM you will find your answer in Gen. 5:4 "and he begat sons & daughters" Adam & Eve had other children besides Cain Able & Seth. Therefore Cain married his sister, this is before the genepool was poluted & it wasn't until The law of Moses came to be that is was forbidden to wed your near relative. For a further study you could try contacting www.answersingenesis.org they even have a booklit that goes into detail about it. Best wishes, Charcloth |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Tinker Date: 29 Oct 00 - 09:43 PM Zeb, I'm going to throw in a definition of etiological which I hope Praise will feel more than free to edit. ( It's from Winters&Griffin in an EFM Year One Hebrew Scriptures) "A story that explains how a word came about is called by scholars an etymological legend or myth.... A story that explains the origins of a thing, a place, a custom, or almost anything else, is called an aetiological (or etiological) legend or myth." When I first examined Genisis I found myself VERY concerned and upset over the jumpy nature of the point of view, and the gaps in story line, and historical, well... uncertainty. For me going back to read the Hebrew scholars who currently study the material was an enormous help. Looking at the Hebrew tradition of Midrash... Interpretive stories to explain scripture by learned Rabbis ( correct me if this isn't quite right someone). Gives a great understanding of where the Parables come in context. For me this was an area that the deeper I studied the more facinating it got and the "sticky" details took on less and less importance in the light of the greater mythological? insights that seemed to keep coming and coming. Whoops I'm going on way too long.....Sorry, but I really love this stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Oct 00 - 09:49 PM Tink, I would not dream of editing you. If I weren't so wore out I'd pick up where you left off. You go on ahead. I love seeing how you think... share what you know, please! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Hardiman the Fiddler Date: 29 Oct 00 - 10:02 PM Hi everyone, I see that Tinker did a handsome job in answering the question of what is meant by "etiological" for Zeb, so I'm going to answer some of Zeb's questions as briefly as I am able. First, I do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but I do believe that men (and women) were the vehicles through which that word was proclaimed. That's probably a lengthy discussion for another quite long thread! Secondly, there is the issue of whether my belief would be changed if parts of the Bible were to be challenged. The premise of this argument is that old song, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so..." Now, I've got nothing against that as a song for children. It is just that as one matures in faith, there is a liklihood that the grounding of one's belief is apt to become more complex. Maybe it is because life as an adult becomes more complex. The grounding of my faith is not really based on the Bible, but is more existentially grounded. The short course might be to say that the overwhelming evidence leads me to a life of faith, and I am glad to read in the Bible about those others who struggled with and tried to live that life of faith. Again, this could be the subject of an entire book, but I'm not going to go on more about it here. I figure 'nuff said! Greg |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Troll Date: 29 Oct 00 - 10:20 PM I just want to say that I think you need to be very careful when you go inquiring about another man's wife. troll ***BG*** |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: BigDaddy Date: 30 Oct 00 - 12:29 AM Praise, you remind me of the best of my Christian forebears. And that's a h*ll of a compliment. Emily Harrison, I used to ask my Sunday school teachers the same question. Also, how could God destroy entire cities that must have contained innocent women, children and pets, why don't we hear more about Jesus' siblings (yes, they are there in the Bible), if God is omniscient, how can He hold it against us what we do, allow airline crashes, wars, child abuse, etc. Now, years after much study and soul-searching, life is beginning to make sense (or, as Hemingway characters are prone to say, "I was really learning fast there towards the end"). Anyway, don't look for literal truths and facts in written texts. Read between the lines and find nuggets of truth and wisdom. Live the golden rule as best you can. Know that God is love (really). And bless you for seeking and caring. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jon Freeman Date: 30 Oct 00 - 01:45 AM Of course if we follow the history as in the bible, most of the offspring were wiped out and we have to follow Noah's line as everbody else was killed in the flood... Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 30 Oct 00 - 01:51 AM Well golly BD, thanks! Say, those ARE the tough questions, aren't they? What answers did you come up with for some of those? For me they fall into the general category of, "God is not responsible to us, we are responsible to Him." Because He gave us the greatest gift, the quality of His that is the most powerful-- FREE WILL. I believe it is even more powerful than love, although using it in and for love is amazing... Without free will, we don't count for much in anything, but with it-- !!!! And because we have that, He is not responsible for us; rather we are responsible for ourselves. I am party to a situation now that helps me begin to see God's love in action, in correction. It's a hard one. Yet I can see, if I step back from my own feelings about it, that His correction in a specific situation I know of, one of amazing stubbornness and pride and using the will to harm, on purpose-- that for Him to correct the people involved rather than let them do MORE harm, is love not only for those they would harm but for those bent on doing harm, as well. I see it because I can see all the power I have in that situation, and how the use of it would not really change the root problems, which are the hearts of the people involved. So it is in great love and sorrow that I hold back the hand that could change the thing, and with equally great love and sorrow that I stop interceding for them with God and stand back to bless His work to correct them. You see, they have been loved as far as this woman is capable, and prayed for, and interceded for with God and with earthly powers that should have great influence over them. And yet they have organized their wills to harm, and only when they are stopped from doing this will they be able to look inside themselves to begin changing their hearts humbly. I used to worry about why God had not stopped Hitler early, and personally. Now I see the decisions people made that led to his formation and rise, and all the people who were in a position to stop all of that, and didn't, and didn't ask God's help to do it. A lot of people suffered not because God would not lift His finger, and instead left us to our own devices and wills. They suffered because PEOPLE people would not lift their voices. It makes me think twice before getting all riled up about the Old Testament corrections. If we wrote a testament now, looking back on WWII, might we say God had destroyed Germany, meaning that His correction had come at the hands of the Allies but had been His purpose? If we think of bombed out Dresden, does it sound like the OT? I try to live the parts of the Bible I do understand, and I find that doing this helps me understand the parts that are hard to understand. I also think it's like this. Imagine you came to Mudcat and spent a lot of time here and read everything and tried to understand it. Then imagine that you actually got to know Max, real well. Worked with him. Had lunch with him a couple of times a week. Sat with him while he dreamed up new things. Helped dream them up. Had him love your ideas and make them part of this place. Once you did that, it would change your whole perception of the place, and especially everything Max wrote here and why it is all organized like it is. Don't you find that when you meet other Catters, your perception of their Cat-posts shifts to another level? It's like that with the Bible. When you live in relationship with Jesus, it all makes sense in a different way. Not all at once. But it unfolds. There is more to say. I think this is enough for now. I know it is already more than some good people I love dearly will be able to tolerate. But if this is not the thread to speak openly in, I'm in the wrong forum. Max? Thanks for leaving us all our freedom here at the Mudcat. Lunch sometime? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Tinker Date: 30 Oct 00 - 08:52 AM Time for a reminder that there is a folk tie in to this. The early books of the Old Testament, especially Genesis are a codified version of Oral Tradition that was passed among the people with only a rare and precious written record. Hardiman mentioned the Four Storytellers, but more importantly (In my opinion) is the fact that over thousands of years they edited each other until it was distilled to the message that remains today. Unfortunately (in my mind) the last of the editors were the Deutoronimist who were desperately trying to bring the people back to the law and to God. My problem?? well sometimes I just envision a committee of lawyers deciding what was important and it doesn't engender confidence. But the old testament coming from the oral tradition is a place where the folk music tradition has come again and again for song stories. Noah and Moeses clearly have more than their share of songs.Adam and Eve have several here in the DT. It's important to remember that humor runs throughout the old testament and even though we loose most of the puns and word plays in translation they seem to reappear in the music. Perhaps it has something to do with the work of that Cosmic Muse? In the interest of study, reading through the "Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten books of Eden " can be fascinating. These are text from the first 4-5 centuries which were rejected by the various church councils as official scripture for a varied of reasons. Many may be novels written around the historic personages of the Bible, others lack the verification of multiple copies or simply espouse ideas that were unpopular. I'm pretty sure Barnes and Noble has a copy. But there are stories of great detail that fill in the gaps. If not with historical accuracy, in a way that met the understandings of their times. Well Praise you said to go on... but now the mundane and housecleaning goes on. Tinker |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST Date: 30 Oct 00 - 08:58 AM Hello again. Susan, I am not attempting to "promote" my faith, and I am a Christian. I thought all were welcome to answer your post and it is not my intention to fill the Mudcat with my personal opinions. The reason I addressed those who believe in reincarnation is that I did not want to end up writing chapters here on what is already available in books. As to your request in your first post, all the answers for us who believe in reincarnation are within the Allen booklets. As for the Bible, I believe it is inspired by God and can be taken literally, or interpreted at another level, using the symbology to bring an even broader meaning to it. I was an atheist who grew up in the pits of misery. I had no reason to believe in an all loving God, at least, that is what I thought. It was by learning about reincarnation and the law of Cause and Effect that I came to God. I am sorry for taking up space in your post but I just wanted to share what I found to be most profound information with fellow members who share my beliefs in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. God bless. Gs |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Russ Date: 30 Oct 00 - 09:49 AM A remarkably well-behaved thread. Anyway...Just a reminder and for the record. The literal interpretation the beginning of Genesis is a relatively modern phenomenon. It is one of the legacies of the Reformation. For most of the history if Genesis it has not been taken literally by either Jews or Christians. The first big name in non-literal interpretation was probably Philo of Alexandra, AKA Philo Judaeus (ca 50 BCE to ca 50 CE). He didn't invent non-literal interpretation, he was simply the most prolific writer of the "mainstream" approach of that time. He mentions literal interpretation as a possibility but dismisses it as naive and dangerous. His example was followed by all the major figures of the Christian theological tradition until after the Reformation. Literalists are definitely the new kids on the block. Russ (no axes to grind here folks) |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: catspaw49 Date: 30 Oct 00 - 09:54 AM Ya' know, we can't even tell a story the same way twice so why would anyone think they'd find historical accuracy in a book that has gone through all the editings, versions, revisions, and translations that the Bible has over all these many years? Overall, iots a pretty fine book of stories and parables expressing a moral code of conduct that has some merit. I'd find it pleasant if folks would consider and take action in their lives by using the stories to figure out some ways that we might all get along and treat each other with some modicum of empathy, compassion, and truth. A little more time living the parables and finding the truths they hold would make for a lot friendlier and loving world than delving into a story whose accuracy as history just don't hold water. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: John Hardly Date: 30 Oct 00 - 09:59 AM I appreciate the uncommon wisdom in what Susan has shared. As my seminary experience was with a creationist/young earth seminary, I thought I might share my $0.02. I don't claim to speak for all young earth/creationist types, just address some of the questions raised here from a different perspective. 1. It is clear from numerous threads that the majority of mudcatters have no problem believing things that cannot be explained by the current understanding of natural law. We just differ on which supernatural phenomena we believe and who or what is(was) the cause. The doubts we may or may not have about the veracity of the Bible therefore, usually are not rooted in its scientific accuracy. 2. Familiarity breeds contempt. Those of us who were raised in a society with a high degree of protestant influence are also familiar with its practitioners and its (their) foibles. On the other hand, we tend to be very gracious, even fascinated with religions we find to be more exotic because they are not humanized (we don't know the practitioners personally). 3. A specific Creationism is not a "Fundamental" as in "Fundamentalist". It is not part of any of the creeds with which I am familiar. Incidentally, fundamentalist is almost meaningless now except as a broad-brush perjorative with which to paint any religious group who dares actually BELIEVE what it says it does. It's easier to use the "fundy" tag than to actually discuss differences. For their (Fundy's) part there is lots of broad-brush painting going on on their canvases too--it's always easier to learn your beliefs by contrasting them against other's--problem is, you probably aren't a very objective describer of another's beliefs. 4. If you accept, as a starting point, an evolutionary model of an intellectually improving mankind, then much of the early Genesis taken literally will create a problem. But technology is not the same thing as intellect. On the surface we seem to keep getting smarter, and we do seem to have a better handle on understanding some of our natural world than we did even 100 years ago. But with each technological leap we make we also lose knowledge previously gained. An incomplete example of this is that we are probably the last generation to know how to use a slide rule. I have had a car for transportaion all my life and know nothing of the care of horses. Sometimes new technologies even replace good older technologies--note the resurrection of alternative medicines. To date, we still cannot accurately descibe how the pyramids were built. All this to say that the young earthers accept a model of a humanitity and an earth vastly different from the world of the twentieth century (and not necessarily primitive as we think of primitive). 5. Rather than accepting as fact that because there is a universal flood "mythology" and that the writers of the Bible must therefore have borrowed the story, they would contend that it's easier to believe that there WAS a flood, accurately described in the Bible, and referred to universally in other's mythology. They believe in a world vastly different pre-flood. For example; a. Mankind regularly survived to ages in excess of 500 years. In the earliest generations he suvived past 900 years--Methusela, though the oldest, was by no means the only one to survive past 900 years--Adam himself did. b. Supernatural phenomenon were a matter of course. Seraphim guarded the entrance to the post-fall Garden of Eden. Adam and Noah talked verbally with God. The sons of god took the daughters of man and generated giants (thought by some to referrence supernatural bonding with angels). c. Natural phenomenon was vastly different. Dinosaurs were on the earth. There was a more universally even climate because there was a different atmosphere. Even geography was different--post flood there is no evidence of an Eden. The shorter answer to the original question is(may be) Adam and Eve lived to 900 years reproducing all the while. Their offspring of age intermarried and, living 900+ years themselves and reproducing all the while, and their offspring, once of age reproduced their 800+ years, the world was being populated at a pace with which are not familiar today. We are given no chronology that would lead us to believe that the Cain/Able story occured in the first, second, third, of fourth hundred years of their existence. Clearly, this doesn't change anything about the "where we are now" addressed by Hardiman's post. It's just my hope that some of you be made aware that the young earth folk are not the inferior intellects that some of you seem to think of them. Besides, they have some interesting food for thought in their theories. John |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 30 Oct 00 - 10:44 AM I agree this has been a thread notable for its free and respectful discussion. And Gs, your reply was SO illuminating; I hope you did not feel attacked by my post because I really was very curious and tried to express that foremost. You can see that a certain defensiveness I have unfortunately developed here at the Mudcat had influenced my view of your reason for writing. I need to work on that even more than I already do. This is great. I will remember the tenor of this thread for a long, long time. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: catspaw49 Date: 30 Oct 00 - 10:53 AM Yeah, well Praise its great you remember the tenor, but who sang the alto part? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: bydand Date: 30 Oct 00 - 10:54 AM This has be a remarkably well-behhaved thread. And like so many of these discussions; the purpose, I believe, is to have a discussion - not to prove anything conclusively to anyone, nor to push a personal point What I have learned about the Bible in these issues is this: It is neither a scientific treatise, nor a book that explains the how. What it claims to be is a book about Who started everything, and explains some of the reasons for Gods relationship with his creation. Thank you Gary T or your comments; we really do need to use our minds to get at the hows, doing the best that we can in that area. One final comment: in Romans chapter 14, there is a impassioned plea to let God do the judging, and man be understanding and accepting. That is what drew me to join the Mudcat in the first place; and still keeps me here. Thanks, Charles |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Emily Harrison Date: 30 Oct 00 - 11:23 AM Thank you all so very much. This has been a most amazing experience for me and it all happened so quickly, thanks to all of you. I am the daughter of a Jewish mother and Catholic father, although neither is at all religious. I grew up celebrating the major holidays of both religions but with no real grounding in the faith of either. In the last several weeks, I've felt a need in my life to find belief. But certain things bothered me, such as the question that I asked. I needed explanation. All through yesterday I read your responses to my questions and followed the internet links that some of you supplied. The answers filled in many of the blanks for me. I went to bed last night thinking about all of this. In my dream, I began to understand ny faith and the truth it holds. Jesus himself was revealed in my dream. When I woke up this morning I realized that I've been born again in the faith of our Lord. Until now, I had never understood what being "born again" meant. I now know that I was drawn to Mudact to ask the question that would draw me to the Lord. All of you who answered helped the Lord in pointing me to the fold. I thank you all of you. Emily emilyharrison@hotmail.com |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 30 Oct 00 - 02:22 PM Emily, if I can be any help or a companion on your way, please let me know. ~Susan motormice@hotmail.com |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: mousethief Date: 30 Oct 00 - 02:35 PM I think we can be certain that Abel's wife wasn't a mail-order bride, since postal systems hadn't been invented yet at that time.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: catspaw49 Date: 30 Oct 00 - 02:36 PM Aw geez, another convert to the opposition.......and I helped. Damn, makes me feel like I voted for Nader and helped Bush get elected. Okay Praise....She's all yours. And Emily........Whatever you believe and for whatever reason, be happy and take strength from it. Any belief that leaves you with less is a burden to yourself and everyone else. May happiness and security always be yours. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 30 Oct 00 - 03:12 PM Spaw, yer startin' tuh scare me now. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: catspaw49 Date: 30 Oct 00 - 03:22 PM I am? Geez Praise, I don't even have my Halloween costume on yet or anything.............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 30 Oct 00 - 03:37 PM What I'm about to say is not a sarcastic/snide comment... Emily, I wish I had a belief like that, really, all or at least in part written down in a book, but I haven't found it yet. Maybe I'm a little jealous, but things just seem so complicated to me. Seems like whenever I start believing is something, something else comes along and says, "hey, what about this..." and I start all over. I guess I'm wishywashy. I've always been a bit envious of hardcore "believers". |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 30 Oct 00 - 03:39 PM PS, this thread got me to pick up the old Bible, haven't looked at in years. hehe |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: bydand Date: 30 Oct 00 - 03:53 PM You know, LG, I don't know about hardcore believers, but here is something I have learned: The God of the Bible really likes honesty. If you will just tell Him that you just aren't sure, (in a simple conversational way), and ask Him to make Himself real to you in a manner that you can understand and relate to, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Since we all come from different perspectives and life experiences, there really is no one single "revelation" that will make sense to everyone; no "one size fits all". -charles |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 30 Oct 00 - 04:09 PM Spaw... there are so many sensible people posting in this thread now, that ummm... I dunno, but I feel an urge to get silly and lighten it all up! What do I do NOW??? I don't DO that schtick, I always muff it up when I try!!! I appreciate you as never before! Scary!!! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Murray Macleod Date: 30 Oct 00 - 05:40 PM Tinker, having spent every Sunday of my childhood and early adolescence attending church three times, and being forced to spend the remaining hours of the day doing nothing but reading the Bible, I have, I think, a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the Old Testament, so your assertion that "it is important to remember that humor runs through the Old Testament" leaves me perplexed. I don't remember breaking out into a smile once, let alone laughing. ( And I LOVE Jewish humor !) I would be grateful if you would elucidate with one or two examples of the humorous bits. Murray |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: bydand Date: 30 Oct 00 - 06:37 PM Aw come on, Murray, haven't you heard that the first baseball game is mentioned in Genesis 1: "In the big inning"; and in Job we find the shortest man alive: "Bildad the shuhite (shoe height)" As for the Jewish humor, most of the prophets used irony frequently in their writings. The problem is that we miss it for having to read translations that do not translate the funnies. Since none of us will probably learn Hebrew, we'll just have to miss the best laughs. But they are there. Oh, and somewhere in the Psalms it says of God that He laughs. One reference that comes to mind is this verse: "He who sets in the heavens laughs".God has to have a sense of humor; I notice whenever I look in a mirror. charles |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Murray MacLeod Date: 30 Oct 00 - 07:08 PM Well, I will have to take your word for it, I suppose. What about the New Testament, any humor there? Again, not to my recollection. And let's face it why should there be any humor in the Bible anyway? Sacrificing your only begotten son must have been a fairly depressing experience, I would have thought. Murray |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 30 Oct 00 - 07:37 PM Murr, I think since you addressed your question to Tinker it may be that others will await her reply before wading in too far to answer your question on humor. Personally I am eager to hear what she has to say. But I know Hardiman probably has some good stuff to share. Only problem, he's conducting a bereavement workshop this evening! ~S~ |
| Share Thread: |
